Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know. Part 4-False Attributions About What Global Warming Is Causing.

This is number 4 in this series about secrets that the alarmists do not want you to know.  The first one dealt with the fact that the alarmist computer climate models have been forecasting global warming temperatures that are far and away from the actual measured temperatures. Number two demonstrated that the actual rate of warming is not at all alarming. Number three looked at the warming bias the alarmists are putting into the computer models that are predicting global temperatures out to the year 2100.  This posting discusses the other arrow in the alarmist’s quiver. The alarmists use weather to frighten people, saying that global warming is putting the survival of life on earth in the balance.   This posting will prove that to be not true.     

The media feeds on “scientific” papers that report that global warming (aka climate change) causes something that wasn’t something before.  Mostly the reports are based on some extreme weather event (EWE).  However, many seem to find something significant based upon something insignificant.    If you can handle a 38 second video, it seems to illustrate the premise: Earth’s Axis Shifting Due to Climate Change (msn.com).   The reporter says climate change is moving the earth’s axis but not to worry.  However, she says since 1980 till now, 41 years, the length of a day has changed by a “few milliseconds”. That seems to be profound.  She did not enumerate the change, probably less than 10.  But I will make a guess that leaves us with simple math –41 milliseconds.    Over 41 years that is one millisecond per year. As there are 1000 milliseconds in one second, it would take 1000 years to make a one second change.  Oh my, lets spend trillions and trillions of dollars to prevent that from happening.  OK, let’s wait as the next glacial period happens, new glaciers will correct the Earth’s axis.  Then we will have to turn our clock back.

William Briggs has posted a look at the inappropriate ways the statistics are used to “confirm” that global warming is causing something.  Briggs also observes the following about these scary things that global warming can do:

“Certain current weather events are said to be attributable to ‘climate change’. These events, some say, would not have appeared or would have been markedly different if the climate was in its ‘natural’ state. Curiously, events attributed to climate change are always ‘extreme’ or harmful; they are never beneficial. Nobody bothers to check whether in changed climates there will be an increase in pleasant summer afternoons, or better crop-growing weather. Researchers look only for the bad; it is therefore only the bad that will be reported. This demonstrates an irreparable confirmation bias in attribution studies.”

From Briggs Posting: 

“Claims made in so-called climate change event attribution studies suffer from gross over-certainties and cannot be trusted. The techniques used in these studies are in their infancy and do not warrant the trust put into them. These studies assume either (a) perfect forecasting models, or (b) known, uncertainty-free causes of climate change. Neither condition holds. Because of this, attribution claims are far too certain or are wrong. They should not be used in any policy decisions.

We can, however, guess what the climate would look like without man’s influence, but we’d never be able to independently check whether our guess is true. We can also model what the climate will look like under certain changes, but in order to trust these models they first have to demonstrate forecast skill. If they can’t, or they are inaccurate, they can’t be trusted, either. Lastly, we might pick a date and say all observations before it is ‘natural’ and all after are tainted by ‘climate change’. But this is not proof man caused the differences. It is mere assumption. So-called climate-change event attribution studies rely on all these kinds of guesses and claims. As such, they are either incorrect or are far too certain, as will be demonstrated.”

Several posting are available to disprove the alarmist’s attribution studies. 

Joseph D’Aleo posted “Climate Claim Rebuttals” updated 4/18/21. D’Aleo introduces the content by saying: 

Below are fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. For each claim, per the scientific method, a rebuttal is provided based on the most credible relevant empirical data. The authors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields.

His first of the “common climate claims” is Warmest Ever Month or Year:

“The globe has experienced the warmest ever month or year – these claims are totally unsupported by any credible analysis of raw global surface temperature data and its availability. Such claims are politically driven fictions. etc,”  

He follows up with Heat Waves; Hurricanes; Tornados; Drought and Floods; Wildfires; Snow Falls; Sea level; Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland Ice; Ocean Acidification; Carbon as Health Hazzard; Climate Change Endangering Food Supply; and the 97% Consensus.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation posted Indur M. Goklany’s “Impact of Climate Change Perception and Reality.

This a detailed debunking of attribution studies. Goklany’s examination is unique in that it covers extreme weather events (EWE) but also looks at the human impact attributions. Goklany has summarized the attributions in tabular format near the end of the document, so you do not have to read it all, although I think you should. The summary follows:

Goklany has debunked almost all the attributions.  He has also shown why CO2 from fossil fuels has make life on this planet now better than it ever has been.  Not worse, but better.

Two other excellent sources debunking these attributions are”Climate Extreme Claims”, posted by Acresearch ;  and “Extreme Weather in 2020” posted by Global Warming Policy Foundation).

I must include Roger Pielke jr. as he probably is the most effective conveyer of debunked attributions.   Forbes posted his “Three Rules for Accepting Climate ‘Event Attribution.”

The following is a lift from a recent blog by Dr. Roy Spencer.   He says:

“Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.

Why does it matter?

It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.“

Now take this and have your children read it.

cbdakota

PS–sorry, used a new system and ended up with some large dead spaces between paragraphs. Will try not to use it again.

cbdakota