Extreme cold records continue to tumble at the South
Pole. Three recent days – November 16th, 17th and 18th
– have recorded a daily record, with the 18th plunging
to –45.2°C, compared with –44.7°C on the same day in
1987. The records follow the six-month winter of 2020-
21, which was the coldest since records began in 1957.
Inexplicably, all these facts and trends have escaped
reporting in the mainstream media. The excuse might be
that it is just weather, and temperatures have always
moved up and down. But the excuse doesn’t seem to apply
to the July 19th U.K. high of 40.3°C at RAF Coningsby,
recorded at the side of the runway used by after-
burning Typhoon jets. This record high has barely been
out of the Net Zero headlines ever since.
In fact, anything getting colder barely gets a look-in
these days. Arctic sea ice is making a significant,
near silent comeback. Summer ice at the end of
September covered 4.92 million square kilometres, which
was 1.35 million sq kms higher than the 2012 low. Over
on land, the Greenland ice sheet may have increased in
size over the last year to August 2022. Meanwhile, the
zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has reported that this is
the fifth year out of the last seven that enough sea
ice has formed along the west coast of Hudson Bay by
mid-November for hunting polar bears to be able to head
out to the ice, “just as it did in the 1980s”.
Of course, it has been a very bad year for climate
catastrophists all round. Coral is growing on the Great
Barrier Reef with a vengeance, just a few years after
journalists and their ‘experts’ warned it was likely to
disappear. According to the latest satellite data, the
global temperature hasn’t moved for over eight years. A
little extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led
to significant ‘greening’ of the planet, a process that
over the last 30 years has undoubtedly reduced world
hunger and famine. Sir David Attenborough recently ran
a series of six Frozen Planet II green propaganda films
featuring a variety of ‘modelled’ climate catastrophes.
Notable was the claim that all the Arctic summer sea
ice could be gone by 2035. In addition, he highlighted
a colony of Adelie penguins in western Antarctica,
whose numbers were said to have fallen over 40 years
from 20,000 to just 400 breeding pairs, apparently due
to climate change. Missing from the narrative was the
more cheerful news that a colony of 1.5 million Adelies
had recently been discovered on the eastern side of the
continent.
Since all the recent poster scares are fast
disappearing, there is increasing emphasis on
‘attributing’ single event bad weather to climate
change, or to the climate crisis/emergency/breakdown –
the new agitprop words used to disguise the fact that
global temperatures, with or without CO2’s help, ran
out of steam over two decades ago.
Long-serving Guardian activist Fiona Harvey told a
recent edition of the BBC Media Show that writers can
be impartial and present the facts, and the facts were
that ‘scientists’ have told us that we are on a
precipice and are facing tipping points that will make
the planet uninhabitable. But whose ‘facts’ is she
reporting? Again, as the Daily Sceptic has shown, the
command-and-control Net Zero agenda is driven by
politicised science and often derived from flawed
climate models, corrupt surface temperature databases
and invented weather ‘attribution’ stories. When the
Guardian quotes ’scientists’, it is often referring to
practitioners of observational disciplines such as
geography, where modelled ‘impact’ predictions are
widely promoted.
In the course of her interview, Harvey repeated the
debunked untruth that 30% of Pakistan had been
inundated as a result of recent monsoon floods. The
actual figure in this mountainous country was easily
checked from NASA data and was about 8%. Referring to
the general narrative around climate change and the
need to keep to 1.5°C of warming, she noted that if
that didn’t strike you as a story, “you shouldn’t be a
journalist”. A better story, of course, might be asking
who invented the 1.5°C figure in the first place – and
why?
Many people such as Harvey state they are journalists,
not activists, but the evidence is growing that that
pass has long been sold in many areas of mainstream
communication and media. Cardiff University sociologist
Dr. Aaron Thierry argues that universities should allow
academics to spend at least 10% of their time on
“advocacy and engagement with policy processes”. In his
view, “those with the greatest knowledge and
understanding of these crises have a moral obligation
to provide leadership and engage in advocacy and
activism”.
The Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer gives
short shrift to all the lies and obfuscations surround
settled climate science. If it had been proved that
human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming,
“there would be endless citation of the dozen or so
seminal scientific papers demonstrating this proof”.
Instead, he notes, there is a “deafening silence”.
Climate cycles have not changed because humans are
alive today, “and cannot be changed by feelings,
ideology or legislation”. He also noted: “Bearers of
validated facts are denigrated, cancelled and deemed
controversial by those who have no counterargument, no
ability to critically analyse, and who rely on self-
interest and feelings.”
Put out in the cold, you might say – just like all
those inconvenient South Pole temperature records.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment
Editor.
Stop Press: Ross Clark in the Spectator says we should
ignore the climate doomsters and celebrate the fact
that the World’s population has reached eight billion.
|
|
For someone with the title of environmental editor the writer sure seems to
be ignorant of environmental science..
Sorta like the little blurb at the end promoting another article.. which says
we should ignore the climate doomsters and celebrate the fact that the
World’s population has reached eight billion.
What's to celebrate? Eight billion people make a phenomenal amount of
CO2, and incredible amount of heat, of ozone, of methane and the
accumulative effect is we're warming the atmosphere, we're destroying all
the space the rest of the species need to thrive on this planet.. we're killing
all the life here.
So, how does that all fit in with your visions of grandeur Charlie? How does
destroying a planet redeem our souls? Seriously, you spend a lot of time on
your soap box, so tell us, how does Saint Michael excuse all this?
|
|