Spinning Evidence of Climate Change Alarmism

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

A curious thing happens by the end of Harry Cockburn’s Independent article about scientists’ admission that they overshot the mark with their warnings of global warming a decade ago.  We start with this acknowledgment that those of us who were sneered at as “deniers” were actually right to be skeptical:

The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

But the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

But we end with the new spin, from University College London Professor Michael Grubb, who suggests that keeping the global increase in temperature to 1.5° Celsius “is simply incompatible with democracy.”

New calculations suggest that humanity can emit more than three times the amount of carbon than scientists had previously prescribed (as a pretense for imposing economy-changing regulations on the planet), which is great news, according to Grubb, because:

“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said.

“It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

To Our Readers: We need your support to challenge the progressive mainstream media narrative. Your donation helps us deliver the truth to Rhode Islanders. Please give now.

Catch the trick?  Under the previous assessments, it would already be too late to do anything about catastrophic climate change, so we might as well keep our democracy (and prosperity, I might add) through to the bitter end.  If we acknowledge that the models have been alarmist, on the other hand, there’s a chance that we just might be able to save the world.  So, there’s still a reason to hand over our freedoms to an international bureaucracy of elites.

Whether the models might still be too alarmist, we cannot yet tell, but why risk it for the petty sake of our inalienable rights as individual human beings?

Click to help us keep the doors open.



  • Mike678

    Heresy! :)

  • BasicCaruso

    Not that this will matter…
    http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/379
    A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

    Both assertions are false…

    …to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.

    • Mike678

      Thanks Russ. I thought we had you covered with the “heresy” comment. :)

      • BasicCaruso

        Nothing to see here conservatives, move along.

        “Global warming presents a clear and present danger to America’s national security, world stability’
        http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Global-warming-presents-a-clear-and-present-12223413.php

        A warming globe will have game-changing impacts – more extreme heat and rainfall, and more destructive droughts, storms and wildfires. This year has already given us a glimpse of what those changes look like on a national and global scale. Hurricane Harvey slammed Houston with 9 trillion gallons of rain, which led to never-before-seen flooding. The entire island of Barbuda evacuated in advance of Hurricane José – just after Hurricane Irma destroyed 95 percent of its buildings and left it “barely habitable.” Hurricane Maria has left Puerto Rico with the prospect of no electricity for four to six months.

        • Mike678

          Ah, the silliness of the ignorant…. Few argue that the earth has temperature cycles, Russ. What you cannot prove is the degree man is affecting these natural cycles. The models are garbage, the climate hysteria is overblown, and only the true believers and usefull idiots believe the hype.

          • BasicCaruso

            There’s no way to “prove” any theory about the physical world. What a ridiculous comment.

            Justin is paid to hold these views. Not so, for the rest of us who ignore the evidence at our own peril.

            Scientists: Strong evidence that human-caused climate change intensified 2015 heat waves
            http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/scientists-strong-evidence-human-caused-climate-change-intensified-2015-heat-waves

            Human-caused climate change very likely increased the severity of heat waves that plagued India, Pakistan, Europe, East Africa, East Asia, and Australia in 2015 and helped make it the warmest year on record, according to new research published [December 15th, 2016] in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

            The fifth edition of Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective presents 25 peer-reviewed research papers that examine episodes of extreme weather of 2015 over five continents and two oceans. It features the research of 116 scientists from 18 countries analyzing both historical observations and changing trends along with model results to determine whether and how climate change may have influenced the event.

          • Justin Katz

            I’m not paid to hold any views. Stop the presumptuous libel, please.

          • BasicCaruso

            Noted – pro bono climate denialist…

            Am I mistaken that RICFP has received funding from oil industry financed groups?

          • BasicCaruso

            No strings attached…

            “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

            Hi-ho, the me-ri-o!
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAykOz1gWi4

          • Mike678

            very likely, could, may have, and so forth. So gullible….

          • BasicCaruso

            No matter how many studies confirm a theory there is no guarantee that the next study won’t find something that requires the theory to be revised or abandoned. Like it or not, “very likely” is as good as it gets for theories about the physical world.

          • Mike678

            Given the inaccuracies of the models and little confirmation through confirmed observation and experimentation, Anthropomorphic warming is more a hypothesis than a theory.
            Perhaps more hysteria and a few more inaccurate scare movies will help people overlook these inconvenient truths.

            Even if the linkage is found and determined to be a threat in the next 50 years or so, what do you propose we do about it? After all, the US has gone great strides in the last 20 years to reduce many emissions. Should we go to zero and let China and the third world fill the gap? What would that do to our standard of living? What exactly did the Paris wealth distribution accords promise to deliver for the Just watch what the cost of energy in this state will do to businesses and so forth in the next few years.

          • BasicCaruso

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/climate-change-costs-us-economy-billions-report/
            Extreme weather, made worse by climate change, along with the health impacts of burning fossil fuels, has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion a year over the past ten years, a new report has found.

            And yet this does not include this past month’s three major hurricanes or 76 wildfires in nine Western states. Those economic losses alone are estimated to top $300 billion, the report notes. Putting it in perspective, $300 billion is enough money to provide free tuition for the 13.5 million U.S. students enrolled in public colleges and universities for four years.

            In the coming decade, economic losses from extreme weather combined with the health costs of air pollution spiral upward to at least $360 billion annually, potentially crippling U.S. economic growth, according to this new report, The Economic Case for Climate Action in the United States, published online Thursday by the Universal Ecological Fund.

          • Mike678

            Another hysteria driven hypothesis! The irony….you accuse others of being influenced by oil money. Would it be appropriate if I ignore this one-sided study because it’s done by an ecological group?

          • BasicCaruso

            Totally expected that you would ignore that information. To do otherwise might cause you to rethink the risks in inaction.

            Here’s a corporate analysis of the costs just from Maria (gasp, they used a model!)…
            http://www.financeminutes.com/economic-losses-mount-as-more-than-85b-lost-to-hurricane-maria/

            Hurricane Maria has left in its wake, destruction, sorrow, tears and financial losses estimated at more than $85B. The extent of financial losses was estimated by AIR Worldwide, using a catastrophe modeling approach.

          • Mike678

            It was a question–but then again, you do assume too much….

Quantcast