Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
Delingpole: NewsGuard Attacks My Climate Coverage, Fails
AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad
JAMES DELINGPOLE 25 Jan 2019
Thank you, thank you, thank you, NewsGuard, for treating all your new subscribers — both of them! — to one of the cleverest, truest things I ever wrote about climate change.
NewsGuard quotes me as saying (in the course of its danger warning to readers thinking of flirting with Breitbart News):
“When amateurs on a blog know more about science than the guys on multi-million dollar grants at U.S. academic institutions informing global energy and environment policy, you know that the time has come to drain the swamp,” Delingpole wrote.
And it presents it as though this were a bad thing to have written.
But I stand by every word. It’s the kind of thing that makes me go: “God, I wish I’d written that — No, wait. I did!”
Why? Because apart from being demonstrably true, it captures so perfectly the reason why I became something of a climate change specialist in the first place.
It wasn’t — let me assure you — because I found myself suddenly captivated by the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin debate in certain scientific ghettos as to the extent to which tiny increases in the otherwise harmless trace gas we exhale every few seconds and that we use in greenhouses to help plants grow faster are warming the planet at a catastrophic and unprecedented rate.
No, much simpler than that, it appealed to my most basic journalistic instincts: here was a story which most of the mainstream media was covering extremely, embarrassingly badly; where the facts were almost diametrically opposite to the breast-beating, hysterical, junk science narrative presented at outlets like the BBC, CNN, and the New York Times; where there was so much low-hanging fruit, so many examples every day of greed, corruption, stupidity, mendacity, and incompetence on the most epic scale — all of it costing us taxpayers a fortune, making the world a more miserable place to live in and — the biggest joke of all — actually harming the planet in the process.
How could any journalist resist an opportunity like that?
So this is one of the things I now do for Breitbart News: I report the truth about climate change — and about the vast money-grubbing industry built around it.
And now, rather than demonstrate where I’ve got my facts wrong (which it can’t do), NewsGuard has instead resorted to the desperate rhetorical fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority.
It says:
Fact-checking organizations have found Delingpole repeatedly misstates climate science and its conclusions.
Yes. Dur. Of course, they have! “Fact-checking organizations” are very much part of the groupthink-driven liberal Establishment I criticize in my articles. (As are: virtually the entirety of academe; schools; publishers; Hollywood; the mainstream media; the United Nations; the corporations; the big law firms; the European Union … I could, of course, go on and on).
They’re part of the so-called “Consensus” on global warming. And what I do, every few days, much to their annoyance, is provide compelling evidence as to why they are wrong.
For some random reason, NewsGuard’s desperate intern top team of forensic experts has chosen to focus on a story I wrote in February of last year:
In a February 2018 story with the headline “Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze Out Of Existence,” Delingpole repeated a claim he has made frequently – that climate scientists have “adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were” and said the adjustments are “well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.”
Climatefeedback.org, a fact-checking site that uses researchers to review the media’s treatment of climate change research, found the claim misleading, noting that “some scientifically necessary data adjustments in some places do have the effect of producing a stronger warming trend than would be seen without adjustments, but others do the opposite. Together, these adjustment actually reduce the overall global warming trend.”
Rather churlishly, they don’t include a link — so here it is.
It’s one of many stories I’ve written in a similar vein, largely because it’s just about the biggest ongoing scandal of all in the climate change industry: the way that tax-payer funded institutions like NASA and NOAA are cooking the books — adjusting the raw temperature data in both the past and present in order to suit their alarmist agenda.
That isn’t science — that’s politics. And it gives the lie to the notion endlessly promulgated by alarmists that the science is settled. If the science really were settled — so true, so observably the case beyond all reasonable doubt — then there would be no need to exaggerate the evidence, would there?
As for their claim that those data adjustments are justifiable: don’t believe a word. In almost every case, these dodgy gatekeepers of the temperature datasets have cooled past temperatures and warmed more recent ones (notably the Big Freeze that racked the U.S. in the winter of 2017/18) in order to create a more dramatic looking warming curve. And they’ve never plausibly justified these amendments. If the Urban Heat Island effect is causing weather stations to give false data — then it is present-day temperatures that should be adjusted downwards and past temperatures upwards, not the other way round.
Sheriff Joe
DA
'Leaving on a jet plane' to and from Davos
JANUARY 25, 2019
...but we do know when they'll be back again.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/leaving_on_a_jet_plane_to_and_from_davos.html
JANUARY 25, 2019
...but we do know when they'll be back again.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/leaving_on_a_jet_plane_to_and_from_davos.html
Bruddah IZ
DA
How about a teleconference?
Sheriff Joe
DA
How would they spend other people's money that way?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Saved by Pseudo-renewable Energy?
Paul Driessen | January 26, 2019
So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.
We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.
Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.
As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change must have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence.
Those who intend to use climate change accusations to disrupt and destroy modern energy systems and industrialized economies likewise have the burden of proving that wind, solar and biofuel energy can actually replace fossil fuels. That they are actually clean, green, renewable and sustainable.
Thus far, they have offered no real-world evidence whatsoever. And there is no way they can do so.
Fossil fuels are compact and dense. Small land and raw material impacts provide bountiful, affordable, reliable energy. America and the world have enough of these fuels to last at least a century at current rates of consumption – by which time human ingenuity will doubtless provide workable alternatives.
Paul Driessen | January 26, 2019
So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.
We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.
Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.
As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change must have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence.
Those who intend to use climate change accusations to disrupt and destroy modern energy systems and industrialized economies likewise have the burden of proving that wind, solar and biofuel energy can actually replace fossil fuels. That they are actually clean, green, renewable and sustainable.
Thus far, they have offered no real-world evidence whatsoever. And there is no way they can do so.
Fossil fuels are compact and dense. Small land and raw material impacts provide bountiful, affordable, reliable energy. America and the world have enough of these fuels to last at least a century at current rates of consumption – by which time human ingenuity will doubtless provide workable alternatives.
Attachments
Bruddah IZ
DA
If AOC wants to be taken seriously perhaps she should go cold turkey on Fossil fuels with the rest of the alarmist.Saved by Pseudo-renewable Energy?
Paul Driessen | January 26, 2019
So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.
We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.
Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.
As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change must have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence.
Those who intend to use climate change accusations to disrupt and destroy modern energy systems and industrialized economies likewise have the burden of proving that wind, solar and biofuel energy can actually replace fossil fuels. That they are actually clean, green, renewable and sustainable.
Thus far, they have offered no real-world evidence whatsoever. And there is no way they can do so.
Fossil fuels are compact and dense. Small land and raw material impacts provide bountiful, affordable, reliable energy. America and the world have enough of these fuels to last at least a century at current rates of consumption – by which time human ingenuity will doubtless provide workable alternatives.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Alternative Fuels to the Rescue!! Kek!
Select Product -> Departure from Normal Temperature
Daily Maps -> Last 7 days
Select a Region -> United States
https://hprcc.unl.edu/maps.php?map=ACISClimateMaps
Hüsker Dü
DA
What is the difference between weather and climate?
Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. We talk about changes in weather in terms of the near future: "How hot is it right now?" "What will it be like today?" and "Will we get a snowstorm this week?"
Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years. Climate information includes the statistical weather information that tells us about the normal weather, as well as the range of weather extremes for a location.
We talk about climate change in terms of years, decades, and centuries. Scientists study climate to look for trends or cycles of variability, such as the changes in wind patterns, ocean surface temperatures and precipitation over the equatorial Pacific that result in El Niño and La Niña, and also to place cycles or other phenomena into the bigger picture of possible longer term or more permanent climate changes.
Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. We talk about changes in weather in terms of the near future: "How hot is it right now?" "What will it be like today?" and "Will we get a snowstorm this week?"
Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years. Climate information includes the statistical weather information that tells us about the normal weather, as well as the range of weather extremes for a location.
We talk about climate change in terms of years, decades, and centuries. Scientists study climate to look for trends or cycles of variability, such as the changes in wind patterns, ocean surface temperatures and precipitation over the equatorial Pacific that result in El Niño and La Niña, and also to place cycles or other phenomena into the bigger picture of possible longer term or more permanent climate changes.
Bruddah IZ
DA
All talk no action. When are you alarmist going to get off the fossil fuel teet?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Never, that is the liberal way.
Hüsker Dü
DA
When are you going to explain why the "Climate change" issue is such a huge deal for you? . . . besides fossil fuel sources telling you to make it so. Do you think it will effect your pocketbook? Your safety? Or is it just more "Us vs Them" mentality? Like one of your favorite fixations, "How many votes did the Russians change?", how much do you see the environment changed by man's hand, and is that acceptable? Once again, as in years past when I asked the same questions, I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer, nor will I expect a reasoned well thought out answer at that. But again, at least I tried.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Just tell me you’re not an AOC disciple and we are good.