Windmills providing expensive, intermittent and unreliable power — the idols of our age — must be built to appease Gaia. Deplorables are dispensable. Those without base-load power in developing countries, plus coal miners, the old, the infirm, the poor must all be sacrificed. Only then will Gaia smile on us again.
I told some ‘warmist’ friends about a Category 4 hurricane hitting Galveston in Texas, generating a fifteen-foot tidal surge, and killing an estimated 8000 people. The deadliest natural disaster in US history. I let it stew for a moment or two before revealing the time: September 1900. I don’t think it made an impression. The climate change ethos has etched itself so deeply into the minds of disciples that it is impervious to clashing information.
Effectively, climate change has become an idolatry masquerading as science. Destructive climate events, however commonplace historically, cause much wailing, finger-pointing and scapegoating. High priests in the guise of climate gurus, like Gore, Flannery, Mann and Suzuki, come into their own. Reason succumbs to superstition.
The latest information, sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indicates that hurricane activity has not increased by either frequency or scale during recent decades – so far as can be determined. The data going back is patchy and unreliable; as, in fact, is all climate-related data.
I looked at the hurricane data from the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA for the Atlantic Basin for the period from 1851 to 2016. In the ten years to 2016, there were 28 “major” hurricanes recorded. In the previous ten years 39 were recorded. This is relatively high when compared with the whole period from 1851. However, 39 major hurricanes were recorded for the ten years to 1956 and 32 for the ten years to 1966, before dropping to 17 and 16 in the next two succeeding decades. So, what to say? Hurricanes come and go.
There is nothing markedly unusual happening. But, you wouldn’t think that if you suffer the unfortunate experience of tuning into widespread alarmist commentaries and news bulletins. Those who claim to believe in science are quick to dispense with it when it doesn’t suit their storyline. They point to the latest hurricanes as yet more evidence of climate change. And you can bet your life that every storm, drought and heat wave from now on will draw the same response.
They suffer no embarrassment in making such outlandish claims. They are impervious to any factual rebuttals. They have a higher calling.
I understand that the current scientific theory is that warmer water tends to engender more airborne turbulence. Maybe it does. I don’t know. I am not a climate scientist, just an ordinary Joe. But what I do know is that warmer water is not necessarily man-made. Maybe the climate is just warming as it has in early periods of time; and, in any event, maybe it is not warming as much as the high priests tell us. This brings me to a recent climatologist recantation.
A well-publicised study in the journal Nature Geoscience[i] by ten notable scientists, all shackled to the global warming thesis, issued a mea culpa. Well, a mealy-mouthed sort of mea culpa from those still very much wedded to the faith. Apparently, the global temperature, despite being rigged (homogenized) to exaggerate warming, has stubbornly refused to obey the models. Is a bit more rigging required? Wink-wink nudge-nudge, say no more.
Look at this weaselling by two of the authors, trying to make the best of it, as reported in The Times.
Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.” The only problem with this is that the facts of temperature haven’t changed. The facts are the facts. They exist in real life not in highly-simplified and compromised models. His prediction was wrong. Now that’s a fact.
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” He was further reported as saying that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago, “so it’s not that surprising [referring to predicted warming] that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.
What should be surprising to Professor Allen, if he were scientifically minded, is that all of the models err in one direction only: “on the hot side,” as the authors concede. The reason for this is clear to us ordinary Joes.
The models were not developed independently. They come to the same result because they input the same data, use the same variables and parameters and are built by like-minded people pursuing the same global-warming-oriented research grants. It is a scam of more enormous proportions than the world has ever seen, and its seen a few.
We are in the hands of climate zealots whose incantations (the science is settled – catastrophe nears) have infiltrated and warped the minds of nearly all politicians and all governments. Otherwise normal ordinary people have been sucked in. They’ve been robbed of their ability to think straight. A hot day these days isn’t just a hot day. It’s a harbinger of doom. More idols required.
[i] “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C,” September 2017.