The believers of the climate change hypothesis have had a great summer. A horrible fire in Hawaii, one Canada smoking out the eastern U.S., and a major hurricane all blamed on climate change. All these and other calamities blamed on global warming are wrong because the climate crisis is as real as the tooth fairy, monsters in your closet, or Bidenomics fixing the economy. Below are replies to some of the most common arguments from believers of climate climate change hypotheses.
Earth not getting warmer.
When it was still called global warming, the purveyors of the climate hypothesis, including Al Gore’s Chakras, demanded scientists start tracking satellite data because it was more accurate than earthbound temperature tracking. However, the average satellite data exhibited the worldwide temperature hasn’t changed at least for the past 8+ years using the satellite data the climate change zealots requested. Those same scientists decided to ignore the data. At the same time, they stopped calling it global warming and changed the name of their worldwide redistribution of income program to climate change.
Fires
Hawaii Fires
Dr. Clay Trauernicht, a Specialist in Wildland Fire Science and Management at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, published research and analysis in 2014 with Pacific Fire Exchange that warned humans are mainly responsible for “much of the increase in wildfire threat by increasing the abundance of ignitions” and “introducing nonnative, fire-prone grasses and shrubs” to the chain of islands.
The Maui fires – as with nearly all fires in Hawai'i – are a result of failing to care for land. Changing that begins with caring for people pic.twitter.com/Z0cI8nBX64
— Clay Trauernicht (@claytrau) August 20, 2023
According to meteorologist Cliff Mass, Hawaii is one of the most fire-prone states in the U.S. v
Lightning is rare in Maui. Fewer than thirty thunderstorms rattle across the Hawaiian Islands yearly, most occurring during January and February. Accordingly, there have been no reports of an August lightning strike, so it seems doubtful this tragic fire was started naturally.
According to the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization, 98% of all Hawaiian fires are started by people, of which 75% are due to carelessness. Thus, a Smokey-the-Bear type campaign that only “you can prevent forest fires” would help raise people’s consciousness, especially newcomers. As retirees flock to Hawaii seeking the health benefits of a warmer climate, the population has tripled since 1980, which only increases the probability of a careless fire being started.
Marc Morano, who has written books and movies telling the truth about climate change and runs arguably the best climate site, Climate Depot, shared a quote from Dr. Clay Trauernicht, v
“Blaming this on weather and climate is misleading,” Trauernicht tweeted Wednesday. “Hawaii’s fire problem could be far, far more manageable with adequate support, planning, and resources for fuel reduction projects, agricultural land use, and restoration and reforestation around communities and the foot of our forests.”
Canadian Fires
The climate hysteria produced countless headlines about how the fires (and the orange sky) were caused by “climate change,” but in a regular season, half of Canada’s wildfires are started by lightning. The other half are human-caused in various ways, from discarded cigarette butts to sparks from passing trains, reported the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
In the northeast part of the U.S., the Canadian fires turned the sky orange. See the Empire State Building (barely)?
The leftists who pushed the climate hypothesis blamed the orange sky on their climate belief and former President Donald Trump. The leftists who are climate hoaxers also have a hateful phrase for the former President: “Orange man bad.” If he is the orange man, he can create an orange sky, especially if they ignore the facts, which is something the believers of the hypothesis tend to do.
Hurricanes
This is a favorite of the believers of climate change supporters. This is another example of the hoaxers ignoring the truth.
Per Marc Morano of Climate Depot:
The latest peer-reviewed study (March 2022, here) of the accumulated wind energy in tropical cyclones since 1990 (when we started to have sufficient global data) showed a decrease in hurricane activity. There was an increase in Atlantic activity, but this was matched by an even more significant decrease in Pacific activity due to a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions during that time.
So, yes, there is climate change involved in the uptick in Atlantic activity in recent decades. But it’s natural.
We see no apparent trends in the number of global hurricanes since 1980.
In my 2017 Kindle book Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming, I looked at major hurricane landfalls in Florida, which showed no trends. With Hurricane Ian and Michael (2018) added to the dataset, there are still no statistically significant trends in Florida’s intensity or frequency of landfalling major hurricanes.
Looking at the below, I would believe the N.Y. Seniors who spend half the year in Boca (also known as God’s waiting room) and everyone else in the state would not see a jump in major storms.
The hurricane trends for the entire U.S. are similar to the above. If you wish to see the total U.S. data, click on the caption for the chart above.
New News
Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. It released a letter signed by 1609 scientists that declared there was no climate crisis.
Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has excellent benefits, and that weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.”Growing skepticism
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.
The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.
In the United States, our President is destroying the economy based on this failed thesis; he’s ignoring the science shared in the first half of this post. Does he ignore the science because he really believes the leftist-based climate hypothesis, or is he fishing for votes? Either way, he is destroying what was once the greatest economy in the world for a false theory once described by Ottmar Edenhofer, the author of the 2010 U.N. climate assessment, who admitted in a speech it was not about climate but “about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Now, that quote sounds like a Joe Biden theory.
