With Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project coming up in a matter of hours, I think it’s time warmists got a reality check. It seems that the project has two aims:
- Make spurious links between natural disasters and carbon dioxide.
- To attack and discredit anyone who dares to contradict them.
The Say Yes Australia site tells us how they think weather is climate.
From New York City to South Africa to the Solomon Islands, people will use the power of the Internet to present their stories of living with climate change, and make clear the connection between extreme weather and the corporate carbon pollution that’s changing our climate.
Warmists seem to think that extreme weather in recent times is unusual, therefore must be linked to carbon dioxide. Neither assumption can be validated by empirical evidence. For one, the frequency of cyclones and tornadoes shows no trend with increasing temperature, let alone CO2. Why does that perception exist, though?
We live in an age where news footage from the other side of the world can be broadcast into our homes in a matter of seconds, where we can find anything we want to know over the internet. It should come as no surprise that we’ve become saturated with stories of natural disasters, giving an impression that they are on the rise.
We look on with shock and horror as we’re told by a news reporter that we’re witnessing a once-in-a-hundred year storm, but, as Roy Spencer points out:
From what I have been hearing, Mr. Gore will be emphasizing record weather events as proof of anthropogenic global warming. What most people don’t realize is that you can have a 100 year weather record event every year, if they are in different places.
It is also a mistake to assume that a warming planet will result in more extreme weather. The claim that global warming will result in more droughts has no basis in hydrology, according to Stewart Franks.
During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sun’s energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures. This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius. This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere.
In The Great Global Warming Swindle, Richard Lindzen hits back at the claim that warming will cause more cyclones.
Every textbook on Meteorology is telling you the main source of weather disturbances is the temperature difference between the Tropics and the Poles. And we’re told in a warmer world this difference will get less. Now that would tell you you’ll have less storminess, you’ll have less variability. But for some reason that isn’t considered catastrophic. So you’re told the opposite.
And there’s the claims that global warming will result in more snow (warming=cooling?). Of course that’s just plain ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that climate is not the same as weather.
Look, nasty weather! It must be that darned carbon pollution.
Al Gore also plans to “reveal the deniers”. First of all, if his aim is to convert people to warmism, then he probably shouldn’t be insulting people. It may solidify the support of some of the faithful, but to skeptics and others who deal in reason, it’s not going to go down well. Secondly, what’s to reveal? The skeptics are hardly hiding.
According to Alex Bogusky (yes that is his real name), “the climate crisis is not a debate. It’s reality.” That is a denial of the work of many brilliant scientists worldwide. The IPCC claims that it cannot explain 20th century warming without CO2 (now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it), yet CERN has recently conducted an experiment that validated the cosmic ray theory of Henrik Svensmark, which suggests the sun plays a larger role in the climate. The IPCC cannot provide any empirical evidence for the positive feedbacks it assumes in its climate models, the only mechanism by which CO2 can cause any sort of problem. Meanwhile, temperatures refuse to rise by anywhere near that predicted by the IPCC. I’m not so sure the debate is over.
There will be a “full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from.” Another warmist myth. Anyone who questions their precious consensus must be paid by big oil. Perhaps they could question the funding of the world’s first carbon billionaire. Or maybe the billions of dollars gone into climate science over the years that wouldn’t have if no one was saying carbon dioxide was a problem. What about the billions turned over on the EU’s carbon dioxide market.
If this is the best that Al Gore’s got left, than I pity him. baseless claims of increased natural disasters and pathetic ad hominem attacks. He has lost and he knows it.