Sunday, October 24, 2021

Is There a Climate "Crisis"? Part II: A Look at the Hard Evidence; Extreme Weather

[In Part I of this series, we examined the scientific literature and learned that the Arctic today is 2-4 C colder than it was a mere 6-12,000 years ago.]

To reiterate briefly from Part I:

"change" "crisis"

These are two very different words, with very different meanings.

"Change" means "to make or become different." 
"Crisis" means "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger."

A few years back, all we heard was how there was a "consensus" on climate "change." But then politicians and the media gradually began to conflate the term "change" with the term "crisis," often by adding in their own commentary to "97% of scientists agree..." They would say things like, "97% of scientists agree the Earth is warming up and that if we don't do something immediate and drastic, then we're all going to perish in flames! Everyone RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

97% of scientists agreed to no such thing; but this verbal bait-and-switch has been done by politicians and media to the point that few seem to question it anymore.

Thus, [if one actually cares about what science has to say, anyway] it is extremely important to clarify that there is no consensus on a climate "crisis." There is a consensus on climate "change" (though one can strongly debate the methodology of the surveys used to determine that "consensus," and further debate whether consensus has any value in science in the first place -- but for sake of argument, let's grant that point for now anyway, because it's irrelevant), but it bears repeating that there is no consensus that this climate "change" represents any sort of "existential crisis" for the planet.

The idea that there's a "crisis" is held by a small minority of scientists, but, as this piece will show, that view is not shared by mainstream science.  

Please read that again if needed.  I'm not going to be citing "deniers" or fringe papers, I'm going to be citing mainstream organizations that are held to be the gold standard by even the most dyed-in-the-wool climate change believers.

If one accepts mainstream consensus science (which I am not necessarily condoning, mind you -- "consensus" is the business of politics, not science -- but that's a whole 'nother discussion), one will quickly see that climate "crisis" is a fringe position -- meaning: If one invokes consensus (thus implying that they accept mainstream science), then one must logically reject the idea that there's a crisis.

However, because the general public listens to the media more than they read scientific literature, many have accepted this fringe claim without question. So let's examine the claim, again using only mainstream science:

Claim:  Extreme weather events (such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc.) have increased; this is due to man-made climate change, which is caused by CO2 emissions

Made by:  Politicians, media, activists

Rejected by:  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most other mainstream scientists, and The Actual Hard Data

As we'll see in a moment, there is effectively zero basis for this claim.  This lie has been repeated so often that it "seems credible" to the point that it's become akin to an urban myth that "everyone knows" -- but we'll quickly see that mainstream science rejects this superstition.

The IPCC has done not one, but two "Special Report[s] on Extreme Weather," (in 2012 and 2018) to examine precisely this exact issue, so we'll start there.  

Before we get into that, though, it bears mention that many consider the IPCC to be too heavily biased toward blaming man/CO2 for climate change.  They have repeatedly pushed out scientists who dissent from the view that CO2 is a primary driver of climate.  Further, the IPCC's mandate is to find manmade climate change and to ignore natural explanations -- which leads to "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" syndrome.  I consider them to be an alarmist organization, so when the IPCC says, "Nope, we're not seeing it," even given their heavy biases and incentive to find it... well, things don't get much stronger than that.

The full Reports (everything in blue is a live link -- some people in the comments seem to be missing this) are long reads (hundreds of pages each), which is why almost no one seems to know what's in them, so let's summarize via some screenshots of the summary highlights.

1. Floods

Here's what the IPCC says about global flood trends:  No sign that floods are increasing:

The U.S. National Climate Assessment (which examined only the USA) says there's a mixture of local increases and decreases, concluding that "approaches have not established a significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change":

2.  Drought

Here again, the IPCC sees no trend of increase in global droughts.  They even call out their own prior warnings as being "overstated."

This agrees with other mainstream scientific literature.  As one example:  Recently, we've been hearing a lot about California's drought -- few people realize that, to cite the paper below: 

"[S]ignificant drought conditions that were common prior to 1900 have not been experienced by the present population."

In other words, California isn't undergoing modern "climate change" as a result of your SUV -- it's merely reverting to its natural historic trends.

And both of these likewise agree with a study by Nature from a few years back.  Droughts appear to be decreasing, not increasing.

On this topic, let's take a brief moment to appreciate yet another failed negative climate prediction -- this one is from 33 years ago, and still going strong and dead wrong.  (If you saw this headline tomorrow, would it worry you?  You may be starting to realize why it shouldn't.)

3.  Hurricanes/cyclones

Here's what the IPCC says about hurricanes:  There has been a slight decrease in hurricane landfall numbers over the past century:

The IPCC's conclusion agrees with NOAA, who recently completed the largest hurricane study to date.  NOAA also finds no trend of increase -- to the contrary, they also find a slight negative trend since 1900:

The political nature of climate "science" is one the the reasons I take screenshots, such as the one above.  That study (as shown) was just done a year or so back, but they've already revised it (revised August 9 2021), and I'm not sure where the original is.  The new one still concludes:

Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity

So the conclusion is still the same -- no impact on hurricanes -- because the hard data is what it is, and the numbers simply aren't there (i.e.- there's been no actual increase in storms).  Nothing can make those missing storms appear, so what they do in the new report is couch those non-frightening bottom line conclusions with additional scary-sounding language warning about how awful it might get if the CO2 hypothesis ever starts working, since apparently 100+ years of data while CO2 rose steadily hasn't already proven the point that if hurricanes haven't increased yet, they're not likely to.  At least, not due to CO2, anyway.

According to World Bank, Big Climate is an $89 trillion (with a T) business, so there are plenty of vested interests with major monetary incentive to keep the public in a state of fear.  Hard to compete against that with simple hard data and mainstream science that no one reads.

Anyway, both of these newer reports continue to agree with the IPCC's findings from 2012:

These hurricane studies are pretty conclusive, with very little ambivalence.  If you've been getting your "science" from politicians and media, then I imagine it comes as a shock to learn the that mainstream scientific community does not support what you have been led to believe -- so your first reaction may be to look for ways to reject this "new" information and thus preserve those old beliefs ("cognitive dissonance").  I recommend giving this "new" data a little time to sink in.  

(And then reasoning out the inexorable conclusion:  It is a mistake to trust politicians and media simply because they invoke the mantle of "science."  Snake-oil salesmen of the 1800s likewise claimed that their false cures "followed the science."  It's one of the oldest con games in the book.  The media's take on climate change is more superstition than science, and politicians use the resulting public ignorance to their advantage, as we'll see in a moment.)

4.  Tornadoes

Strong tornadoes, likewise, are decreasing, not increasing:

To summarize:  The actual, mainstream science on all this is abundantly clear:  There is no link between "climate change" and extreme weather.  None whatsoever.  Next time someone in "authority" tries to tell you there is, you will be inoculated against the manipulations of such climate charlatans.

"When you get two record rainfalls in a week, that's not coincidence." "Global warming is upon us, and it's going to get worse and worse and worse unless we do something about it." "Woe is us if we don't recognize these changes are due to climate change." -- Senator Chuck Schumer

“The past few days of Hurricane Ida and the wildfires in the west and the unprecedented flash floods in New York and New Jersey is yet another reminder that these extreme storms and the climate crisis are here."  "This isn't about politics." -- President Joe Biden

As the data plainly reveals:  Politics seems to be exactly what this is about.  Get people scared, then use their fear to generate public support for policies the public would not otherwise support if they were not being placed under duress.

Sadly, this unfettered manipulation by our politicians is not harmless.  It comes with real human cost:

Wouldn't it be better to tell our kids the truth: That there is no climate "crisis"?  Have we become so desperate in our pursuit of power that we've lost our humanity?

Oh, and those earlier quotes reminded me... let's talk about wildfires, too, since that's another anti-science stance the alarmists have taken, and it keeps getting repeated to the point that many people think it's true.  It is not.  

5.  Wildfires

This first graph comes from the USDA (and is the most recent I can find from that particular agency).  It shows that wildfires declined substantially while CO2 rose:

The continuation of that data (from the National Interagency Fire Center) is similar.  Wildfires have decreased, not increased:

Data on Amazon wildfires comes from the LA Times.  Correlation is not causation, but when there's not even a correlation, you have no case whatsoever.

Linking wildfires to climate change is, again, anti-science superstitious nonsense with no data to support it.

So you can follow the science, or you can follow the politicians/media.  But you cannot follow both, because they contradict each other.

Last point, because this is more anti-science propaganda I hear repeated ad infinitum:  

6.  Heat waves

Surely heat waves have been getting worse!  After all, the theory is that CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain more heat (again, this is the actual theory underpinning "climate change"), so heat waves must be getting worse.  Right?  Remember this summer?  RIGHT?

Well, not according to the EPA.  While heat waves will always be a part of life on planet Earth, in recent decades, heat waves have decreased significantly.  Despite the fact that CO2 has been rising steadily. 

Now, the funny thing about the chart above is that it's no longer on the EPA website (that I can find, anyway; glad I screenshotted it a few months ago) -- they recently changed their new graphs so that they begin in 1960!  Look at the full chart, and see if you can figure out why they'd make that change.  Below is what happens when you leave off the "inconvenient data":  You create a false impression that heat waves are increasing over time. 

Are they removing long-term data to serve "science"?  Or politics?

Misleading graphs aside, to reiterate one last time:  There is no correlation between "climate change" and extreme weather.  And there isn't a single shred of evidence to even modestly support such claims.  

All the alarmists have is the same thing they had back in 1988:  Unsubstantiated speculation that "bUt wEatheR is gOinG to gEt wOrSe!!!111!!!"  Speculation isn't science, and climate speculation has been dead wrong for 50 years running, while the hard evidence is clear.  The data continues to refute the speculation.

The bottom line is that the IPCC, NOAA, et al, have concluded that there's been no increase in extreme weather at all, so there's zero basis for claiming an increase, and that much less of a
basis for claiming that this nonexistent increase is "due to man-made climate change"!  

Thus, the entire push to blame extreme weather on "climate change" is complete nonsense.

Mankind has always believed it can control the weather via dancing, human sacrifice, or by other means.  I assume this is why this superstition was easy to revive:  It's hard-wired into us to think weather is some kind of "punishment for our sins."  In this case, our sin is merely finding ways to survive a harsh planet in some degree of safety.  We clearly do not believe we deserve even that small grace, so now we're trying to undo it.

Which brings us to the final point:  Climate-related deaths have plummeted over the past 100 years:

(above graph from Dr. Bjorn Lomborg)

This massive reduction in climate death is due to the safety that cheap and reliable energy provides for people.  Taking that away in favor of unreliable sources such as wind and solar won't "save" people, it will harm them.  (Just as wind and solar absolutely devastate the natural environment, which I may cover in a future piece).  Isn't the goal to "save" the planet?  What does that even mean if it excludes saving your fellow humans?

Join me in saving the planet: Reject climate superstition and propaganda, and follow the science instead.  The choice is now yours.


  1. Good work, solid and sensible. Thank you.

    NB: the excellent reduction in deaths due to extreme weather brought about by powerful, readily and widely available energy in the form of localised consumption of oil, coal and natural gas is even more pronounced when viewed 'per million' than in just raw numbers.

    World population in 1920 was <1.9 billion, and now is >7.9 billion.

    If you ever have the notion to look, probably many folks would be interested on a piece regarding the 'fossil fuel' designation for said energy-bearing materials. Precious little science to support it, just repetition of superstition, while the 'science' that suggests a far more renewable origin is continually swept under the rug.

  2. Can you post references to your data and where you got it?

    About this part: "The idea that there's a "crisis" is held by a small minority of scientists, but, as this piece will show, that view is not shared by mainstream science."
    Can you post references about this? Where are the majority that deny this and what are they saying? I'm searching for studies that disproves the "crisis" but have found none.

    Seems in the western (and not only) world the question whether there is a crisis is not a certainty only for the US.

    I would love it if I'm proven wrong.

    1. I posted all the links in the piece -- when you see something in blue, it's a live link. The IPCC is mainstream science -- go read their Special Report on Extreme Weather if you like. I posted screenshots of the relevant portions to save people all the reading.

    2. Thank you. Didn't notice those at first.

      The first graph I found is Heat Waves. You've shown the index graph. It doesn't represent how many heat waves there were but how much of the US experienced a heatwave.

      On the other hand the first graph the EPA show is this one:
      It shows a more than 3 times growth of Heat Waves since the 1960s.

      So why did you choose the index graph? Do you think it shows that in the 1930s there was a bigger heat wave and it's just cyclical? It doesn't.

      I couldn't find sources for the tornadoes and floods graphs. I searched and everything I find for all around the world it looks much different. Even ones for the US.

      Maybe you should not make assumptions about climate for only the US. There is a whole other world outside and a lot more data.

  3. This post doesn't manage to provide the needed proof. Please provide the references.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. As soon as everyone realizes that "climate change", Covid and other scare events are ALL fake propaganda being pushed by the media, elites and Globalists to increase their control over economies and people, it is at this point you will find the truth. We have all been played.

  6. I agree on the fact that there is no clear evidence that global warming can be linked to greenhouse effect from human activity. I also agree that there might be a lot of people speculating on that, not considering that actions proposed so far are just partially addressing carbon emission reduction.
    However looking at graphs and photos on EPA site the effect of global warming is quite clear, so i don't think that climate change itself can be defined a fake (and same for covid, referring to @Katahdin comment). It could be the effect of a natural cycle or biased by human activity, we still don't know. As i already said, for sure there is and there will be speculation on that.
    Anyway, i believe that starting to think at a world with less fossil fuel can only be a good thing.

    Just my 2 cents.

  7. sorry for the "unknown" name above , i tried several times to subscribe to the forum, but i never received any reply.