The Infuriating Climate Alarm

In the UK, we all know that this summer has been rubbish. We had a few weeks of glorious sunshine in June and since then it's been bloody miserable. It's been cold, wet and the dog has got trench-foot. Which isn't great because he stinks at the best of times—bless him.

Yet, according to the UN Secretary General and blithering buffoon, António Guterres, we've entered the "era of global boiling." Though not in the UK—or anywhere else for that matter

Just as we were during the pseudopandemic, we are once again invited to reject the evidence of our own senses and "trust" whatever we are told by the "experts," although Guterres is not a meteorologist. Mind you, Bill Gates isn't an epidemiologist and everyone "trusted" his "expert" opinion during the pseudopandemic, so who cares?

I know! I know! Weather isn't climate change. While climate constantly changes, the process can only be understood through the accumulation of evidence revealing a highly complex system that is subject to radiative forcing. It is safe to say that no one who seriously questions "climate change" alarm, denies that climate changes. What they question are the claims made by organisations like the UK Met Office:

The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up.

There isn't one, published scientific paper, anywhere on Earth, that empirically proves that increased atmospheric CO2 precedes and causes global warming. The evidence is far from "clear."

Climate change alarmists offer all kinds of convoluted arguments, usually by applying highly questionable statistical models, in their attempt to prove causality. Yet this very basic, empirical scientific proof is notable only for its absence.

But let's not let scientific facts get in the way of a good story. The planet is boiling I tells ye!

Cats - wondering why human beings don’t know what to do when it’s hot.

If CO2 is the problem then the solution seems pretty simple, not to mention quite pleasant: plant as many trees as we can, wherever we can, and don't cut them down to burn in biomass power plants that emit more CO2 than brown-coal fired power stations. But that is not a "solution" that anyone in power is interested in.

No, the proposed solution to supposed planetary vaporisation is Sustainable Development debt slavery. Which all raises a few questions about, for example, UK Met Office gibberish. It's almost as if there's some sort of agenda at play. Which, of course, there is.

But we're not going rehash arguments about the climate change woo-woo Science™. There's no point anyway. Climate change alarm is a death cult, not an exercise in intellectual honesty.

Instead, let's look at just a few examples of obvious climate alarm tripe. As we do, we'll also ponder why, if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is so sound, so-called "climate scientists" and the mainstream media---legacy media---feel the need to perpetually lie about its alleged effects.

In 2009, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which provides much of the HadCRUT data underpinning the IPCC’s climate change models, was caught fiddling the climate data in order to "prove" AGW theory.

Scientific fraud was evident and key "climate scientists" involved were subsequently unable to provide any data to support their misleading conclusions. Something that was later proven in court. Yet still the legacy media (LM), in this instance represented by the appalling propagandists at the Guardian, manage to deny the blatant scam.

This is all irrelevant because, irrespective of the fake science, all scientists agree that the planet is being cooked like a hard boiled egg. Except the Nobel laureate physicists who don't. Oh, and all the other scientists who don't either.

They are not "real" scientists and therefore must be cancelled and definitely barred from explaining to the IMF that the IPCC's modelled predictions are drivel. Global financial institutions are set to profit from "da climate Science™" and are not interested in having their plans undermined by pesky, Nobel prize winning scientists.

Gutteres' boiling planet yarn is based upon the recent LM alarm about the Cerberus and Charon heatwaves that supposedly plagued central and southern Europe. The LM used scary colours on their maps to make sure everyone soiled themselves. As if naming the summer after mythical devil-dogs and boatmen for the dead wasn't enough.

Reuters said ambulances had been put on standby to rescue people from the sunshine; Sky warned that the fingerprints of climate change were forcing people to "shelter from the heat;" CNN reported that the heat was at "unbearable levels" and the constantly petrified Guardian, alleging that "human-caused climate crisis is supercharging extreme weather around the world," added:

The European Space Agency (ESA) said the next week could bring the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.

While the Guardian mentioned the ESA, they neglected to report its subsequent data clarification. The ESA made it clear that they were providing satellite readings of "land surface temperatures" not the "air temperatures" that are commonly given in weather reports.

On a hot day, land surface temperatures tend to be considerably higher than air temperatures. The degree of difference varies, depending on numerous factors such as the heat absorption and radiation properties of the surface material and so on. As pointed out by the pro-climate alarm website SkepticalScience:

[. . .] on a sunny day in a heatwave, many land surfaces become hotter than the air - that's how tarmac can melt in a sunny spot.

Contradicting themselves, and ignoring the ESA clarification completely, SkepticalScience then said that the reported air temperature high of 48.8°C on July 17th "did happen." However, as pointed out by the genuinely sceptical Watts-Up-With-That (WUWT), this claim presents us with a major conundrum.

The LM consistently reported "air temperatures" that were the same as the ESA's reported "land surface temperature." The air temperature should have been notably lower, but wasn’t reported to be so.

Quite simply, that just can not be true. It is all very odd, because the actual recorded air temperatures were lower than those reported by the LM, such as the Guardian and the BBC.

This is not to say that it wasn't very hot in southern and some parts of central Europe and the US. But the ridiculous, exaggerated LM claims that July was the hottest month in 125,000 years were unmitigated claptrap. As Kit Knightly, writing for the OffGuardian, rightly observed, there is simply no way to know this.

The University of Alabama and Hunstsville (UAH) Global Temperature Record is also a key data set for the IPCC. The UAH measures temperature anomalies and, using this measure—which is not the same as a consistent average—confirmed that July 2023 was the hottest July and the hottest single month since 1979, when satellite records began. Given, for example, that an "air temperature" anomaly of 50°C was recorded in Paris in August 1930—before satellite records began—the “hottest ever” claims don't remotely stack up, even from an anomaly perspective, and certainly don't constitute any evidence of the "ravages" of CO2 driven climate change.

Reports from European holiday makers that they had to avoid the midday sun, as they mingled with the crowds enjoying the lovely weather, is hardly a sign of the end-times. Noel Coward wrote the song "Mad Dogs and Englishmen," advising people to avoid sweltering midday temperatures, in 1931. It went down well because it was funny and something people could relate to. Probably because the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century.

Hell on Earth apparently. - source: https://archive.is/PDj8Y

SkepticalScience is among the climate alarm pushers who assert that the heatwave was obviously caused by climate change. As noted by James Corbett and James Even Pilato, that notion is speculative to say the least.

Both NASA and the ESA reported that the Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai underwater volcano eruption in January 2022 increased the amount of stratospheric water vapour by a minimum of 10%, possibly up to 30%. So vast was this expulsion of H2O that it is likely to increase average global temperatures for several years to come.

If you are looking for LM reports on the staggering global climate impact of this event, don't bother. There aren't any.

Instead, the BBC, for example, published an article on July 14th 2023 which spoke about the amazing expulsion of lava and ash and the spectacular associated volcanic lightning. They even linked to the NASA report which said the additional volume of atmospheric water vapour was enough to "fill the equivalent of 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools." But the BBC propagandists couldn't bring themselves to report the rest of the quoted NASA statement, which read:

The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

From a global warming perspective this is kind of a big deal.

Just eleven days later—July 25th—BBC amnesiacs told the world that the European and US heatwaves would have been "near impossible" without climate change. Despite previously citing the NASA and ESA findings which clearly show this claim is totally groundless.

The BBC offered a ludicrous report from World Weather Attribution (WWA)—deceptively calling it a "study"—to supposedly "confirm" that "climate change" had increased the heatwaves by 2.5°C. Based upon nothing but LM reports and speculative computer models, the WWA report was scientifically illiterate dross that presented absolutely no evidence at all to support any of its wacky conclusions.

The  Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption and the ESA spawned media "confusion," over the difference between surface and air temperatures, was entirely ignored by the BBC as it pumped out its climate change propaganda. Rounding off its disinformation, the BBC wrote:

[. . .] increased temperatures from burning fossil fuels was the main driver in the more intense heatwaves.

A conclusion, it is worth reiterating, for which there is no evidence. The BBC's role is to make you imagine that the evidence exists.

SkepticalScience, which isn't sceptical enough to explore atmospheric science or check what its scientific sources really said, didn't deem it necessary to mention any of this either. But it did ram home that anyone who questions climate alarm is a "climate denier":

People who create and/or circulate such myths are denying plain reality. That reality is that it got extremely hot across southern Europe for a prolonged period in July 2023. Such prolonged heat is a serious health-hazard, never mind the appalling wildfires.

Aah, the wildfires! Presumably ignited by the 40+°C heat. Or so the LM would have us believe.

Reporting the "end of the world," the BBC were certain that the "heatwave spreading across Europe is fuelling wildfires in Portugal." Someone should tell the Portuguese the end of the world is nigh, because comments from people in Portugal during the "catastrophic heatwave" don't give rise to any cause for alarm.

This is all reminiscent of the climate alarm that spewed out of the LM during the Canadian wildfires in June that sent a pall of smoke across the US eastern seaboard. The New York Times said this provide us with a "grim climate lesson;" CBS said that the fires were started by lightning caused by dry hot weather as "climate change continues to warm the planet" and the always unreliable BBC wrote "climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires."

But the prize for most outstanding baloney must go to the Guardian for its unhinged piece, "Canada's Wildfires are Part of a New Climate Reality." Claiming that the fires were the "harbinger of our climate future" and that climate change could "double the acreage burned by wildfires each year," the Guardian exposed itself when it revealed that its headline "new climate reality" was "sourced" from a tweet by US politician Bernie Sanders. Probably after he read a New York Times or other LM article that told him what to think.

None of these wildly inaccurate LM affirmations were remotely plausible. In a fully referenced article, weather forecaster Chris Martz, outlined the many reasons why there is no foundation for the claims that the Canadian boreal forest wildfires were, in any sense, attributable to CO2 caused "climate change:"

Headlines and armchair experts articulated with boastful confidence that the primary cause of the Canadian fires [. . .] was climate change. Despite the fact these claims are neither supported by the greater body of peer-reviewed work nor the observational record.

The actual reasons for the Canadian wildfires were the encroachment of human settlements into woodland areas---increasing the human ignition risk, decades of poor forestry management and inclement weather conditions that produced the lightning strikes which appeared to simultaneously ignite some of the fires.

Prior to the heat driven thunderstorms, Canada had been experiencing average or below average temperatures for the time of year. As Martz accurately observed:

This justifies the case that the fire weather conditions were a transient response to ongoing weather conditions which primed the environment, not a long-term pattern that could be altered by the climatic base state.

Martz reported the Canadian government's forest burn area records from 1959 to date. Contrary to all the claims spewed out by LM disinformation agents, the records clearly show that total burn areas and fires peaked in the late 1980s. They have steadily decreased ever since. There is, once again, no correlation with increased CO2 levels nor any evidence linking the boreal wildfires to "climate change."

Like most people who question climate alarm, Martz is concerned about the environment and recognises that the obsession with CO2 reduction does nothing to address the real environmental problems. He wrote:

Sitting on our hands and blaming climate change for every abnormal environmental event is a waste of time when our efforts would be better spent on addressing how to manage risk and mitigate vulnerabilities.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 programme yesterday morning, some numpty—sorry, I didn't catch her name—claimed that the seas were boiling. Because climate change ... Duh! I'm sure she is a learned numpty, but seemingly clueless nonetheless.

This followed on from the usual BBC climate bunk highlighting that Florida seawater surface temperatures had achieved 37.8°C. This, we were authoritatively informed, was all caused by climate change. The Guardian piled in to ramp up the terror. That being said, Guardian columnists also think we should end farming to save the planet, so perhaps taking the Guardians word for anything isn’t the wisest course.

Both the BBC and the Guardian had simply parroted a story fed to them by the newswires. There was no more "journalism" than that. They investigated nothing, didn't verify anything and just published whatever they were told to publish.

The high water temperature reading was taken from just one sensor buoy in Manatee Bay, near Key Largo. Writing for WUWT, Jim Steele pointed out that the temperature reading of the same buoy had dropped to 29°C within a day. Other measurement buoys in the surrounding waters were consistently reporting much lower water temperatures. This was due to the fact that the Manatee Bay buoy floats in a sheltered, coastal "solar pond," largely protected from cold water flows.

If CO2 propelled climate change caused the buoy reading to climb to 37.8°C, then it must have caused it to cool down again the next day. Equally, “climate change” must also be responsible for the much cooler waters surrounding Manatee Bay. This is, of course, an absurd contention. As Steele highlighted:

Clearly those water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.

Clearly! So why couldn't the LM figure that out? Are they all irretrievably stupid or is there something else going on?

As we noted earlier, weather is not climate change. Except when it's really hot.

While it was scorching in Europe and the US, the LM regaled us with an slew of climate change fairy tales. However, as soon as the weather in the same European and US regions returned to at or below average temperatures they fell stony silent. According to LM propagandists like the Guardian, "climate change" always reverts back to weather when it is chuffin' freezing.

Wherever we look, those who are pushing the idea that climate change threatens some sort of cataclysm just can't stop misleading, manipulating, deceiving and propagandising. The question is why. If we accept that climate change is a concern, why do they feel the need to constantly lie about its alleged impacts?

It is never ending. Frankly, it has become infuriating. Maybe that's the point.

Every nonsensical climate alarm story we have discussed deploys applied behavioural psychology to convince you to believe evident insanity. You are supposed to unquestioningly accept that the planet is "literally" on fire. Or, as the the UN Secretary General insists for no apparent reason, that the era of "global boiling" is upon us.

We are very close to climate lockdowns to "save the planet." None of this has anything to do with climate change.

The only thing that is "literally" true is that the net-zero, sustainable development solution is "literal" population control. The mind-bending propaganda can only succeed if you ignore the view from your own window, which invariably reveals that it is actually pissing down.

When the farcical climate lockdowns arrive, may I suggest you dress for the weather, grab a bottle of water, and go out and enjoy yourself. What are they going to do? Lock us up in our own homes again?

I'll see you out there.