Tag Archives: Evidence

Twelve Reasons Why I Don’t Believe There’s a Climate Emergency

From The Daily Sceptic

BY RUSSELL DAVID

I’m not a scientist. But I have reasons why I don’t fully trust the ‘climate emergency’ narrative. Here they are:

  1. Looking back through history, there have always been doomsday prophets, folk who say the world is coming to an end. Are modern-day activists not just the current version of this?
  2. I look at some of the facts – CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere; humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2; Britain is responsible for just 1% of the world’s CO2 output – and I think “really“? Will us de-carbonising really make a difference to the Earth’s climate?
  3. I have listened to some top scientists who say CO2 does not drive global warming; that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good or vital thing; that many other things, like the Sun and the clouds and the oceans, are more responsible for the Earth’s temperature.
  4. I note that most of the loudest climate activists are socialists and on the Left. Are they not just using this movement to push their dreams of a deindustrialised socialist utopia? And I also note the crossover between green activists and BLM ones, gender ones, pro-Hamas ones, none of whom I like or agree with.
  5. As an amateur psychologist, I know that humans are susceptible to manias. I also know that humans tend to focus on tiny slivers of time and on tiny slivers of geographical place when forming ideas and opinions. We are also extremely malleable and easily fooled, as was demonstrated in 2020 and 2021.
  6. I have looked into the implications of Net Zero. It is incredibly expensive. It will vastly reduce living standards and hinder economic growth. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I know that economic growth has led to higher living standards, which has made people both safer and more environmentally aware.
  7. Net Zero will also lead to significant diminishment of personal freedom, and it even threatens democracy, as people are told they must do certain things and they must not do other things, and they may even be restricted in speaking out on climate matters.
  8. What will be the worst things that will happen if the doomsayers are correct? A rise in temperature? Where? Siberia? Singapore? Stockholm? What is the ideal temperature? For how long? Will this utopia be forever maintained? I’m suspicious of utopias; the communists sought utopias.
  9. If one consequence of climate change is rising sea levels, would it not be better to spend money building more sea defences to protect our land? Like the Dutch did.
  10. It’s a narrative heavily pushed by the Guardian. I dislike the Guardian. I believe it’s been wrong on most issues through my life – socialism, immigration, race, the EU, gender, lockdowns and so on. Probably it’s wrong about climate issues too?
  11. I am suspicious of the amount of money that green activists and subsidised green industries make. And 40 years ago the greenies were saying the Earth was going to get too cold. Much of what they said would happen by now has not happened. Also, I trust ‘experts’ much less now, after they lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks and the ‘vaccines’.
  12. I like sunshine. I prefer being warm to being cold. It makes me feel better. It’s more fun. It saves on heating bills. It saves on clothes. It makes people happier. Far few people die of the heat than they do the cold.

Russell David writes the Mad World blog.

No Significant Warming in One of the Most Climate-Sensitive Parts of the Planet, Ice Core Data Show

From The Daily Sceptic

BY STEPHEN ANDREWS

There has been no significant warming in one of the most climate-sensitive parts of the planet, analysis of Greenland ice core data shows, casting further doubt on the alarmist climate narrative.

We are all familiar with the climate change scare narrative. Red coloured maps of the globe, polar bears stranded on ever diminishing ice floes, extreme weather events etc. When you read a climate change related article or scientific paper it nearly always opens with a statement underlining the severity of the situation facing mankind. What is usually lacking is perspective.

I am not interested in ‘expert’ opinion unless it is supported by empirical data and perspective. Selected sources must be reliable and have ample past data to encompass solar cycle variation. Ideally these data need to come from a region of the planet that is sensitive to global warming. What data from the world of paleoclimatology fit that criteria?

When snow falls, it contains a mix of oxygen isotopes. During warm periods, more heavy oxygen isotopes are found in the snow, while cold periods have more light oxygen isotopes. By analysing these ratios in ice cores, scientists can learn about past temperatures and climate conditions. The ice is laid down in annual layers which can be dated accurately. Consequently, we can construct an accurate temperature record where sufficient ice accumulation exists, such as in polar regions.

If anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels, then we are expecting to see a clear rise in temperature above and beyond the normal variation. This was attempted and published by Michael Mann et al. and is widely known as the hockey stick graph. The main problem with this graph is that it was constructed using 12 sets of proxy measurements which included three sets of ice core data. The ice core data went back only 500 years and the remaining extrapolation relied on tree ring data. There was considerable uncertainty of measurement which was highlighted in his original paper (Figure 1), and a period of 1,000 years provides us with limited perspective in relation to the impact of solar cycles.

Note the light grey area is an estimate of the uncertainty of measurement and extrapolation.

There seems to be a dearth of records that provide temperature proxies for recent times that are relevant to the sudden rise in carbon dioxide levels (1860 to current). However, I did locate data from two overlapping periods from Renland peninsula in Eastern Greenland. The two studies that reported the results from these ice core measurements had quite different themes. The first, which covered the period from 1960 to 10,000 BC, commented on the high temperatures in the Holocene period and the impact on the ice sheet. The second covering 1801 to 2014 examined local site variability. The creation of these datasets was a gargantuan effort. It remains a mystery why these papers did not comment on the temperature trends or indeed try and link the two datasets. Below is a graph combining these two isotope ratio data sets (Figure 2). The black line (far right) is the key as it is a 20 year rolling average of the more recent dataset (brown dots). The first dataset (blue dots) has data points every 20 years, so this rolling average enables a more valid comparison.

These data tell us we’re in one of the coldest spells in the approximately last 9,000 years. Was the only way up? Virtually all global records indicate a steady warming in recent times. I have added green lines to help visualise the ‘normal’ variation in the last 9,000 years. Clearly recent warming is within this normal variation.

I have added another graph (Figure 3) with linear trend lines to each of the datasets to demonstrate how important perspective is in assessing climate change. If we take the trend from 1801 to 2014 (purple dashed) and compare it with that from the last 10,000 years (green line) it seems alarming. But from the longer trend the reader can see that variation in both sets of data is quite normal.

There is also a serious lack of agreement between the Mann hockey stick graph (Figure 1) and these data. It should be borne in mind when making this comparison that the Mann graph attempted to reconstruct temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere whereas the data I have cited here are from a specific area of Eastern Greenland.

The next graph (Figure 4), focusing on the overlap period (1800 to 2014), provides the degree of validity of aligning these two datasets. There appears to be excellent correlation when comparing the black and red lines, implying the data are good proxies for temperature.

In summary, these data indicate there is no significant global warming signal coming from one of the most sensitive parts of the planet. Any warming may be latent, but this seems to be a bit of a stretch.

This absence of a signal could be explained by the fact that the relationship of carbon dioxide to global temperature is logarithmic and above a certain concentration there is minimal direct impact relative to solar cycles.

There are many climate scientists who have devoted their lives to saving mankind but unless these data are invalid, they need to return from the chill winds of the polar regions. Is it game over for the climate change scare narrative?

First published on Stephen’s Substack page. Subscribe here.

Nord Stream Sabotage: More Evidence Points to Ukraine

From The Daily Sceptic

BY NOAH CARL

In just the last few weeks, more evidence has come to light suggesting that Ukraine – and not Russia or the U.S. – was behind the Nord Stream sabotage.

We already knew that in the summer of 2022 the CIA warned Germany about a possible Ukrainian attack on the pipelines, following a tip-off from a U.S. ally. We now know that the attack itself “bears striking similarities” to what the U.S. ally (which turns out to be the Netherlands) said Ukraine was planning.

The Dutch intelligence, which was among the materials released in the Discord leaks, was obtained and corroborated by the Washington Post.

It revealed that “six members of Ukraine’s special operations forces using false identities intended to rent a boat and, using a submersible vehicle, dive to the floor of the Baltic Sea then damage or destroy the pipeline and escape undetected”. This of course lines up closely with the story German investigators have pieced together so far.

The intelligence also revealed that the would-be attackers “were not rogue operatives” but reported directly to General Zaluzhnyi, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

German investigators have identified the Andromeda, a 50ft pleasure boat, as the vessel used to carry out the sabotage – which we already knew had been rented by a Polish company that was allegedly founded by two Ukrainians. As Der Spiegel reported recently, an email sent to the vessel at the time it was rented also leads back to Ukraine.

According to the Wall Street Journal, investigators have now “fully reconstructed” the boat’s “entire two-week long voyage”, establishing that it sailed “around each of the locations where the blasts later took place”. They have also confirmed that traces of explosives found on board match explosive residue found on the pipelines themselves.

One of the explosives used in the sabotage was HMX, which is apparently “well-suited for demolishing underwater infrastructure”. What’s more, the quantity required to blow up the pipelines “would have easily fit on the Andromeda”, according to a European official.

In the latest development, various outlets reported yesterday that the CIA actually told Ukraine not to attack the pipelines, though it is “not clear how the Ukrainians responded”.

Some sceptics insist this is all an elaborate cover-up to disguise the true perpetrators of the sabotage – the U.S. government. I’m not convinced. That theory made a certain amount of sense back when it was being alleged that “pro-Ukraine saboteurs” were responsible. But the latest reports directly implicate Ukraine’s government.

Why would the U.S. want its European allies to believe the country they’ve been arming, training and supporting destroyed a major piece of European infrastructure? ‘To stop them blaming the U.S.,’ is one answer. But if the U.S. is trying to deflect blame from itself, why not devise a cover-up in which, say, Russia was responsible? Or at the very least, stick with “pro-Ukraine saboteurs”? It doesn’t make sense.