From THE DAILY SKEPTIC
by Chris Morrison
In late June, the state-run BBC reported that human-caused climate change had made US and Mexican heatwaves “35 times more likely”. Nothing unusual in the mainstream media with everyone from climate comedians to ‘Jim’ Dale to UN chief Antonio ‘Boiling’ Guterres making these outlandish attributions. But for those who follow climate science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) assessments, “the headlines can be hard to understand”, says renowned science writer Roger Pielke. In a hard-hitting attack on the pseudo-scientific industry of weather attribution, he stated: “Neither the IPCC nor the underlying scientific literature comes close to making strong and certain attribution claims”.
Pielke asserts that the extreme position of attributing individual bad weather events is “roughly parallel” to the Left. “Climate science is not, or at least should not be, a proxy for political tribalism,” he warned. But of course. The Net Zero fantasy is a collectivist national and supra-national agenda increasingly dependent on bad weather. With the global temperature rising at least 0.1 ° C decade, laughter can only be common and side-separate when IPCC boss Jim Skea claims that the heat of England will be 6 ° C warmer in less than 50 years. Two longer temperature hiatuses since 2000 have not helped the cause of global warming. In addition, there are many doubts about the reliability of temperature records by many meteorological organizations that seem unable to account for the enormous corruption of urban heat.
A big problem for ‘Far Left’ climate extremists is the attribution of events as a form of, in Pielke’s words, “tactical science”. The science has legal and political purposes and is not always peer-reviewed. As the BBC and other media can attest, the work was “largely promoted through press releases”. It was developed in response to the IPCC’s failure to detect and attribute most types of extreme weather including droughts, floods, storms and wildfires to human involvement, Pielke notes. Worse, the IPCC could find signs of human involvement until 2100.
Scientists cannot directly answer whether certain events are caused by climate change because extremes occur naturally. Meanwhile the IPCC has been somewhat dismissive of weather attribution, or as Pielke terms it, “the alchemy of weather attribution”. Note: “The usefulness or applicability of available extreme event attribution methods to assess climate-related risk remains a matter of debate.” The IPCC is a biased body full of climate alarmists, but its inability to attribute a single event to humans is obviously very irritating and somewhat inconvenient for activists and media partners.
Dr Friederike Otto runs the World Weather Attribution (WWA) out of Imperial College London and is often on the BBC. WWA is behind many of the direct attributions of bad weather to human causes and their motives are clear. As Dr. Otto has noted: “Unlike every branch of climate science or general science in general, the attribution of original events is recommended by the courts.” Otto is clear that the main function of the study, funded in part by billionaires who support Net Zero and heavily pushed by the aligned mainstream media, is to support lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. He explains this strategy in detail in his interview, ‘From Extreme Event Attribution to Climate Litigation’.
The IPCC’s inability to attribute bad weather to humans has been seen by climate advocates as a “political problem”, Pielke continued. He notes the work of climate activists Elizabeth Lloyd and Naomi Oreskes who are concerned that the lack of attribution “conveys the impression that we do not know, which leads to uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness, and the general human tendency to minimize possible threats. not close”.
Banish the thought that there must be uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness in the established world of climate science. Of course it is different from all other branches of science because all its findings are correct and therefore there is no need for a useless process of investigation and experimentation. Needless to add that there is no doubt in the BBC, where the former Radio 4 Today Editor Sarah Sands wrote the introduction to the WWA guide for journalists. Remembering when the late Nigel Lawson suggested that there should be no increase in extreme weather, Sands noted: “I hope we have this guide for journalists to help us mount a more effective challenge to their claims.” Today, Sands enthused, attribution studies have given us “significant insight into the horsemen of the climate apocalypse”.
For his part, Otto was eager to fight the heretics. He was at the forefront of the recent infamous retraction of a paper in the journal Springer Nature that stated there was no evidence that the climate was deteriorating. Written by four Italian scientists and led by Professor Gianluca Alimonti, they say the climate emergency is not supported by the data. Otto, who previously worked at the Oxford School of Geography for 10 years, said scientists do not write on faith. “If the journal cares about science, it should cancel it out loud and say publicly that it will not be published,” he said.
Chris Morrison is Everyday skeptics‘s Environment Editor.
Related
