I’ve said this time and time again over the years; there is no climate emergency or climate crisis, except in the eye of fanatical eco-fascists and their go-to climate model based ‘science’. It’s all a grand fiction foisted upon the public in order to try to generate support for ‘climate action’ via fear and alarm, action which will see us all much poorer and more miserable if we allow these zealots to dominate the political agenda. The Guardian really put the ball in motion in 2019 when their editorial department decided that ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ were too tame to communicate a supposed existential crisis facing humanity, so they adopted the ‘more scientific’ terms ‘climate breakdown’, ‘climate emergency’, ‘climate emergency’ and ‘global heating’ instead. Cue picture of ‘starving’ polar bears searching for food at rubbish tips (which is amusing considering that we learned only yesterday that well fed polar bears are no closer to extinction than they were 18 years ago):
The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.
“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”
“Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.
So basically, a left wing rag not known for reporting facts invented the ‘climate crisis’ three years ago, seeing as how it’s become common parlance ever since. No matter that there is no solid, scientific, empirical, observational evidence or data to lend support to this ideological notion of a climate in crisis; they decided that they would try and manufacture that proof of the pudding as they went along. For example, by labelling every extreme weather event as ‘proof’ of catastrophic global warming in real-time, regardless of whether their dodgy scientific models combined with observations actually demonstrated it or not, e.g. the recent floods in Pakistan:
But Sky News Australia recently reported on a study first published in January this year which demonstrates that there is no evidence for a climate crisis happening now. Quite why it took them 9 months to report on this, I’m not sure. Maybe they did report on it back then and it gained little traction. Here is the news report:
The actual report says this about heatwaves:
Overall, as reported by the IPCC [6], the most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in daily temperature measurements, including heat waves. The global analysis carried out by Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis [7] showed for the period 1951–2017 a significant increase in yearly values of heatwave days, maximum heatwave duration and cumulative heat, while the global heatwave intensity trends are not significant.
. . . . . . . the increase in the frequency and persistence of heat waves can easily be explained by increasing global temperatures . . . . . . .
As I have shown a number of times in various Substack articles, plus elsewhere, when attribution of individual extreme heat events is attempted, the models and the statistical analysis of extreme values based on the observed amount of global warming both invariably fail to simulate the observed extreme increase in intensity, which, at the local level, may be due to urbanisation, land use changes or changes in atmospheric dynamics. At the global scale however, the above study confirms that there is no statistically significant increase in the intensity of extreme events, just in their frequency. This may be attributed to a generalised global warming since the beginning of the mid 19th century. It does not however confirm that the corresponding increase in the frequency of heatwaves is due to man-made global warming, because that would involve attributing virtually all warming since 1850 to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and there is no robust scientific evidence for that. The IPCC does however attribute all warming since 1950 to GHGs, but in order to do so they assume that natural climate cycles cancel out over that period and solar activity plays little or no part, both assumptions of which are highly dubious.
For other types of extreme weather, there is little to no evidence of a trend even, let alone a trend which can be positively attributed to anthropogenic global warming:
Hurricanes
To date, global observations do not show any significant trends in both the number and the energy accumulated by hurricanes, as shown in Fig. 1
Tornadoes
However, by consulting the time series shown in Fig. 3 [24], we realize that the increase in the number of tornadoes since 1950 is almost entirely due to weak events (EF0-EF1 in the advanced Fujita scale), those that in the past in many cases escaped the observation and which today are more easily identified thanks to a wide range of systems ranging from cell phone cameras to satellites and Doppler radars. In contrast, strong to violent tornadoes (categories EF-3 to EF-5 on the advanced Fujita scale), likely reported also before the Doppler radar era, show no increase over time.
Global precipitation and extreme precipitation events
Regarding the intensity of extreme daily precipitation events, Papalexiou and Montanari [34] analysed the extreme precipitation events over 1964—2013 on a total of 8730 stations. The analysis shows an increase in intensity in 12.9% (between 11.7 and 13.9%) of stations globally and a drop in 9.8% (between 9 and 11.4%), while 77.3% of stations do not show significant trends.
These data substantially confirm those presented by Westra et al. [35], who analysed trends in global one-day maximum annual precipitation for the period 1900 to 2009 (110 years in all). The work, related to a total of 8326 ground stations that the researchers considered to be of “high quality”, led to the conclusion that about 2% of the stations show a decrease in extreme rainfall, 8% an increase and 90% has no trend.
Our review shows that while an increase in total annual precipitation is observed on a global level, an increase in extreme precipitation is observed for a limited number of stations and with strong regional differences.
Floods and droughts
About floods it can be said that although evidence of an increase in total annual precipitation is observed on a global level, corresponding evidence for increases in flooding remains elusive and a long list of studies shows little or no evidence of increased flood magnitudes, with some studies finding more evidence of decreases than increases.
The evidence of more flood events during the Little Ice Age is also confirmed by Wilhelm et al. [50], who examine floods in the Mediterranean French Alps over the past 1400 years and find that extreme rainfall and flooding are less common and less extreme during warm periods than in cold periods. More specifically, the authors find a low frequency of floods during the medieval warm period and more frequent and intense events during the little ice age.
In conclusion, although evidence of an increase in total annual precipitation is observed on a global level, this does not translate into an increase in intensity or frequency of floods. Similar conclusions seem to be reached by the draft of AR6 available today.
The IPPC in its AR5 [6] reports on page 44 that “conclusions regarding global drought trends increasing since the 1970s are no longer supported” and several studies indeed show no increase in the main indices regarding global drought.
In conclusion, we believe that there is no evidence that the areas affected by the different types of drought are increasing.
So there you have it. No real evidence of a climate crisis happening on a global scale. All we have are individual extreme weather event attribution studies which, as I, and others, have shown many times previously, are extremely dubious as regards ‘scientific evidence’ of a climate crisis, happening right now.
In summary, the authors conclude:
Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
So the authors make it abundantly clear that they are not climate change deniers even, just climate crisis deniers!
From the Guardian piece, it seems that the media is now not only actively engaged in psychological Nudging, but are open and even boastful that they are doing so. If they are doing this with climate issues, what other psyops on the people are they actively engaged in?