I have a good one, read an article the other day that three back to back El Nina’s and the floods etc in Australia was caused by all the smoke from our bushfires New Year’s Eve fires at the end of 2019, early 2021. Seriously !
Strange coincidence. Somebody else just mentioned this too. It's laughable isn't it? Of course, the bushfires were caused by 'climate change' (TM) so that means the triple dip La Nina was also caused by climate change. They're trying to eradicate natural weather completely it would seem.
This focus on blaming extreme weather on climate change is becoming increasingly frequent by meteorologists. Because they have nothing else - multiple evidence that the planet has been much warmer is the recent and distant past. And that late 20th / early 21st Century temps are no higher than they were in the 1930s. Also their own global surface station datasets are not showing any warming since 2016, so that's another hiatus of nearly 8 years now, despite ever increasing CO2 emissions from Asia.
It's not so much meteorologists, it's the climastrologists, intent upon convincing the public that extreme weather events are evidence of a non existent 'climate crisis'. They use fake attribution science and a complicit media in order to do so. They need to be shut down. They are peddling pseudoscience.
Yes but I have noticed the Met Office, and BBC weather guys both pushing the extreme weather agenda in recent weeks - many tweets and reports about Spain being hot, Richard Betts on twittter saying extreme rainfall in Exexter yesterday is conequence of climate change. Though Richard is a climageddonist embedded in the MO.
Betts spouting off on Twitter as usual. It's a pity I'm not there to challenge him on this crap. Probably why they won't let me back on. He shows a graph of one day extreme rainfall and says this is a 'clear signal of climate change'. But the Ed Hawkins paper he cites in defence of this shows that there is NO or even NEGATIVE (drying) signal to noise ratio of extreme daily rainfall in the West Country, which kind of deflates his claim that the current heavy rains there are due to climate change! He's such a clown.
We hear all the time in finance that "Company X failed to meet analysts' forecasts". The same appears to be happening now in meteorology. Perhaps it's time to fire the analysts?
Having cast a cursory glance over "Anthropogenic Contributions to the 2021 Pacific Northwest Heatwave" with its Bayesian expectations and χ2 goodness-of-fit tests my first response was that it is a fine example of Mark Twain's comment that "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".
I'm not really qualified in statistics, so hesitate to comment. But I can identify glaringly bad statistical methods when I see them. The paper noted uses statistical methods to counter the extremely poor statistical methods used in the WWA attribution study - which I pointed out when it was first published. The authors are not alone in condemning that WWA attribution study however.
They are claiming the smoke from the fires a year befor la Ninar caused the La Niña’s - gee that smoke must hang around for a long time
I have a good one, read an article the other day that three back to back El Nina’s and the floods etc in Australia was caused by all the smoke from our bushfires New Year’s Eve fires at the end of 2019, early 2021. Seriously !
Strange coincidence. Somebody else just mentioned this too. It's laughable isn't it? Of course, the bushfires were caused by 'climate change' (TM) so that means the triple dip La Nina was also caused by climate change. They're trying to eradicate natural weather completely it would seem.
This focus on blaming extreme weather on climate change is becoming increasingly frequent by meteorologists. Because they have nothing else - multiple evidence that the planet has been much warmer is the recent and distant past. And that late 20th / early 21st Century temps are no higher than they were in the 1930s. Also their own global surface station datasets are not showing any warming since 2016, so that's another hiatus of nearly 8 years now, despite ever increasing CO2 emissions from Asia.
It's not so much meteorologists, it's the climastrologists, intent upon convincing the public that extreme weather events are evidence of a non existent 'climate crisis'. They use fake attribution science and a complicit media in order to do so. They need to be shut down. They are peddling pseudoscience.
Yes but I have noticed the Met Office, and BBC weather guys both pushing the extreme weather agenda in recent weeks - many tweets and reports about Spain being hot, Richard Betts on twittter saying extreme rainfall in Exexter yesterday is conequence of climate change. Though Richard is a climageddonist embedded in the MO.
Betts spouting off on Twitter as usual. It's a pity I'm not there to challenge him on this crap. Probably why they won't let me back on. He shows a graph of one day extreme rainfall and says this is a 'clear signal of climate change'. But the Ed Hawkins paper he cites in defence of this shows that there is NO or even NEGATIVE (drying) signal to noise ratio of extreme daily rainfall in the West Country, which kind of deflates his claim that the current heavy rains there are due to climate change! He's such a clown.
But thanks for this notification. I'll see if I can get the time to write a quick post.
We hear all the time in finance that "Company X failed to meet analysts' forecasts". The same appears to be happening now in meteorology. Perhaps it's time to fire the analysts?
I see.
Having cast a cursory glance over "Anthropogenic Contributions to the 2021 Pacific Northwest Heatwave" with its Bayesian expectations and χ2 goodness-of-fit tests my first response was that it is a fine example of Mark Twain's comment that "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".
My second response was less charitable.
I'm not really qualified in statistics, so hesitate to comment. But I can identify glaringly bad statistical methods when I see them. The paper noted uses statistical methods to counter the extremely poor statistical methods used in the WWA attribution study - which I pointed out when it was first published. The authors are not alone in condemning that WWA attribution study however.
Wow. I am ever amazed by the faux "science!"