October 28, 2026

Why Climate Alarmism is Wrong


This comes from Anthony Watts courtesy of American Thinker:

For decades, Americans have been bombarded with frightening predictions about global warming, now more commonly called "climate change.” We have been warned of disappearing islands, starving polar bears, unprecedented hurricanes, collapsing food supplies, and a planet supposedly approaching catastrophe.

Scientists have issued warnings, politicians have repeated them, and the news media have amplified them. Rarely does a major weather event occur today without someone suggesting that climate change has made it worse.

But after decades of predictions, we have something more valuable than alarming computer projections: actual observations. Newsflash: those observations provide considerable reason for optimism about our future.

Consider the evidence assembled in Climate at a Glance, a collection of more than 50 climate topics drawing on data from organizations including NOAA, NASA, the EPA, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The picture painted from actual data is considerably more encouraging than the nightly news would have you believe.

Extreme weather: The missing catastrophe.

The extraordinary decline in weather-related deaths is a lesson that flies in the face of worst-case predictions.

We are repeatedly told that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are becoming unprecedented disasters.

Yet global hurricane records do not show a clear long-term increase in the total number of tropical cyclones. NOAA records also show that the most violent U.S. tornadoes have not exhibited the relentless upward trend suggested by sensational headlines.

The IPCC acknowledges substantial uncertainty about long-term trends in several categories of extreme weather, including tornadoes and flooding.

There are important exceptions. Heavy precipitation has increased in many regions, and heat extremes have become more frequent globally. But the evidence does not justify treating every destructive storm as proof of an accelerating planetary emergency

Weather has always been dangerous. What has changed dramatically is our ability to survive it. Perhaps the most reassuring climate statistic receives remarkably little attention.

global warmingDeaths from weather-related disasters have fallen by more than 99 percent over the past century, according to historical disaster data discussed in Climate at a Glance.

Better forecasting, stronger buildings, modern transportation, improved sanitation, and emergency communications have transformed humanity's ability to withstand nature.

Even as populations have grown and development has expanded, the risk of dying in a weather disaster has declined enormously. This demonstrates something essential: Human adaptation works.

Another surprise: A greener planet and more abundant food.

Remember the warnings that global warming would devastate agriculture and produce widespread food shortages? The actual record is considerably more encouraging.

Global crop yields have increased dramatically over recent decades. Rice, wheat, and corn production have repeatedly reached record levels. Modern agricultural technology deserves much of the credit, but rising atmospheric carbon dioxide also contributes to plant growth.

NASA satellite observations have documented substantial global greening, with increased carbon dioxide identified as an important contributor. Plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. That elementary biological fact sometimes seems to disappear from discussions portraying CO2 exclusively as a pollutant.

Of course, agriculture still faces drought, flooding, pests, and heat stress. Yet the evidence of improving productivity deserves at least as much attention as speculative forecasts of agricultural collapse.

What happened to the disappearing islands and polar bears?

For years, the public heard predictions that low-lying Pacific islands would disappear beneath rising seas. Yet research has found that many coral atolls have remained stable or increased in land area as sediments shift and accumulate.

That does not eliminate the challenges of rising sea levels, especially saltwater intrusion and flooding. What it does demonstrate is that island geography is more complicated than the familiar image of entire nations simply slipping underwater.

Polar bears provide another instructive example. Despite decades of alarming imagery, the widely predicted population collapse has not occurred.

Here’s the biggest surprise: the worst-case climate models have been withdrawn.

Computer models can be useful scientific tools, but their results depend heavily on assumptions about emissions, climate sensitivity, and future economic development. One particularly troubling example is RCP 8.5, a very-high-emissions scenario frequently used to illustrate effects of extreme future warming. Its plausibility as a realistic future has been strongly challenged, and it has subsequently been withdrawn from scientific use.

RCP 8.5 became the climate establishment’s favorite tool because it generated the most frightening headlines, not because it reflected realistic energy or economic trends. For years, policymakers, media outlets, and activists treated this extreme scenario as business as usual, even though it assumed wildly unrealistic coal consumption, stagnant technological progress, and population trajectories detached from observed reality.

Read the rest here

I think Anthony went a little too gentle here; there are other things that make the climatechange hysteria moot that he does not mention. For instance:

1. The Earth's rotation has increased. This is at odds with the climate models which say it should have decreased because meltwater from the poles would bunch around the equator (a basic scientific principle) and this would slow the rotation down. Instead it increased, which suggests more ice at the poles. Imagine a figure skater doing a spin. What does she do? She scrounges herself tight, puts her arms above her head and spins away. Long and narrow spins much better than short and stout. Yet the Earth is acting long and narrow. It's as if polar ice has increased.

2. That's because polar ice has increased. Greenland gained a small amount of ice this year and Antarctica has been gaining ice for decades now, everywhere except the sea ice in West Antarctica (which interestingly has numerous undersea volcanoes) and at the Antarctic Peninsula (I lilked when it was the Palmer Peninsula) which is also highly volcanic.and also juts out enough to pick up some warmth from the subantarctic. But the big East Antarctic ice sheet (EAIS) has been getting fatter and fatter.

3. Cloud cover has been dropping off despite claims the planet is warming and sea water is thus evaporating into the atmosphere. Water makes clouds. Of course you have to have stuff around which clouds can form - aerosols - of which we seem to have a dearth thanks to pollution control, but also this speaks to other aerosols, like those dust from dust storms in places like Africa and also from wild fires, both of which are fewer and farther between now thanks to human efforts to control both. Contrary to popular belief wildfires are NOT worse than before, and in the First World are mostly caused by attempts to restore forests to their "natural state" which means fires. Fire is nature's way of clearing the deadwood.

4. Precipitation has risen slightly worldwide, but only slightly and it should have risen a LOT since warming should be evaporating a lot more water.

5. There is the matter of the "missing heat". The planet has not warmed as much as models predicted it would, and so climatologists have been looking for this "missing heat" which they are convinced is down in the deep oceans. Only they can't find it; they can find SOME missing heat but not all of it and they refuse to believe it isn't there. So they send down Argo probes and are forever looking. They've looked under the couch, in the dresser, etc.

6. They cannot explain the two pauses in temperature rise in the 21st century, both of which do not comport with climate models.

7. They cannot find the tropical tropospheric hot spot. They find some warming but nothing like what they predicted. The models say most of the heat should be bunched up in the tropics, near the "tropopause" the top of the troposphere. It isn't.

8. Drownings have been declining worldwide for decades, even while there is a claim that weather is more extreme. This does not fit. Yes, we are better at stopping it now, but not that much; kids still take risks and you can't fix stupid. But if the weather were getting worse more people would be drowning, they aren't. This comports with Watts' statement about fewer major weather events.

9. The increase in damage from weather events is clearly a coefficient of people building in places they didn't used to build, in flood plains, on seashores with unpredictable tidal events, etc. There is a big resort town just north of St. Louis on the Mississippi River I used to go to a lot. It was an old, old town that was always cool but had little in the way of businesses and the like because it flooded every two years. After the Great Flood of 1993 (and the follow up in '95) the government bailed the community out and an explosion of building ensued. It is now a major resort town, with a huge marina, all sorts of businesses on the main drag, dining, lodging, and condos. But it still floods every two years. The Reubel Hotel sits on the river side of the main drag and gets flooded regularly but they keep rebuilding, no doubt because the government guarantees them. That is what is happening to increase weather-related costs. (BTW since the Great Flood flooding has dropped off; why is that if the climate is getting worse?)

These are just a few items not touched on by Dr. Watts (I feel free to mention them where Watts does not because I am just a blogger and he doesn't want a big fight with other specialists). He also does not touch on the uncertainty of the temperature data - something HE illustrated by doing a survey of the surface data stations and showing how badly corrupted said data truly is and how most of this is estimated and not actual data.

The fact is the models do not comport with what is happening in nature, and when it comes to a dispute between nature and scientific models the models should lose. But there is too much money and power on the line to simply dismiss AGW theory as incorrect, so they keep plugging away at it hoping to fundamentally transform our society into the world socialist utopia. It's just a way of backdooring the dream society of the Elitists and the Left.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1694 words, total size 12 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




33kb generated in CPU 0.012, elapsed 0.2149 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2072 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
America First News
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Blaze News
Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Center for Immigration Studies
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Citizens Free Press
>Climatescepticsparty> Daily Caller News Foundation
Conservative Angle
Conservative Treehouse
Daren Jonescu
The Daily Fetched
Dana and Martha Music Discern Report
From the Heart Music
On my Mind Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Just the Facts
Infidel Bloggers Alliance
J.D. Rucker
Jo Nova
Lifezette
Let .the Truth be Told
Newsmax
Not the Bee
No Tricks Zone
>Numbers Watch
OANN
Real Climate Science
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Western Journalism
Science Daily
Science Tech Daily
>Selwyn Duke
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at timbirdnow@aol.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 373882
  • Files: 26592
  • Bytes: 9.9G
  • CPU Time: 506:24
  • Queries: 13083309

Content

  • Posts: 33867
  • Comments: 135180

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0