Any actor knows that the time to leave the stage is when the audience starts to laugh at him. With the latest ‘World on Fire’ show collapsing under the weight of fake statistics, crystal ball attributions, scientific deceptions, made-up estimates and Justin Rowlatt airlifted into heat-torn Alicante, it is surely time to pull down the curtain on this increasingly ridiculous show. When the audience sides start to split as the weather maps turn ‘Cerberus’ black, and heat records soar halfway up the tailpipes of Typhoon jets, it is perhaps dawning on the eco-extremists that they need to lift their game. As last week’s U.K. by-election in Uxbridge showed, a few electoral shifts might be all that is needed to wipe out their vision of a collectivist, all-controlling Net Zero Hades.
Running through all the hysterical reporting has been the outrageous use of fake estimates and statistics. Mainstream media were full of reports last week that temperatures would hit 48°C in southern Europe, a steer that seems to have come from the European Space Agency (ESA). It said that many countries were facing a major heatwave including Germany and Poland, while air temperatures were expected to climb to 48°C in Sicily and Sardinia – “potentially the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe”. The temperature in Sicily never went above 35°C, according to the Time and Date website that reports past weather from around the world.
But it turns out the ESA was pulling a fast one. It was not referring to the ‘air’ temperature, the standard measurement made two metres above the ground, but the actual temperature on the surface. This latter measurement of course is going to be many degrees higher. The climate science site No Tricks Zone noted: “By the time the ploy was exposed by careful readers, the news had already gone around the world.” Commenting on the affair, German’s Achtung Reichelt is reported to have called it “the most intense climate lie since temperature recording began”. Calling the ESA’s press release “sloppy and manipulative”, it charged that none of it was true.
The climate narrative is now all about individual ‘extreme’ weather, to the despair of many scientists who note climate change is a measurement of long-term trends. But long-term temperature trends do not tell the correct political story since little global warming has been evident for over two decades.
Meanwhile, Arctic surface sea ice waxes and wanes on a decadal basis, but the recent general recovery has been quietly dropped from the Net Zero-inspired narrative. While Europe and the United States explode with fire and brimstone heat, and the fish are sous-vide in the boiling oceans, sea ice in the Arctic continues with what appears to be a small cyclical recovery. According to the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), the latest summer daily melt was similar to the 1981-2010 average. At July 17th, the ice extent was the 12th lowest in the 44-year satellite record.
The climate investigator Tony Heller recently lifted the lid on the deceptions surrounding Arctic sea ice. “They bury all the older data [pre-1979] and pretend they don’t notice sea ice is increasing again,” he charged. A linear decrease in the end-summer ice extent since 1979 is widely promoted, but Heller points out the minimum is actually higher now than 10 and 15 years ago. Plotting the trend as a moving average shows that the decline in summer sea ice stopped a decade ago.
The Australian climate journalist Jo Nova recently referred to lies that were told by omission, suggesting that the whole climate movement was built on this “active deception”. Last year’s big omission was coral reefs, that have shown spectacular growth on the Great Barrier Reef of late. This year’s missing scare story is the Greenland ice sheet, where a significant, unreported recovery is in progress.
Almost halfway through the short summer, the accumulation of surface ice on Greenland is more than the 1981-2010 average and a big improvement on a decade ago. But the current improvement could be seen in a much better light. Why are the Danish Polar Portal compilers of the below graph using a 1981-2010 average, when data can be included up to 2020? The NSIDC uses a similar average comparison in its Arctic ice graphs. The Greenland ice sheet lost 51 gigatonnes a year in the 1980s and 1990s and 166gts in the 2000s. In the 2010s the loss was around 244gts, a fivefold increase since the 1980s. Obviously if a 1990-2020 average was shown – with a 50gts loss replaced by one of 244gts – it would amplify the recent recovery by raising the baseline. Last year, the Greenland ice sheet was reported to have lost just 50gts, an amount well within a margin of error that could suggest a small actual increase in the overall size.
When dealing with any statistics regarding climate change these days, it is good advice to start counting the spoons. It has always been an irritation to extremists that up to 10 times more people die of the cold than the heat. Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore recently displayed how the Lancet medical journal tried to come to the rescue, with the graph pictured on the left below.
To even up the score, with blue for cold and red for heat, the Lancet used an unequal y-axis – a technique so obviously misleading it is hard to understand how anyone could even think of using it. The graph on the right was produced by the Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, and it corrects the distorted Lancet image. Dr. Moore tweeted: “This is disgraceful for a supposedly scientific journal.”
It seems that the biggest risk of dying in the current British summer – 19°C and showery at time of writing – is to die laughing.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I don’t know who the lady is in the first picture but I bet those glasses she is wearing are top quality frames and lenses made with precision machines. That haircut looks expensive too, done with top quality scissors. I don’t know much about the manufacture of cosmetics other than they do get manufactured. She is not smeared in whatever people used to put on their faces before cosmetics, or wearing an animal skin or leaves or whatever. Don’t know about her state of health but bet she’s had scans from high-tech machines.
That is absolutely the first thing that came into my mind – they look like pretty high end glasses, but presumably even low end glasses cannot be produced under “deindustrialised” conditions, she is also wearing a printed top that looks suspiciously industrially produced as well, has a nice haircut like you say (under her future plans, presumably it would have to be grown long or hacked at roughly with a flint knife); and I am willing to bet ten squillion pounds that she currently has more than 50 square metres of space to call home. These people should be forced to live as they are advocating for several years with no exceptions (if she gets ill, for example, she can’t take industrially produced medicines – a bit of herbal medicine is all that’s permitted) then see how they like it. Although doubtless some of them WOULD like it, of course.
Absolutely. You can bet that when she envisages the glorious future, she doesn’t imagine she will live in a mud hut, scavenging and foraging for survival. Oh, no, she will be part of the elite, shielded from these uncomfortable conditions, but of course that’s the least she deserves for sacrificing her life for the salvation of mankind (oops, sorry, humankind).
Oh yes there will be exceptions of course, for the important rulers. Just like we are seeing already, when they tell us to stop flying cattle class once a year for a nice holiday but insist that they need to take private jets everywhere for “security” or “timetabling” reasons.
I wonder if any of them have ever set out exactly how they see this working. Would love to see it – hard to think that is would be in any way plausible or coherent. You can focus what you put effort into in order to prioritise what you feel is of most value (THEY decide this, of course) but you can’t turn the clock back across the board without huge knock on effects that they are unlikely to feel happy with if affected personally.
I think the really scary bit is they may actually believe what they say…
I find it hard to fathom. I would like to have a serious discussion with someone like her, but my experiences trying to have such discussions with covidians were fruitless – they won’t engage – and I suspect ecoloons would be the same.
Bye bye radio and chemo therapy, x-rays, scans of any sort and any types of joint replacement. Welcome to a painful old age.
This would suit them (as long as it only applied to other people of course) as an easy way to ensure depopulation (of other people).
Without the fossil fuels industry modern make-up would not exist. The ladies would be back to sticks of charcoal, gravy browning and white lead.
Indeed. It’s hard to imagine they actually believe this crap. It’s probably as MajorMajor says above – they don’t think it applies to them. Trouble is that a lot of modern comforts are only really viable if made at scale for a mass market.
“Green intellectual” now there’s a contradiction in terms!
‘Demanding, via political fiat, that your automobile industry begin producing a totally different product in the course of the next decade, is not all that different from abolishing your automobile industry.’
The genius of the self licking lollipop.
This doesn’t end well.
Wars never do.
The genius of the self licking lollipop.
A superb summary.
‘Green Intellectual’ is an oxymoron.
These people are actively destroying society with an insatiable callousness. They are absolute monsters. But who is promoting them, who is always providing them a public platform and why?
All western societies are going down the same road to hell and they are all doing their utmost to drag the rest of the world down with them too.
Emphasis on ‘moron’.
‘Intellectual’….a person who can’t plant a flower, fix a roof, or unfold a folded box.
Useless.
Maybe this tard can lead by example.
Everything made with hydrocarbons – leave them, strip them off, run naked to the woods and survive with Gaia.
Problem solved.
All revolutions are sponsored by powerful individuals. Are these people their useful idiots?
The collective death-wish is strong with these people.
Aren’t these ideas just a little bit similar to Pol Pot’s?
State ownership, rationing, abolishing money, restrictions on property, etc, etc…
So my suspicion is that this is just another educated intellectual who has fallen in love with the idea of communism, except this time the liberation of the masses will be done for environmental reasons.
The outcome would of course be the same.
Aren’t these ideas just a little bit similar to Pol Pot’s?
Pol-Pot – preceded by Mao, preceded by Lenin. For example: in 1921, after four years of Lenin’s government, the Russian economy was less than 20% what is was in 1913.
Exactly.
The end result of all these ideas is always, always the same. Totalitarianism, political terror, mass starvation, forced labour camps.
And the madleft tell us that they are the wise ones!
You need to move up the food chain to find the real psychopaths.
Yes, after murdering all the oil well owners in Baku – except for Alfred Nobel’s brother who was saved by his workers – oil exports slumped so Lenin was forced to beg the western oil companies to step in to revive production and income.
The whole of the green eco lunacy industry is based on the Club of Rome 1972 statement – mankind is the virus and climate (Co2) is the means to control that virus.
All about depopulation and control.
On what basis, and on who’s say so, is she an intellectual? Really?
No, she is an intellectual in the sense that she is well educated, articulate and intelligent.
The problem is that this is not enough.
Lenin was also extremely well educated too. But their educated mind has been captured by a fundamentally evil idea.
Perhaps the way to look at it is to view them as high priests of an evil cult. You can’t be a high priest if you are dumb, certain human qualities are necessary. But the cult you are serving is still evil.
Or, another way to understand is: the devil is not stupid.
No, she is an intellectual in the sense that she is well educated, articulate and intelligent.
Let’s see:
The central elements of the economy would have to be rationed. First of all, living space, because cement emits endless amounts of CO2. Actually, new construction would have to be banned outright and living space rationed to 50 square metres per capita. That should actually be enough for everyone. Then meat would have to be rationed, because meat production emits enormous amounts of CO2.
Assuming the translation is accurate, these are two factually dubious statements even when considering climate politics standards. The reason we’re supposed to decarbonise energy generation first and foremost is not that most of the CO₂ emitted as side-effect of economic activities comes really from construction and husbandry. The repetiveness (emits endless amounts of CO₂ … emits enormous amounts of CO₂) is very poor style people who had any (German) education worth anything would have been taught to avoid. The hysterical tone is a sign of someone getting carried away by his own emotions, another mark of the poorly educated who never learnt how to structure their thoughts instead of just letting them rush on like a waterfall.
This person who self-identifies as human being despite not everyone will want to agree with that is certainly neither well-educated nor intelligent nor articulate. Just another post-menopausal green autocunt who excellently networks in her chosen social environment and has no skills beyond that. Narcisstic, shallow, domineering and with an almost psychopathic lack of empathy for others.
Your final paragraph sums up Kneel to a tee.
They’re probably lab-grown somewhere.
How deranged do you have to be to count as an intellectual these days
“Leading green intellectual.”
The epitome of an oxymoron.
The fannification of the workplace continues at pace.
With predictably disastrous results.
We all look back prior to 1989 at the truly awful life East Germans, Russians etc had before the Berlin Wall came down. But what emerged was an even bigger communist monster called GREEN. It hijacked the environment for its purpose and has brainwashed the last couple of generations of young people who truly believe that without massive government intervention, central planning of every aspect of people’s lives that billions of people will die in a climate apocalypse and that all scientists agree this to be so. Young people so easily manipulated now clamour for their own impoverishment then head off home with their placards to their cosy house, laptop, fridge, satellite television, all courtesy of the very fuels they think they want rid of, without realising that without those fuels they would be back in the Stoneage, where no doubt they would have something different on their placards. —–“WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF STONES”.
Well their plan to destroy Germany is working very well. Manufacturing is heading for the exit if it hasn’t gone bankrupt. Retail chains are closing down. Construction is in a total mess. Inward investment is cratering. Educated people are leaving in droves. And of course those with wealth will be gone as there are plenty of other countries that will welcome their contribution to the economy – obviously not the UK of Two Tier and Thieves.
Ulrike Herrmann is seriously deranged, and her (honest) supporters are seriously deluded. Her dishonest supporters will be figuring out how they can gain from this madness. The rest of us must resist these people, all of them.
Basically she wants a society like pre-WW1 Russia …. peasant farmers, tied to the land.
Or post WW1 under Stalin.
The trouble with 50 square metres per person is that residential properties rarely approach this now. They are either too big or too small. Unless you have a rebuilding program of 50 square metres dwellings and compel people to move as their life circumstances change, the provision of these dwellings means pulling down what already exists and building new. Even with low environmental cost building that’s a huge environmental cost for very little environmental gain.
Lunacy.
I think you’re underestimating the unorginality and callousness of this far/ hard left columnist revolutionary: 50m² is the limit of what the German welfare state will pay for for people who are long-term unemployed or otherwise dependent on it¹ which is doubtlessly where she got the number from. Why would any of these … excess human beings deserve more than that?
¹ About 50% of the people permanently living off welfare in Germany are “refugees” and other unemployable/ not-looking-for-work foreigners.
Ulrike Herrmann is a leading Green intellectual? Well, she’s certainly not clever. Her opinions would have been kept more discreet if she had written them in her books rather than allow herself to be filmed/recorded spouting this drivel. At least in her book people would have to read past the first page to find these ideas – which would filter out all but the most afflicted insomniac.
These people have to be stopped by any means necessary, and I mean ‘any’.
Surely you don’t mean… ridicule?
Soapbox, ballot box, jury box…
Greens – Reds who Hate the Countryside
“…as long as we continue to screw up our economy, they’re the only ones who are really winning.”
Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples in history where it’s not good to be on the receiving end of large groups of poor, hungry and angry people. What is also not good is when those poor and hungry people know who made them poor and hungry because the architects of this poverty have been loudly telling the world everything they are doing and want to do.
Well finally the lunatics are spewing their rhetoric forth, all part of the WEF/WHO’s plans, and we are called “right wing” for opposing this, One can only assume this only applys to us “lower” classes, and not the “elite”, she needs help from professionals clearly if she believes this really will happen.
How can we argue against these people ,or better still stop them gaining more ground?.
These people take the veritable biscuit. They lack basic education on economics, powers of imagination and critical thought. They think they will save the planet but such policies mean the end of civilisation, bedlam and scorched earth with no trees standing and just about every living thing eaten by those not killed by their fellow younger and stronger fellow human beings (they, like most of us, forget that dying at the hands of other humans is a perfectly natural death).
This woman originally started in apprenticeship in banking she then broke off to get degrees in philosophy and history. She is obviously lacking education, but not for want of opportunities, more, because she’s naturally immune to learning beyond the biannual exercises in rote memorization students usually apply to get past the next round of tests.
Since this happened a long time ago, her mind has meanwhile again broken free of any factual knowledge inadvertenty gained in this way and reverted back to the excitable female teenager she never meant to stop being.
Surely “green intellectual” is an oxymoron?