Last June, the state-reliant BBC reported that human-caused climate change had made U.S. and Mexico heatwaves “35 times more likely”. Nothing out of the ordinary here in mainstream media with everyone from climate comedy turn ‘Jim’ Dale to UN chief Antonio ‘Boiling’ Guterres making these types of bizarre attributions. But for those who closely follow climate science and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “such headlines can be difficult to make sense of”, observes the distinguished science writer Roger Pielke. In a hard-hitting attack on the pseudo-scientific industry of weather attribution, he states: “neither the IPCC nor the underlying scientific literature comes anywhere close to making such strong and certain claims of attribution”.
Pielke argues that the extreme position of attributing individual bad weather events is “roughly aligned” with the far Left. “Climate science is not, or at least should not serve as a proxy for political tribes,” he cautions. But of course it is. The Net Zero fantasy is a collectivist national and supra-national agenda that increasingly relies on demonising bad weather. With global temperatures rising at most only 0.1°C a decade, laughter can only be general and side-splitting when IPCC boss Jim Skea claims that British summers will be 6°C hotter in less than 50 years. Two extended temperature pauses since 2000 have not helped the cause of global boiling. In addition there are increasing doubts about the reliability of temperature recordings by many meteorological organisations that seem unable to properly account for massive urban heat corruptions.
The big problem for ‘far Left’ climate extremists is that event attribution is a form, in Pielke’s words, of “tactical science”. Such science serves legal and political ends and is not always subject to peer review. As the BBC and other media outlets can attest, the work is “generally promoted via press release”. It has been developed in response to the failure of the IPCC to detect and attribute most types of extreme weather including drought, flooding, storms and wildfires to human involvement, notes Pielke. Worse, the IPCC can find little sign of human involvement going forward to 2100.
Scientists cannot answer directly whether particular events are caused by climate change since extremes occur naturally. Meanwhile the IPCC is somewhat dismissive about weather attribution, or as Pielke terms it, “weather attribution alchemy”. It notes: “The usefulness or applicability of available extreme event attribution methods for assessing climate-related risks remains subject to debate.” The IPCC is a biased body full of climate alarmists, but its inability to attribute single events to humans is obviously highly irritating and somewhat inconvenient for activists and their media counterparts.
Dr. Friederike Otto runs World Weather Attribution (WWA) out of Imperial College London and is a frequent presence on the BBC. WWA is behind many of the immediate attributions of bad weather to human causes and its motives are clear. As Dr. Otto has noted: “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.” Otto is clear that the main function of such studies, part-funded by Net Zero-supporting billionaires and heavily pushed by aligned mainstream media, is to support lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. She explains this strategy in detail in the interview, ‘From Extreme Event Attribution to Climate Litigation‘.
The inability of the IPCC to attribute bad weather to humans has been viewed by climate advocates as “politically problematic”, continues Pielke. He notes the work of climate activists Elizabeth Lloyd and Naomi Oreskes who are worried that the lack of attribution “conveys the impression that we just do not know, which feeds into uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness, and the general tendency of humans to discount threats that are not imminent”.
Perish the thought that there should be uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness in the settled world of climate science. It is of course different from all other branches of science in that all its opinions are right and consequently there is no need for the unhelpful process of constant inquiry and experiment. It need hardly be added that no doubt exists at the BBC, where former Radio 4 Today Editor Sarah Sands wrote the foreword to a WWA guide for journalists. Recalling when the late Nigel Lawson suggested there had been no increase in extreme weather, Sands noted: “I wish we had this guide for journalists to help us mount a more effective challenge to his claim.” These days, Sands enthused, attribution studies have given us “significant insight into the horsemen of the climate apocalypse”.
For her part, Otto is keen to crack down on the heretics. She was at the forefront of the recent notorious retraction of a paper in a Springer Nature journal that stated there was no evidence that the climate was breaking down. Written by four Italian scientists and led by Professor Gianluca Alimonti, they argued that a climate emergency was not supported by the data. Otto, who had previously worked in the Oxford School of Geography for 10 years, claimed the scientists were not writing in good faith. “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly saying it should never have been published,” she demanded.
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.
Well when you take a vaccine that is programs your cells to create the toxin created by a virus throughout your body with very little control this will happen…
These days I wonder what a virus is because the last time I checked coronaviruses were pretty harmless common colds and now we have a killer pandemic from one?
Oh thats right, its all a lie and they are making it up as they go along…
The truth will come out when the seasonality of coronaviruses kicks in over the winter months. If we’ve already gone from 99% to 77%, I think we’re in for a rude awakening as it begins to dawn on people that the vaccination drive has not been nearly as effective as made out.
Who knows, maybe there’ll also be a new found appreciation that 99% of people are completely fine after being infected anyway and we have to move on…we’ve got 3 people off work just now with symptoms of a runny nose for pete’s sake!!!!
It would be interesting to compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated for hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and deaths for ANY reason, not just “covid” (ie a positive pcr test result). I suspect a much less favourable picture might emerge. Is it just me, or do there seem to be a whole lot of (vaccinated) people ill with a wide range of health issues at present?
Yes! That’s exactly what I’m seeing, but they are all absolutely vehement that it has nothing to do with the experimental unlicensed drug they just had injected into them
Since the beginning of this year, among my vaccinated acquaintances and friends there has been one death from a stroke, one minor stroke, one major bleeding episode, one person diagnosed with fibrosis of the lungs who was perfectly healthy last year, one person, single jabbed, who had high numbers of inflammation markers in her blood which three courses of antibiotics failed to shift and several people “testing positive” for Coronavirus.
Am I being overly suspicious?
I’m a bit worried about spike protein shed myself (though I heard pine needle tea can help), and T worry that “vaccines” and NPI’s could create the conditions for worse variants. I wonder how things are going in South Dakota – and Belarus (even if they are threatening to invade the Baltic states).
yes
The Israeli data confirms all cardiac anecdotal evidence.
I suspect that we will now live in an era of generally very poor health, with the cult members adamant that it has nothing to do with the vaccination or boosters they keep having. This is going to get very interesting, and I still believe they will somehow blame us lot for it all!
Not just you.
We really need to see figures for vaxxed and unvaxxed in fairly narrow age bands, with information about their state of health, what else they were ill with. I’m sure we never will. The government are not in the slightest bit interested in vaccine efficacy, or any other covid related data.
Now surely “our” NHS” wouldn’t cover it up, would they?
I don’t like the sound of this.
Microchips for September? Because drugs, vaccines and the mark of the beast are the way out of this (or not)…
Hotel California springs to mind.
And I ask again, what do scientists independent of pharmaceutical companies and their proxies have to say about the vaccines?
Is this the ventilator treatment that Doctors stopped using in the US because they discovered its use was lethal to the patients in some instances?
My experience at the moment is that pretty much all of the vaccinated people I know are all getting sick with covid! Which is privately very amusing as they are all committed Guardian reading covid cult members.I just had covid, as an unvaccinated persons, and suffered four days of very mild sniffles! They simply don’t work!!
Antibody Dependent Enhancement, anyone?
Guardian readers? Maybe they don’t like work…
Give me an “A”
Give me a “D”
Give me an “E”
What’s that spell?
Content that’s banned from social media!
The good news at least for team apocalypse is that at least now they will get the “dark winter” they were pining for. Yeah Team Apocalypse!
Woooooo! Oh my god.
My missus and I were double vaccinated in May (alright, stop shouting at me!). Three weeks ago she had summer cold symptoms and tested positive. Probably the very transmissible Delta variant, so transmissible that I didn’t get it!
I had a very very mild dose back in March 2020 which has probably served me better than artificial jabs.
So the point of the vaccine, sorry, experimental gene therapy, is what exactly?
I’ve said it before, but the point of the “vaccine” is
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A coup d’etat, without people even realising. The perfect crime?
You can NEVER drug/jab a body back to health. Medicine is meant as a support while you heal.
The figures show that old people die.
We simply cannot allow that to happen! (….I’m old’ish)
That’s good news isn’t it? The 3rd shot might not cause blood clots.. but may cause infertility, autoimmune disease, heart damage and early death.. I expect by the 6th or 7th shot you actually become younger and you develop superhero powers.
The 8th shot may undo all the mistakes you have made in life.. by the 9th shot you are a millionaire, by the 10th shot you own your own home and your children are perfect. By the 11th shot your mother and father are rich and you are at Eton, with not an original or sensible or decent thought in your head, ready to run the country into the ground because ‘save the planet’…
By the 12th shot, you live as long as a greenland shark.
Are they the ones who got mistaken for the Loch Ness Monster?
maybe.. they live perhaps to be 500… cold temperatures and slow metabolisms are good for health it seems.. that and sharks are some 400 million years old, surviving whatever killed the dinosaurs.. their immune systems are such that they don’t seem to suffer much illness.. bats on the other hand also don’t suffer much illness, yet apparently they harbour lots and lots of viruses.. despite a high metabolism and body temperature their immune system doesn’t go cytokine crazy.. some species can live 30 odd years.. with very little illness..
Bow whales possibly reach 300 plus years… again, well developed immune system that has developed over 50 million years.. good thermoregulation, slow metabolism.. less wear and tear…
I expect they’ll miss the 13th and go straight for 14th – just in case…
“This phenomenon warrants further investigation.” Well, I never! What a surprise! How about buying an old banger from the guy down the road, and relying on it to get along? A similar level of trust, perhaps.
You jest, but I know many, many people who have bought cars on the basis of a promise of reliability. I try to point out that such a promise is meaningless, since you cannot buy a car that WIL BE reliable since no one knows what will happen to it tomorrow, you can only buy a car that HAS BEEN reliable, but surprise surprise, they prefer the comfort of the meaningless promise…
Did anyone else notice the headline in the Telegraph a few days ago – cardiac events at home surge by over 30%. They were blaming lockdowns but it put me in mind of something else…