Prophets of climate doom have serious credibility problem

William O'Keefe:
Those like Roger Pielke who attempted to shed objective light on the subject of weather extremes were pilloried and dismissed as tools of industry. What was Pielke’s crime? He separated weather from economic impacts showing that claims of growing economic losses were the result of a richer world not a worsening climate. Because we are wealthier, people build more in coastal areas so that when there is a hurricane the damage is greater than before the development. Advocates, many drawing on their scientific credentials, simply adopted the mantra, “The American public can’t miss the extreme weather because it is everywhere now and increasingly off the charts.”

Now the Journal of Geography and Natural Disasters has published a peer reviewed article that concluded, “It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the 1st half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half. I have not found any data … that contradicts these trends. Furthermore there are no signs of this trend changing… . The lack of public, political and policymaker appreciation of the disconnect between empirical data and theoretical constructs is profoundly worrying, especially in terms of policy advice being given.”
The doomsayers have so much trouble explaining the discrepancy between projections and reality that some of them want to make apostasy to their beliefs a crime.   One of their most fundamental problems is an inability to explain which of their assumptions was invalid in making their projections.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Another fraudulent claim by the Mueller team

The Russian collusion hoax looks dead after Mueller shows his hand