In keeping with the sound methodology of looking at the big picture, a recent paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation checks the British Environment Ministry's claims, based largely on climate models, that global warming is causing more extreme weather. And guess what? Using long term weather data from the British Met Office the GWPF paper finds that “although the UK is, on average, slightly warmer than it used to be, there is no evidence that weather has become more extreme.” Oh dear, the government's warnings are contradicted by the government's data. Whom to believe?
Global warming alarmists enjoy wrapping themselves in the mantle of science, claiming that they believe in “evidence-based decision-making” as opposed to those know-nothing close-minded anti-science deniers little better than Flat Earthers. But when it comes to the supposed link between a warming planet and increases in extreme weather, including new New Brunswick Liberal leader Kevin Vickers saying climate-related storms have cost his province $100 million in the last six years, it is astonishing how rarely the alarmists actually look at the data. We are not given to conspiracy theories or calling people liars. But activists, elected officials and the media are evidently so confident in their dogma that they simply don’t look at readily available evidence, going back decades and in some cases a century or more, and discover that it simply doesn’t support their claims, and adjust their words or ideas accordingly.
Bluntly, the data says there aren’t more hurricanes, fires or famines. And despite what non-scientists often say about science, actual scientists including those concerned about man-made climate change rarely claim the evidence says there are. The IPCC itself has examined the matter and said there aren’t. Yet politicians and journalists continue to yell about it like know-nothing, closed-minded… well, you know. And the scientists who do talk about increases in extreme weather are looking into their computer models not out their windows or into archives.
The GWPF's study is noteworthy in part because it contrasts, not the utterances of scientists against non-scientists, but scientists in one corridor of government against scientists the next corridor over. They note:
Bad weather events are now routinely linked to climate change, usually with the proviso that climate change makes them more likely or more severe... But what do the facts actually tell us about what is happening in the UK?
You can guess the answer (though it's still worth reading the report). The scientists who spend their days looking at models have declared the UK climate is getting more and more extreme due to climate change. The scientists who put together the big data sets say... well they don't say anything, they just put together the data sets. So it falls to groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation to make the tables and draw the charts so people can see that reality does not favour the alarmists.
Here's how the climate consensus was formed:
(i) Experts in hurricanes say that hurricane intensity and frequency has not changed due to climate change; but they nevertheless believe the hype about the increasing dangers of flooding, sea-level rise, fires, droughts, etc.
(ii) Experts in flooding say that flooding intensity and frequency has not changed due to climate change; but they nevertheless believe the hype about the increasing dangers of hurricanes, sea-level rise, fires, droughts, etc.
(iii) Experts in sea-level rise say that the oceans aren't rising faster than they usually do due to climate change; but they nevertheless believe the hype about the increasing dangers of hurricanes, flooding, fires, droughts, etc.
(iv) Experts in forest fires say that fire intensity and frequency has not changed due to climate change; but they nevertheless believe the hype about the increasing dangers of hurricanes, flooding, sea-level rise, droughts, etc.
(v) Experts in droughts say that drought intensity and frequency has not changed due to climate change; but they nevertheless believe the hype about the increasing dangers of hurricanes, flooding, sea-level rise, fires, etc.
And so on, and so forth, with every expert in every field denying the specific climate risk they study, but espousing the risks that they don't study. Based on the fallacy of composition, the activists conclude that there is a 97% consensus that CO2 is ruining the planet.