Perhaps due to an excessive focus on states of mind, climate alarmism seems to be in danger of tearing free of the facts altogether. And not just in pointing to non-existent increases in hurricanes as vindication. For instance NBC ran a piece saying GHGs were continuing to climb despite the COVID-19 lockdown, which it admitted ran contrary to many predictions. It might seem important since, as Eric Worrall observed of the World Meteorological Organization study, “Greens have repeatedly suggested that the Covid-19 lockdown is a trial run for the coming climate lockdown…. But now we’ve all seen proof that the kind of extreme cutbacks greens are proposing as part of a permanent solution to climate change don’t make a lot of difference.” NBC disagreed, and not only because the WMO managed to predict it after the fact. The main point was the evidence-free assertion that “Irrespective of what we do to curb emissions today, much of the carbon dioxide already emitted decades ago remains in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming, climate scientists say.” So if there’s a drop, scientists predicted it and it means we must cut emissions; if there’s no drop, scientists predicted it and it means we must cut emissions. And nobody should bother checking because no matter what actually happens, what they said will essentially happen.
This question of conflicting predictions all confirming one cosmic theory is not trivial. Of course in the Department of Dubious Predictions, as in the Department of Implausible Blame, there’s no telling what some crank might say. And mainstream alarmists ought not to be judged by the cranks unless, and it’s a big exception, they do not distance themselves from that flow of rubbish. But as a longtime reader of Watt’s Up With That recently observed, there is a tidal wave of nonsense to be found in the mainstream, meaning “peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc” plus “the IPCC”. Including, crucially, contradictory ones.
For instance, from his list, “Amazon dry season greener” and “Amazon dry season browner” or “Avalanches may increase” and “Avalanches may decrease” or “Bird migrations longer” and “Bird migrations shorter” and “Bird migrations out of fashion”. And of course if you predict both rain and sun, you’re going to be able to claim vindication among those who were not paying attention or didn’t realize that a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
Even that sort of theory is an advance on one that predicts something, from an increase in wildfires to an acceleration in sea-level rise, doesn’t get it, and claims vindication anyway. Just the lack of facts, ma’am.