Reality Check: No, we didn’t just have “the hottest week in 100,000 years”
Or, “how people are blinded by meaningless statistics”.
Kit Knightly
The buzz in the Climate Change news is that the five hottest days in the last 100,000 years all happened last week, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
You can read an article about it from Forbes:
The Fourth of July was the hottest day on Earth in as many as 125,000 years—breaking a record set the day before—as the return of the El Niño weather pattern collides with soaring temperatures at the start of summer, researchers say.
Or, if you prefer, you can read Climate alarmists rending their garments on Twitter:
The 7 hottest days on Earth in the last 100,000+ years all happened in the last week:
July 6 ~ 17.23°C / 63.01°F
July 7 ~ 17.20°C / 62.96°F
July 4 ~ 17.18°C / 62.93°F
July 5 ~ 17.18°C / 62.92°F
July 8 ~ 17.17°C / 62.90°F
July 10 ~ 17.12°C / 62.81°F
July 9 ~ 17.11°C / 62.79°F— Prof. Eliot Jacobson (@EliotJacobson) July 11, 2023
Now, first off let’s be clear – we haven’t had the “7 the hottest days” in the last 100,000 years since July 4…
…or, more accurately, there is absolutely no way for anyone to reliably know if we have or not.
Actually think about what they’re saying when they make this claim.
They are claiming that they know, for a fact, the global average temperature to two decimal points over the last 36 million days.
Couple of things to bear in mind here before we go any further.
1 – Humans have only had the ability to accurately measure the temperature of anything for maybe four-hundred years.
2 – Official “global temperature” records only began in 1880.
3 – Beyond that point we only have partial, local and pretty inaccurate readings back to the mid-17th century.
That’s 400 years, give or take.
So, how do climatologists get the data for the other 99,600 years?
Well – they guess.
Sorry, they “model”, using tree ring data and ice core samples.
NASA claims by comparing modern tree rings from known weather systems they can figure out the weather patterns that created tree rings in the past.
This is not scientific, it is interpretive.
A tree ring represents a growth cycle, that is all. The factors which affect that growth – specific to the individual tree, the local area or on a global level – are far too complicated for them to have any kind of predictive value.
Disease, volcanic activity, competition from other trees, rainfall, solar activity, parasitic insect or fungal infection…we can’t accurately account for any of these factors, and they all impact tree growth.
In short, all a tree ring can tell you is the length of a growth cycle. Everything else is extrapolation and modelling based on nothing but an a priori assumption of causation.
But really, that’s a secondary issue. There is something more important I want to talk about: The very idea of “average global temperature”.
“Average global temperature” – an entirely meaningless statistic
Using numbers and measures to bamboozle the public and control mass-opinion is not a new practice. In fact a shocking amount of propaganda is entirely predicated upon most people’s inability to actually understand statistics. (This inability is actively encouraged by the media and education system, but that’s another story).
This use of statistics probably reached its zenith with the Covid “pandemic”, but no narrative is more deeply steeped in it, or more heavily reliant on it, than Climate Change.
The appeal of using statistics in this manner is it removes the need to overtly lie.
– You can report nothing but real numbers and yet still totally mislead people.
– You can publish nothing but facts, whilst completely disregarding – or even disguising – the truth.
Damned lies and statistics, you know.
Averages – specifically mean averages – are wonderful for this.
For those who don’t know an “average” or “mean” is calculated by adding all the values within a set of numbers together and then dividing the total by the number of members in the group.
For example, if 5 friends go to dinner together and their total bill is £85, then the average each man spent on food would be 85/5, or £17.
This kind of average is excellent at creating deceptive statistics because they can be highly useful or completely misleading totally depending on context, and very few people understand that.
A good example of this problem is “average life expectancy”. I experienced this first hand when studying history in college.
Some people in my class read that life expectancy was 40 years old for men in Victorian London, and they genuinely thought that meant men were literally aging faster, going grey and getting dementia in their late 30s.
Which is completely wrong by the way.
The truth is most Victorian era males who made it to adulthood generally lived a reasonably normal lifespan, as people have been known to live from time immemorial (“three score years and ten”, according to the psalms).
However, Victorian England had a very high infant mortality, and the number of children dying before reaching 1 year old considerably lowers the average age of death.
So, the statistics appear to suggest most people died at 40, but the truth is that very few died at 40, but many died at around the age of 1 and many others died around the age of 70.
An “average” can be at the same time completely true and yet not at all representative of reality.
“Global average temperature” is the perfect example of this. It produces a number that people can be made to find scary because it lacks all context or any real-world application. It is literally meaningless.
Now, this is not just the rant of a journalist with an A level in statistics. Many scientists and academics over the years have said that the very idea of a “global temperature” is meaningless.
Such as in this paper, “Does a Global Temperature Exist?”, published in the June 2006 edition of the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, which argues [emphasis added]:
There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning.
As an antidote to the academic language, I’ll demonstrate with an example:
First of all, the globe is pretty huge, the scale alone can blind people. Let’s reduce it down – let’s say it’s just my kitchen. We’ll figure out the “average temperature” of my kitchen.
Second of all, we should realise that the name itself is misleading. When they talk about “average global temperature”, they obviously don’t mean they have measured literally everywhere on Earth. They really mean the “average surface-level temperature from a series of weather stations on land and weather buoys at sea.”
These temperature readings form the set we use to make our mean average. Over the globe there are thousands and thousands of these, in our kitchen we’ll just use four: One in the fridge, one in the stove and one at each end of the kitchen table.
We wake up, and the first thing we do is take the temperature at our “kitchen monitoring stations”. They are as follows: 6oC in the fridge, 19oC at both ends of the table and 17oC in the stove. Our average temperature reading: 15.25 degrees.
This data suggests the kitchen is comfortably the coldest room in the house, and is actually much colder even than average room temperature, or the average Summer day.
Later, after cooking dinner, we take the temperatures again: 6oC in the fridge, 21oC at both ends of the table and 176oC in the stove. Our average temperature is now 56oC.
This is alarming data, don’t you think? Firstly, according to this data it is no longer medically safe to even go into my kitchen, and more worryingly if this rate of increase continues my house will burst into flames by midnight tomorrow.
Certainly it’s the hottest kitchen since records began (that would be this morning). And judging by old photographs of the people who lived in this house before me, it doesn’t look like the kitchen was ever this swelteringly hot before.
Hopefully everyone reading this gets the point.
Four measuring stations across an entire room is very few, and fully 50% of them experience local extremes of temperature that a) don’t apply to the vast majority of the room and b) massively impact the final outcome.
Neither of those “average temperatures” – high or low – is even close to representative of the actual ambient temperature of the kitchen, nor is it likely to have any impact on the real lives of the real people who use that kitchen.
They do not reflect reality, and have no application to the real world.
This next bit may shock you – but the world is vastly bigger and more complex than my kitchen. Much of it has no weather station coverage at all, much of it is subject to infinitely complex local weather systems you can’t possibly account for.
A statistic is only as demonstrative as it is thorough, only as useful as it is representative of reality. You cannot create a useful “average” over a huge range of data without taking into account the local differences in systems.
The “average global height” of an adult human is 66 inches (168cm). Based on that, a 5 foot 8 inch Dutch man would be said to be “taller than average”…when he’s actually comfortably shorter than most Dutch men.
Reporting “average temperature”, from different sources over a varied and constantly changing globe, is pointless. Especially if you don’t know the context of the recorded data or the multivariate local factors that contribute to it (for example many weather monitoring stations are at airports, which are always hotter than surrounding areas, there’s also the question of “urban heat islands” and how weather stations are not evenly distributed over the world etc).
The “too long, didn’t read” version: They have no idea if last week was “the hottest week ever”, they can’t possibly know the “average global temperature” today let alone 125,000 years ago, and even if they could it would be data so vague as to be meaningless.
…of course, all of that is assuming they’re not just making them up.
Which I suppose they could easily be doing.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
For sure, we have not had the hottest days in 125,000 years. Only 3,000 years ago, the fauna of the Rhine Valley included rhino, hippo, crocodile, water buffalo, lion, hyena and other animals typical of the Serengeti today. The “climate optimum” developed the highest temperatures of the last 200,000 years, from around 6,700 BC. and up to about 700 B.C.; it reached its highest temperatures around 2,000 BC. The fact that the said “African” fauna was already extinct in Europe at that time was due to intensive hunting and progressive deforestation due to the beginning expansion of agriculture in Western Europe, during the Neolithic Western European population explosion (the Bell Beaker culture), more than climate fluctuations.
This has been shown recently by the media’s attempts to portray ‘Excessive Temps’ in Europe.. Only to have been caught out by using the ‘Land Mass’ temps and NOT the air temps ! 😡
the stuff about temperature averages seems deliberately misleading, the examples he gives are not relavent. THe global average temperature of the planet gives an idea of the amount of heat that there is there. Its not the same as comparing to a kitchen where the fridge and ovens are seperate systems to the rest of the house. if you really wanted to do say a assesment on the central heating efficiency of a building you would hardly do it with the oven on or the fridge door open or take measurements inside them ffs!
Like wise the height of dutch men, even more misleading. you are talking about the average of ALL men, they to say that average is not a valid measurement when its compared to a DIFFERENT population, ie just the dutch men, a subset of all men.
use of terms like alarmist seems to show that the writer is not objective and has some sort of political agenda influencing his writing. This is not a reality check, more likely someone with an agenda trying to bamboozle.
Your belief that the above aren’t perfectly good examples of misleading statistics and/or can’t be very aptly applied to some areas of climate science is an example of faulty reasoning, since it is based on an a priori assumption that climate science can’t be misrepresenting things in such a blatant way. Many also refused to believe Covid statistics were being radically misrepresented, until it became undeniably apparent. Many feel that climate science isn’t science, but politically-driven alarmist propaganda designed to push through Public Private Partnerships, Sustainable Development Goals, and other ways to curtail freedoms and roll out globalist communitarian agendas.
The 100,000 year statement is really quite silly when you think about it. A2
It would appear that you either did not read the article correctly, or more likely did not understand it.
One well known weather station is on a European military base and had been caught claiming record temps just after a Euro Fighter training exercise has taken off. That is EXACTLY like the example of the kitchen stove above. You clearly didn’t understand either the article or how temperature data is gathered and ‘corrected’
what an idiotic way to look at this… of course we dont know precise temperature but we can be certain it wasnt higher than this. Temperature was rising for quite some time so its not really valid information when we talk about last 100k years its valid tho that during our existence temperature keeps rising much faster than before and its because of us
They aren’t though. That’s a common assertion, but it’s just not the case. Climate has been far hotter and far cooler than this in recent history. From the medieval warm period, when they’d grow grapes in UK, to the Victorian Little Ice Age, when the Thames would regularly freeze during winter. The actual data has time and again contradicted all the spittle-flecked modelled projections of ‘runaway greenhouse effects’ and exponential rises in global temperature, et al, and in 2023 things are no different. A2
If you look at the Milankovitch climate theory and how the Milankovitch rings affect our life on Earth you would understand more. Also it was back in 1958 when NASA admitted that it was Earth’s solar orbit and changes in it’s axial orbit that caused the changes in warming and cooling of the Earth… Facts cannot ever be a substitute for guesses and taking readings from a hotter or colder part of the chart to ‘rig’ the outcome and influence the public. 😃
“but we can be certain it wasnt higher than this”
No we can’t.
How thick is the surface?
The article could include many more ridiculous examples of the inanity and impossibility of any number representative of “global surface temperature “.
Global observations show that the crustal thickness varies through the tectonic regions.
While the continental crust is 30–70 km thick, the oceanic crustal thickness is 6–12 km.
The oceanic crust is also denser (2.8–3.0 g/cm3) than the continental crust (2.6–2.7 g/cm3).
I think of power versus work to simplify climate news. When msm talk of temperature they try to imply an increase of power in the system, but even if it were true it could actually mean less work done by the system, which equates with, for eg, deforestation, presuming that growing a tree is work, resulting in less power converted to work if there are fewer trees, therefore more power converted to heat.
Conversely, an increase in power will not necessarily lead to an increase in temperature, even though temperature is the result of unavoidable inefficiencies in converting input radiation into work, any heat increase would come only after the conversion of radiation to power to drive available systems, such as tree growth and ocean evaporation, and whatever the work is gets done. If, for eg, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere and power input, to whit, solar radiation, also increases, highly efficient green plant growth will be the result, stabilizing and could even lower temperatures if more work of a very efficient kind consumes the power, leaving less power to become chaotic to be measured as heat.
Life, according to my analogy, is a little bit like laminar flow. The poetics of that simile please me. The end result is: Plant trees at the airport, or at least, plant growing green things wherever you can.
Oh..and pollution is bad. Pollute less.
Average global ‘Penis Dimensions’ – Frank Zappa L.L.C. lovely Laurel Canyon &
Walls.. to power, as in Energy.
Oh, Zone Out . . . Consider Who Dunnit’ ?
Talkin ‘ bout my generation, heads buried,
In the sands of War torn desert storms & more
Of ” Force Multipliers ” with ” Friendly Fire “.
All D.o.D. phraseology, officially since 1997
Geo-engineering ‘A’ OK…
Wanna’ be steamed ?
Or crispy fried ?
I almost forgot about Air Fryers, the Friars of
Less oil, see ? Statistically Speaking, Spartan…
yet, somewhat inflationary! How about inflating
Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors ?
You will see. Less Blue Sky . . .
I promise. ‘Tis called Dimming.
Balky
As the rain lashes on the window, the garden begins to flood and I turn the radio up so I can hear it over the cataclysm outside, the weather app on my computer displays a little message: “very humid”. This is slightly more accurate than the “record temperatures” it’s been flagging over the past weeks – clearly 16C is a record high for the UK Midlands in July… I don’t know how we cope.
“In short, all a tree ring can tell you is the length of a growth cycle. Everything else is extrapolation and modelling based on nothing but an a priori assumption of causation.”
Science never claimed to be doing anything else. The problem is with how Scientific results are misinterpreted by interested MSM, not with Science itself. In the age of technocracy, scientific discoveries and data are likely published without the context that needs to go with them. Much of what is termed “scientific vulgarisation” has deteriorated with the coming up of digital media of communication.
Besides, many scientific theories are contradicted or relativized by other contemporary scientific theories but we are only presented with theories that serve some unscientific interest. For instance, I’ve found in the site of Science Direct a critical analysis of the methodology of past temperature reconstruction, including tree rings, which puts in relative terms any attempt to compare current and past temperatures when measurements were unavailable. I mean, we are presented as undisputed and final a result which is relativized by other as valid, though unmentioned, studies.
Regarding “global average temperature”, it has indeed no meaning perse, not under that title, as it is impossible to measure all the points; note, however, the analogy with “human body temperature” and the method used to ascertain presence or absence of what is termed “fever”; there, AFAIK, the measurement is done at one spot only (though we know that feet are much colder that the upper part of the body) and is nevertheless spoken about as if it represented or indicated overall health in a meaningful way; why wouldn’t it be possible to speak of earth’s fever in the same way? Just asking a genuine question. We may of course object that the earth is a complex and unique body about which we can’t speak of a normal range of temps and the life of which we know with certainty just a tiny part, unlike human bodies.
In any case, average it is not for sure, but if we are only concerned about evolution of temperature, not the measurements themselves then it is not unreasonable to track a number of well-chosen spots as a representative sample and see how they evolve. In that case, the results would be in percent changes in temps rather than absolute differences and would reflect overall percent changes; something like “this year, there has been 1% increase/decrease in temps as measured in such and such spots, etc.” Again, Science isn’t dogmatic in itself, all depends of what is wanted to investigate. It’s the interested use of Science that is doing much harm.
In any case, declaring bluntly that we had the greatest temp in 100,000 years without laying out methodology, context and competing theories, etc is like an advert asserting that 80% of surveyed users were satisfied with their product, but in very small letters, hardly readable, it informs that the survey included 10 users.
Indeed, remember “8 out of 10 owners said their cat’s preferred it…”?
(That’ll only ring true for Brits over a certain age 🙂 )
Just a continuation of the Scamdemic.
Liars, damn liars and statisticians.
I want to add this to a comment which is still pending:
“A top-down contagion of ideological sickness never experienced before on such a global scale” is the most perfect summation of the last 3+ years. What we are witnessing is a crisis of the Western propaganda system the scope of which has never been seen before.
My Father has a saying about statistics: If you shoot at a duck above it by one metre then below it by one metre, you’ve on average killed the duck, except it’s still alive and flying. Statistics are rubbish and have always been so.
I say usefulness of statistics depends on what is being quantified, how the data is being compiled, and the integrity of those collecting the data points. Garbage in and garbage out.
When an organization refuses to share their data, that should be a red flag that the statistics are more likely bias confirmation.
That’s a bright father.
Sheep spend their entire lives being afraid of the wolf, but end up eaten by the shepherd. (Popular proverb)
I got it from here:
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-central-bankers-long-covid-emergency-noise-and-conspiracys-best-kept-secret/
This is good:
“The epistemology of conspiracy theory drives much of today’s propaganda as a rhetoric of exclusion. The a priori rejection of ‘paranoid thinking’ leaves the official narrative as the sole bearer of truth, irrespective of empirical verification. Therefore, as argued by Ole Bjerg,“the real pathology emerges on the side of the mainstream reactions to so-called conspiracy theorists […] in the form of an epistemic state of exception, which threatens to undermine the functioning of public debate and intellectual critique.”[i] In other words, paranoia qualifies the position of those modern-day Torquemadas whose inquisition tribunals silence any ‘heretical’ thinking that dares to depart from the dogmas of emergency capitalism. The blanket accusation levelled at ‘paranoid Covid-deniers’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ is symptomatic not only of the dissolution of the democratic bond, but especially of a top-down contagion of ideological sickness never experienced before on such a global scale.”
Ole Bjerg incidentally was fired by CBS after comparing the Corona Passport to the Nazi-era Jewish passport.
Excellent and sorely needed article.
A couple of addenda here. There are 3 basic types of averages; mean, median, and mode. What Kit described was the mean average. The median average is the midpoint between the higher and lower half. A good example of this is George Carlin’s famous remark,”Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George was using the median average. Another example is you have 100 people in a bar. For simplicity’s sake, all have a net financial worth of $100k. Thus the mean average is also $100k. Elon Musk then walks into the bar and sits down for a beer. Now the mean average wealth of all of the attendees in the bar is over a billion dollars. However the median average remains $100k. This is maybe the easiest way that statistics are converted to damn lies. The mode is simply the amount with the highest frequency. In the bar case it would also be $100k.
I think “climate change” is real, which means that I think over millions of years (and often quicker) the earth’s climate will change. The little ice age took place about 4 centuries ago when the Thames froze over in the winter and horses with sledges were used on it to transport goods.) Most rational people would agree that the climate changes. So who would argue that the planet’s climate doesn’t change. The catch is that the purported cause of it, according to the globalist elitistas, is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere which of course is total dog shit. The use of misnaming an agenda is a powerful technique for Carlin’s brain dead. Let’s take the Black Lives Matter agenda. Only a psychopathic racist would argue to the contrary. However, several academics in the USSA were fired for putting on social media that all lives matter.
As an aside, I think the earth’s climate changes mainly due to the strength of the sun’s variable magnetic field. Just as the earth’s magnetic field substantially protects the surface from high velocity charged subatomic particles, the sun has a similar spherical barrier which protects the entire solar system. When the sun’s magnetic field drops, more of these particles enter the solar system from the galaxy. When they enter the earth’s atmosphere, they ionize the molecules in the air which form condensation nuclei forming clouds which lowers the temperature of the surface. When I moved to SW Mexico, I looked up the average temperature per month for my city. Being well into the northern hemisphere, 18 degrees, I couldn’t understand why temperatures in April and May were much higher than in the summer. The answer turned out to be that the area (and most of Mexico) has an annual wet season and dry season. The wet season, as the name implies, has a much higher cloud cover which more than compensates for the typical summer higher temperatures.
US TEMP DATA 1895 – 1987 CONFIRMS NO WARMING SAID GOVT
Subsequent corruption of the record merely lowers past temperature records to make present readings seem to be rising. You only have to look at past newspaper reporting of nationwide temperatures to see the lie. Prior govt records & statements also expose the lie.
https://realclimatescience.com/corruption-of-the-us-temperature-record/
CURRENT UNPRECEDENTED HEAT WAVE? Ha Ha
https://realclimatescience.com/heatwave-of-may-june-1934/
Didn’t you read the article? ALL temperature records are suspect, not just the ones we don’t like. Which means this US Temp Data 1895 – 1987 cannot be trusted either.
You didn’t deal with the opposing argument. Not dealing with opposing arguments is a classic fault in essayists.
The opposing argument is “Yeah, there are heat islands, etc. Yeah, the temperatures of individual weather stations may be off. However–over time, on every one of them, whatever the daily and yearly temperature figures are, the trend is constantly upwards.”
In other words, sure a thermometer at an airport will show consistently higher temperatures than elsewhere. Those consistently higher temperatures, however, are consistently going up over time.
Until you deal with this “the trend is constantly upwards” argument, you haven’t really addressed the issue.
Ok, if we agree that an average global temperature at any given moment is meaningless, if we aggregate meaningless data, do we therefore get meaningful data?
A reminder of the new Reich:
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1679033750523461632
And those people were somewhat lucky! Many people who died during the lockdowns never had a funeral service at all. A friend of mine died during lockdown and we were never able to mourn her.
anthropogenic:)
Not withstanding the fear porn of ‘hottest ever’ the earth is heating up due to anthroporgenic causes but more to due to ongoing geo engineering which traps in more heat at night than is reflected during the day, and due to the ionspheric heaters that are manipulating the upper atmosphere to create weather which is what climate change is all about.
GeoengineeringWatch.org.
Dont forget that since the atm is growing, it can hold a greater amount of humidified heat and raw heat since its volume has drastically increased.
So once that build up does spill over it has the same effect, just for a longer period of time. We used to get a week of humid 80’s at night, now it’s about to try to go into its second month, which is unusual to say the least.
If it becomes a new trend, then the trend is not your friend, but a nasty side effect of a growing atm.
Anus to mouth (atm) trend?
Hardly! Can’t figure it out yourself huh
Wonderful TV news coverage tonight.
“Viewers need to know that the following information is devastatingly traumatic and they should turn away now if they don’t want to be permanently psychologically damaged!”
The news? some sporty sporty guy was sexually abused when a lad. Hunched figure in interview: “I may have to retire at the age of 24!”
(Gosh I wish I’d had that option at 24!)
But the next news item was even more catastrophically world shattering. HIV is back! We must finally push for the final push for ….. etc. BUT there’s a stigma attached to …..etc.
Fuck! The only reason I was exposed to this mind sucking shite is that my wife had to go out early and we didn’t have time for Netflix fluff. Well of course Netflix is shite too but at least it doesn’t pretend to be “the news”.
There’s millions registered alone HIV’s whatta mean it’s back? in your village town City? Some Public people wanted to know everything 1980…..so there you get talk about everything. Pretty straight forward, jeeezz, remember US afternoon evening reports in the 80’s. US media completely lost it, did it ever come back?
Between 1997 and 2012 I lived in the south of Spain for 11 years. In the winter in the foothills of the Alpujarra the temp would sometimes go down to minus 15 deg. Spring came in February. Temps of 40 deg + were normal. You lie down in a cool shady place and wait for the sun to go behind something. It’s called a siesta.
Normal Spanish life starts again at around 7pm. The shops open and stay open. At around 11pm the grannies and young women come out all dressed up and parade up and down the local promenade. it winds down around 3am.
In 2005 in August 3 mornings running my truck had frost on it, although the normal overnight temp was about 25 deg for midsummer.
One day in the carpark my 75deg maximum thermometer boiled over.
I don’t see how we can make any comparisons. All my observations are factual.
America has all the extremes built in. Miami in August is like West Africa. You have to have aircon or you will probably die overnight. In January in NYC a warm air trough can come up from the Gulf and all the snow and ice melts.
And how are we supposed to make averages for the UK? Compared to what?
Here in Wales, it can be blindingly hot, or cloudy for weeks, it can rain for the whole month in June. Last year we only got a few hot days. This year we’ve had a few hot weeks. So it goes’
There is good reason why ‘statistics’ follows and supersedes lies and damned lies.
It never gets to 40 in Andalucia in February. These temperatures only happen in the summer…
If you had frost in August you must have been staying in the high mountains above the treeline and hence you deserved it! 😂 Well done for getting out of that ghetto you mentioned..
Many northern Europeans and Americans whose primary knowledge of Meditarrenean climate comes from the tourism industry did not pay attention during geography classes in school ( probably no longer being taught).
The northern Mediterranean continental regions have a temperate and not a subtropical climate. This means four distinct seasons with cold weather and even snow.
Adaptation such as siesta, remote work, insulation and frugality threaten profiteering and GDP. Climate change is sold as another reason to consume, through greenwashing and other lies.
Summer of 2023 ☀️🔥..heat is unbearable. Stepping over dead bodies in the street. Another hottest month on record, this is all our fault, consider euthanasia,
Stay safe everyone
My cat just burst into flames.
Flaming hell, Ginger ?
UK had 2 nice weeks in June and then its felt like Autumn since (except a couple of days)
Its truly a circus and would be laughable if not such an evil and sinister agenda behind it all…
That was so funny I forgot to laugh (as a Gilda Radner character used to say). The fact is, the sun – because geoengineering is slowly destroying the ozone layer – is hotter than it’s ever felt.
Where I live (central Maryland), we’ve only had two days so far at 90 F or above – but it’s been humid all summer and feels hotter than ever. And the sun is simply unmerciful.
But hey: that’s not our fault just because the ozone layer is a wimp and can’t take the aluminum! We didn’t make it as thin as two dimes – that was God. Blame Him!
Jacobson as in Son of Jacob?
Does anyone still think that academics can be trusted?
Never trust a name ending son or man.
Certainly in this part of Blighty there has been no noticeable difference in the climate since my childhood. There have always been hotter or colder seasons and it was the same in the 70s. I am sure most people at middle age or over would say something similar – which is why these media and science crooks and liars prey on the young.
“as the return of the El Niño weather pattern… “.
El Nino = scary in the programming. Don’t mention that El Nino has existed for 5000 years according to “the science”. Don’t mention that the USA experiences less hurricanes in El Nino years. Don’t mention that if there have been some particularly intense El Nino events in recent decades then according to an article in ‘Nature’ that alos occurred pre-1880.
Above all, don’t mention the article from ‘Science’ that claimed El Nino didn’t exist in the Holocene era when the temperature was several degrees warmer. It seems “global warming” could switch off El Nino so we should be welcoming it if El NIno is so scary….
Nothing needs to add up, it’s just keeping that jackboot in the face (or to be more precise, the mind).
Of course if global temperatures are meaningless, then it cannot be said that the world is facing existential global warming, or any warming at all.
Kit, this is the most succinct dismantling of the Climate Change Narrative TM I have ever read! Well done!
And yet – and I have this on good authority – there really are temperatures and there really are lots of places on the globe. Ergo, there really are global temperatures.
So, regardless one’s take on the climate debate, it isn’t global temperatures per se that are “meaningless”; it how they’re used.
If they’re used to enhance a pre-determined agenda, then, yes, they are being mis-used. However, there are sources which suggest these “global temperatures” are being downgraded and it’s actually hotter than the media reports.
I haven’t walked the Earth, thermometer in hand. So I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone else does either.
Ah, I should have said global average temperatures are meaningless.
Average temperatures are just as real as any other kind of statistic. Where it all goes awry is attempting to get some kind of “average” temperature for a time before weather stations or record keeping began.
For that sleight of hand alone the climate scientists deserve to be ridiculed.
“The tree rings said it was 92.5 F. Our thermometers say it’s 96.4 F.” – What’s wrong with that picture, besides comparing apples to oranges?
Yes Kit! This is simply stated and a truly wonderful read.
Yes, the media is again in concert spreading the globalist gospel about climate change being caused by human activity so the globalist psychos can implement their New World Order (I like the old term better than the Great Reset). I think some people are missing the primary point.
No Gringo, they just substituted MSM for Alt Media & will never unite with those they perceive as beneath them. It’s what the chattering classes have always done. Pretending they’re “rebels” for easy virtue.
They’ll never actually fight. As they’re playing both sides. Hedging their bets.
Have to wonder does a society this Judas like even deserve to survive.
It never happened…
From Andrew Montford’s own, independent, report on the whitewashing Climategate Inquiries (Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, 2010):
Some time in mid-November 2009, an unidentified person extracted an archive of data, computer code and emails from the servers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The archive was eventually posted to a web server in Russia and over the next few days a series of cryptic messages and links to the archive were posted on the blogs of prominent climate sceptics. The archive contained over 1000 emails which had passed between the scientists at the CRU and their colleagues around the world. Word rapidly spread that these messages appeared to contain damning evidence of malpractice by a variety of climatologists on both sides of the Atlantic…
The email referring to the “trick…to hide the decline” is one of the most notorious in the CRU archive and was alluded to by several critics. The story concerns a report that [CRU head, Prof. Phil] Jones was involved in preparing for the annual report of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1999. In the emails, Jones is seen discussing an alteration he had made that changed the appearance of this graph.
The issue revolved around a tree ring series that had been used to reconstruct temperatures of the past, the so-called Briffa MXD reconstruction. This series diverged dramatically from instrumental temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century, experiencing a sharp decline during a period when instrumental temperatures were rising. Showing this divergence would have raised a major question mark over the reliability of tree ring temperature reconstructions since, if there is a divergence between tree rings and instrumental records in modern times, it cannot be said with any certainty that such divergences did not also occur in the past, rendering the temperature reconstruction of questionable utility.
The steps that Jones took to deal with this so-called “divergence problem” are well documented and are undisputed. In the second half of the twentieth century, the declining tree ring data was deleted and replaced with increasing instrumental temperatures. A smoothing algorithm was then applied to this new, spliced record, obscuring the join between the two. In this way, the unreliability of these reconstructions was obscured from the readers of the WMO report.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
Ah yes, place gibberish in a Physics context and suddenly having said absolutely nothing becomes the very stuff of profundity. To say “there is no global temperature” is akin to saying there is no water on Earth” and then go on to babble about the dynamics of hydrogen and oxygen.
BTW, measuring the fridge temperature in with the kitchen air temperature is tantamount to sticking the thermometer deep within an iceberg to get a reading of the air temperature.
The bottom line is: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If we can’t know a given week was the hottest ever – neither can we know that it wasn’t the hottest ever.
Perfect summation of the reversal of the burden of proof. If we can’t know covid was deadly we can’t know that it wasn’t deadly.
Although this article is good, it has some misleading facts about “average global temperature” especially about the sampling points.
No one would measure the average global temperature in any way similar to this kitchen example, that would be very stupid to do. Specialists are trying to divide the earth’s surface into grids and then sample equally in each grid > you can then try to try to build a model that tries to match your reference points in each grid, similar to what we do in reservoir simulation using wells. Then, the physics-based model can at least approx. the temperature in all grids (interpolation). This has its own uncertainty but the good thing is that we have almost continuous measurements that are helpful for the last century.
Also, we do not have to bother ourselves about the global average, we can just zoom in and focus only on one of the areas (i.e. grids) that is well monitored to reduce the uncertainty. Most evidence of this type suggests increasing temperatures. The only problem I still see here is that we are limited with data before the last century so we can’t really tell if the increasing temperature of the last century is alarming in the scope of the last 1K years. I am still learning about this exact case.
Thank you.
Nice presentation. It is not often that I feel a sense of relief after reading an essay or an article here at off guardian.
The climate bullshit is so deep.
Next time the climate alarmist bullshit starts hold your phone high in the air.
Wherever you are. Just put it up.
When they ask what you are doing just say, “saving my phone from the climate change bullshit”.
Imagine a grocery store or a restaurant or a sidewalk clogged with shoppers in a downtown metro center where everyone is holding their phone high above their head.
They can talk over you, ignore you, or walk away in disgust but they can’t ignore the message.
Climate alarmists are full of shit.
Of course, the phone would be turned off.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that the same ‘scientists’ who talk about past ages of extreme heat, and extreme cold – now get excited over minor fluctuations?
I mean you would have to be pretty thick to take them seriously. They would have to be pretty thick to believe it themselves, which I don’t think many of them do – so they are lying.
Covid discovered from a complete new angle: “After long Covid, you now also get Long Vaxx”. https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-12th-july-2023
Cool! And I never use that expression, not even on average. Excellent piece that throws cold water, sheds the cool light of truth… I’ll mercifully stop there with facile metaphors, antidotes to fallacious statistics… No, one more: a kitchen-sink explanation of how the average fool is fooled by averages. Still, even after what we’ve seen with “COVID”, the twits of your average corrupt/spellbound climate “expert” are disturbing, and further proof, as if any were needed, of the Abolition of Reality.
Thanks to George Mc (see below), I discovered that the twit quoted in the article is not the climate expert one might assume him to be but merely a retired prof of maths who likes to walk the dog!
Shows how easily one can be fooled by an academic title, real or otherwise. Woof!
Don’t let damned lies & statistics scare you & stop listening to corporate media?
Got it! 😁👍
The article then goes on to substantiate its own sensationalist and alarmist headline, to counter their alarmist and sensationalist headlines, Therefore: alarmism countered by reactionary alarmism equals ….?
The question begging is then epistemological – how do we know and form “justified true beliefs”…. Reactionary normative opinion and melodramatic outrage?
So, thereafter: there is no ‘climate’ or ‘mean global temperature’ because you cannot isolate any “intensive variable” from a supercomplex system. All your measurements are ratios of covariance and entirely meaningless. You cannot even measure the “earth system” without reduction. So the headline is repudiated at the expense of reducing any possibility of knowledge to epistemic hearsay and analogous kitchen thermometers. Genius. We can all relax into our doxastic and ungrounded, localised, linearised belief system and sleep well in our faux moral-intellectual superiority?
There is a problem with our normative and reactionary approach, and it has nothing to do with “Heatwave Cerberus”. Given that all knowledge of a spontaneously ordering dynamic system like the earth system is all but impossible due to sheer complexity; therefore all knowledge is actually impossible – excepting ours? Nobody can pronounce anything with any verifiability other than ungrounded and ungroundable normative opinion – excepting ours?
Modern quantitative and qualitative analysis is interpretive because you cannot put the earth system in a lab, isolate any variables, or make reductive-mechanistic assumptions. Earth ecology is nonlinear, nonlocal, non-equilibrium and irreducibly holistic as a dynamic singularity. Thereafter: all model-theoretics are a priori wrong, but some of them may still be useful (Box’s Axiom.) All you can do is iterate and accommodate margins of error as probabilistic and stochastic.
It comes down to the Precautionary Principle – is it safe to run the earth system as an economic experimentum crucis ignoring any and all epistemic ecological feedback (suitably qualified and non-reactionary); or is completely unqualified opinion in fact the safest way to appraise future practices? Is it safe to ignore the mountain of ecological data piling up over the last half century (long before ‘they’ took any notice)? Or is there actually evidence-based and grounded cause for ecological concern?
Then there is the small issue of our imperialism and domination of the Rest nobody wants to address, even though it is all part of the same global economic system. Is there evidence-based and grounded cause for human concern?
Civilisation-bound consumptogenesis is destroying the life-supporting capacities of the earth as we speak. In fact the destruction, consumption, and depletion make virtual and remote speaking possible. Is it safe to let that consumption run its annihilative course to support doxastic opinion?
A smart resistance strategy would be to expose the ‘climate agenda’; propose a viable alternative vision; reducing the economic harms and supporting ecological restoration and regeneration for generations to come; whilst releasing the Third World from our domination.; addressing the ecological and human concerns holistically. You could sum it up in one word – Degrowth.
“Trendlines, not headlines”; the only way to knowledge – other than personal opinion – is long-term analysis of datasets. It is flawed, and everyone involved knows it is flawed. They accommodate the flaws as best as possible. Qualitative analysis is narrative hermeneutics because quantitative data says nothing. Just like sensationalist normative opinion.
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics are uniquely due to life-affirmation. We do not seem to be able to accommodate that as a dynamic systems thinking, but we are supremely gifted at pointing out the flaws in other reductive-mechanistic interpretivism: maybe we could apply critique our own more rigorously as well?
Is this the “robocop/bad-mouthed cop” commenting strategy? (viz. paid-up moron’s comments parked below). My favourite line here is “Non-equilibrium thermodynamics are uniquely due to life-affirmation”, complete with hyphens in the right places. Did yo come up with that yourself? Or was Chat GPT programmed for meaningless pseudo-scientific jargon? A little individual analytical self-critique of your own might be useful, no? Or a bug fix.
Yeah, yeah, yeah! I don’t suppose it occurred to you that for the last few thousand years, everything any human being has ever said is speculative, ungrounded, founded in ungrounded speculation? It’s “turtles all the way down” including all archetypal Natural Philosophy, Natural Theology, and Natural Science. That and each and every other dualistic discourse.
The earth is not split in two to suit our moral metaphysics. The split-psyche is nothing but an ontological mirage. It is only recently that we can replace metaphysics with biogeophysics and end all speculation. But we cannot seem to end moral split-identitarianism grounded in metaphysics and opinion without turtles.
Our planet is unique, no matter what jargon we use. It happens to be that life bends thermodynamics because it is holistic (would you prefer “sumbiogenesis”?) We do not now how, because it is not subjected to rational linear determinism — only ‘we’ are. So how do you reference the earth using the same pseudo-intellectual metaphysics that caused the problems?
We could learn systems thinking, advocate degrowth, and be living is some sort of dynamic balance with the earth if we wanted to — but we choose ego-consciousness instead; and so our species-samsara goes on.
When plain language breaks through some of what you say starts to make sense to me.
It ain’t ChatGPT, it’s reality! Some people think anthropogenic economy is a subset of earth ecology; in fact earth ecology is a subset of anthropogenic economics. We are determining the course of evolution right now: you, me, and the rest of the species; the supercomplexity of which is completely irreducible to anything except you, me, and the rest of the species.
Buddy, I understand about a half of what you’re saying and unfortunately have nobody who would understand the other half, so we’d have the whole thing.
Can you take it easy on the gobbledygook?
Anyway, as far as “living is some sort of dynamic balance with the earth”, how many people do you know who would be willing to admit the need to do that and rationally discuss it?
Quite a few, but admittedly not nearly as many as those who want to live in imbalance and disequilibrium. The problem here then is what I said is actually very simple: you cannot reduce any dynamic system to any part — period. Thereafter, all reduction is nonesense. The only way to make senses is to refer to oecological data, not normative (untestable) outrage.
As neither the anthropogenic system or the earth system (which are in fact the same) any and all Cartesian dichotomies are refuted. It is actually a much simpler way of imagining complexity without “them and us” imaginary dualities.
You’re conflating several issues with climate change. This has been a tactic of anthropological climate change hoaxers from the very beginning of the club of Rome ‘limits to growth’ nonsense. Kit was simply pointing out the farcical concept of global average temperatures. You’re talking about empire, economics, dynamic system modelling and human morals. These are all important issues but they have nothing to do with the fact that climate change statistical chicanery is at the heart of the hoax being discussed here.
Things are either reductive, or they are not: empire, economics, dynamic system modelling and human morals are all aspects of the same system whichever is absolutely irreductive to any part. So how do you model the dynamic system as a whole?
This isn’t about one article, one variable, one aspect or any singular particularity. The earth has always been holistic, and we have always been reductive; but we can force the earth to accommodate our moral metaphysics by sheer brute force and ignorance, and a shit ton of hydrocarbon technology to suit our imaginary dualistic ontology that never existed in the first place.
There is no “them and us”; all there is is an ecomomic species trying to destroy the life-supporting ecology; the same ecology that supports the economy. We are not changing the ‘climate’ we are changing the whole system from habitable to uninhabitable; the instances of which do not matter. The destruction is no hoax and the reduction to moral metaphysics is a spectacular distraction.
Your attack on the article seems founded on a nonsensical statement, and gets you the downvotes ( who cares) The headline of this article is not “sensationalist and alarmist” is it?
You don’t need to use academic jargon like “doxastic” to say all the rest, and I agree – degrowth and an end to endless “progress” and “development” are required. They do not look likely though, because the allure of the american dream ( with added smart phones) is still strong.
The rational solution for a positive future is a return to the so-called “bronze age” not by force but voluntarily, after a profound philosophical and spitirual awakening which would realign interests and priorities for human beings and show them what real life is about.
It is not about social media, computers, AI and transhumanism or being like the rich and famous, which is what the “working classes” aspire to, and hence support by joining the police and military.
Many who want change outside the corrupt political system misunderstand who actually enforces the sick schemes and fantasies of degenerates like Gates and Schwab. It is the masses who man the “security forces” that constitue the actual system in practice and they will continue forever to support it until they wake up.
The article is a confused admixure of reductive and non-reductive methods. I pointed out that there can be no conflation; holism is irreducible and reductionism is not holistic — it is either, or — end of. Kuhn stated that the paradigms are in fact “incommensurable” before he was forced to recant, by reductionists; which remains the dominant paradigm.
You cannot make a valid inference from any instance or event; you cannot make a valid inference from any sequence of instances events; and you cannot even make a valid inference from any amount of sequential instances or events without assuming uniformity; therefore there are no universalisable inferences from observable events (the Problem of Induction, Raven Paradox, Black Swan Fallacy….)
Ecology is non-uniform, nonlocal, nonlinear dynamics; reductive determinism does not apply and we have to wait and see if any event is an anomaly or not. “Reality check: no we didn’t….” is a definitive statement nobody can make, and even the article agrees. Latching on to one variable to imply data analysis is “made up” is a colossal straw man, to say the least.
So, now every fucking idiot will claim that there are no tree rings, like there are no viruses, no germs, everything is bullshit, there is no moon landing, there is nothing because klaus fucking anal schwab and kill fucking gates.
Yeah, there might be certain fucking pitfalls in tree fucking ring analysis and people might be making all sorts of errors, but that’s the fucking way it is. Nobody and nothing is perfect. But the fucking pesky people keep trying, and usually sooner or later they get it right.
Unlike no-virusers, no tree-ringers, and other no-fuckers who sit on their ass, do shit, and keep nay-saying.
Fuck that nyet, nyet, nyet shit already!
Uh, do you actually believe that tree rings can meaningfully tell us what temperature it was on a given day a 100,000 years ago? Because that’s what they now expect us to believe.
😆
Of course not. The government has no isolated, purified sample of tree rings, which means that tree rings don’t fucking exist. Who knows what they are, but they can’t be tree rings.
Of course tree fucking rings can’t fucking tell you the fucking temperature, but it’s one of the ways people have figured out how to determine it, at least fucking approximately? You got something better, like a fucking time machine with a window from which you can stick out a fucking thermometer? Hardly.
Yeah, things are not fucking perfect, a lot of them are approximations or guesses at best, but it’s the best people can do. And it’s certainly more than your no fucking cigar negativism of which I’m totally sick and fucking tired.
There are neither tree rings, nor trees. It is all in your mind, Jacques.
Please don’t feed the troll.
There is no such thing as troll. The government has no isolated, purified sample thereof, so what the fuck you’re talking about?
Get on with the program and stick your head in the sand like everybody else.
No, that’s not what they expect us to believe, even if you believe that to compute an average, you need every single measurement, which is false.
Ever heard of weighted averages?
If meditation isn’t happening, have you considered cannabis? In moderation it can help sometimes. Probably preferable to pharmaceuticals. “Chill the f out dude”
Funny how fucks of your ilk assume and take it upon their fucking selves to express that a person who expresses an opinion that differs from whatever is fermenting in their … err … your nano-brain must be somehow deranged, as insinuated in your verbal ejaculation.
If you have nothing to say, which you don’t, shove the ad hominem “you must be deranged” shite back up your ass and fuck the fuck off.
Potty-mouth the Clown. How charming. Are you available for children’s parties?
No, but I like the nick. Thanks.
I’d ascribe it to CCDS, commonly known as “Chronic Cake Deprivation Syndrome”. The main symptom is the aversion to, and mockery of grounded, reasoned, nuanced arguments, and asking genuine questions. Those with CCDS have lost trust in the institutions and dedicate their best time to and find pleasure in indiscriminate and endless whining instead of trying to understand the current situation or offer alternatives. To the CCDS sufferers, all bakers should be put against the wall.
Isn’t life amazing? You have always been using colorful language whenever you post a comment – and no one cares UNTIL you say something they disagree with.
Agree with the majority (not “sheep” mind you but “shrews” thank you very much!) and you’re free to say it any motherfucking way you please. But disagree, and OMG are you a sicko for stepping outside the effete bounds of polite discourse.
And just how do they know they’re right and you’re wrong? By the number of downvotes of course. If what you say is right, you’d have upvotes, not downvotes. Surely even a school child knows that. (Come to think of it: only a school child knows that.)
I’m an ethnomusicologist by training. While people might think that ethnomusicology is about dissecting the music of some tribe way the fuck out there – I’m now talking about people who have some sort of clue, which most probably don’t – it’s not really that.
It’s about dissecting the music of some tribe way the fuck out there as well as any other music with utmost objectiveness. That is looking at it for what it is, as opposed to projecting one’s personal bias, one’s personal culture, one’s personal conditioning. You can ethnomusicologically study your own music, without employing all the usual-suspect stereotypes.
I guess it must have rubbed off on me, plus I’ve always enjoyed being a black sheep … ha ha …
Yes, I do find it fascinating to see people who quite correctly oppose something (in the case of commenters here some aspects of convid and the globalization tendencies) fall for the same sort of dogmatism they accuse others of practicing.
A reminder of what Bill likes to read (specifically No.3):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtXuNUEM3vg
BTW on tree-rings, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, “certain pitfallls have been discovered in tree-ring analysis. Sometimes, as in a very severe season, a growth ring may not form. In certain latitudes, the tree ring’s growth correlates with moisture, but in others it may be correlated with temperature”. In addition trees can produce more than one ring per year in certain conditions.
Possibly they don’t ring some years at all, especially if they’re haven’t paid their Gaiaphone bill.
A summary of some objections to climate change as a threat;
-Statistical evidence that it is making weather disasters more frequent or intense is absent..
-Predictions from the climate models contradict observations.
-Relevance of the change in MGT of +0.85ºC over 150 years compared to past centuries, millenia and eons has not been established.
-Millions of years ago (when primates, that have a respiratory system like ours, existed), the level was ~2000-3000 ppm, but an ice age occurred.
-Rise in CO2 has been occurring centuries or millenia after a rise in temperature.
-If the greenhouse effect is the crux of rising MGT, the troposphere should reflect this heating; instead, it is the ionosphere that shows a measurable rise.
-The specific gravity of CO2 is ~1.5 times greater than of air in general; this suggests that little CO2 will rise to ~18 km to cause the greenhouse effect. There is another claim that if GHG does rise to the stratosphere, it has a cooling effect.
-Major changes/restrictions proposed/imposed (including geo-engineering) are unscientific and reckless.
-Long-term cycles in solar radiation vary according to (a) angle of the axis of rotation of Earth, compounded by the seasons (b) sunspot cycle (c) distance of Earth from the Sun.
-Proponents have evaded water vapour including clouds. It redistibutes heat efficiently. Clouds reflect solar radiation back into space. A rise in the cycle of sunspots is inversely correlated to cloud formation.
-Proponents have not considered the stronger winds that temporarily bury warm surface water.
-Proponents have not considered the airborne soot from combustion by humanity, forest fires and volcanic eruptions. It absorbs heat from above and below, reduces the uptake of CO2 by vegetation, and increases the melting of ice and snow.
-Proponents have not considered the potential impact of the exhaustion of mined fuel, other minerals and other resources.
But where do they say all the “warming” actually is within that “average”?
Turns out, using thier own data (Berkley) it’s mostly in winter, at night, in the Northern extra tropics! Where the daytime temperature averages just below freezing, and the nighttime temperature average is -13°C (9°F).
as the author says, ” I doubt if the people in Vladivostok are going to be unhappy with slightly warmer winter nights … or days, for that matter”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/20/warmer-where-its-colder/
Tree rings you say? Analyse this:
Last week I saw similar headlines in our Country.
It was raining that week.
As no precise and accurate measurements of temperature took place for 99,000+ years of the 100,000 past years, any claim of this nature can be laughed out of court and those making the claim called unprofessional, incompetent, misrepresenting charlatans and liars.
There should be zero consideration of their dignity, nor the consequences for their future professional career. They should be out on their asses with no prospect of working in meteorology ever again.
Stop press, its not Bill Gates its the Chinese behind the curtains:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/6/chinas-military-leading-world-brain-neurostrike-we/
Bs.The Wallenberg family’s fortune make Rockefeller and Rothschild look like two homeless sitting on a bench in a park. THEY are leading everything from behind! 😎
I didn’t know we had some statistic 100 000 years ago. Please show me, I am seriously interested. Or if you fail in that, then please, at least some good numbers around 1000 years ago. 🙂
Just stop oil activist being caned !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xohjpMyGYc8
Amazing how so many have sold their souls for a few bucks.
Do they think they will escape the insidious agenda being pushed by the evil and corrupted WHO and WEF?
The world’s climate “scientists” could shortly discover two amazing facts if dementia Joe moves up from cluster bombs (banned but surprisingly still in stock in the US) to nuclear then world temperatures will soar and oh dear the funding for all that vital climate “research” will immediately dry up.
“Average” global temperature might soar temporarily, but the clouds of debris and the rest from the explosions would block the sun and result in the famous “Nuclear Winter”, radically COOLING the planet and eventually causing the die-off of all vegetation and animals but for insects and grass. Perhaps that’s why we’re being primed to eat bugs!
None of that will probably happen because only a handful of the oh-so-many nukes-that-we-don’t-really-have will actually be fired.
However, a totally false flag operation with zero actual nukes fired is THE likely scenario.
DUCK & COVER!
This text reminds me of the hallucinatory blather incessantly promoted by militant no-virus fanatics who keep claiming that viruses don’t exists and germ theory is bullshit. Seasoned with the usual-suspect revelations that disease is caused by multiple factors and that contagion is in fact synchronization or some other phantasm because contagion can’t be contagion because that would render their babbling kinda meaningless. WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!
Likewise, who gives a fuck whether the global temperature is rising, whether there are changes in climatic patterns, all this shit!
This is red herring, strawman. Misdirected energy.
What does matter and where people need to focus their attention is the use of resources of all kinds, including energy, in industrial production of mostly useless or redundant shit that is produced for the sake of production, growth with little enhancement in the quality of life.
Nobody seems interested in anything like that, however, so it’s another orgy of comments how the PTB and the media are full of shit, how they’re after people, how kill gates wants to depopulate you.
Weather and nature is a coupled non-linear chaotic system which changes and move constantly, which means all measures and predictions are meaningless!
Yes and no.
Some phenomena are unpredictable, such as weather conditions. Some phenomena can be measured with high accuracy – if you have a coal deposit, you can relatively accurately measure how much stuff there’s there and how long it would take to deplete it are a given rate of extraction. You can also accurately conclude that once it’s depleted, it will be gone.
So on, so forth.
What you are telling me is this:
“You can find a stone, measure it, take that stone away and it will be gone”, yes?
“We can find a lake, measure it, pump it dry, and this particular lake we took away is gone”
“We can find an apple tree, count all the apples, eat them and these apples will be gone”.
We see a cow, measure this cow, bring it to the slaughter house for steaks, and this cow will be gone”.
Is this from a master doctor degree in philosophy?
No, I’m not telling you none of this strawman shit. You’re obviously too feeble-minded to understand the implication of what I was saying above. I used coal as an example because, unlike all the crap you’re invoking, it’s non-renewable. Once you fucking burn it, it’s gone, basically forever. Fucking apples will grow next fucking year again. Water will be replenished through the water cycle. Fucking cow will have fucking offspring.
Note that I was responding to your rather idiotic claim about all measurements and predictions being meaningless.
What’s a fucking master doctor degree and how does it enter into any of this?
Just under our oceans lays the mantle of the earth with temperatures of 4000-5000C.
The convection of the Earth‘s mantle is a chaotic process (in the sense of fluid dynamics).
Coal is a mix between non-organic and some organic (like oil) of this chemical process.
The Mantle has a thickness said to be 2500 km and has the largest mass of our earth.
Conclusion: Coal is re-producing itself like everything else. Its a self-correcting system.
Thus: Your basic assumptions were and are wrong Mr. Parkun, and your bar language doesnt bring balance into your another meaningless measurement and statement.