October 2023
« Sep    

The climate catastrophists’ “if ……, then ……” trick

Tuesday/Wednesday blog

First apologies for going AWOL for a few days. But I had a bit of a medical emergency. However, after blood tests, x-rays, scans and much else it turned out to be a false alarm.

The climate catastrophists’ “if ….., then …..” trick

The climate catastrophists have many ways of manipulating and faking facts and figures to beat us all into submission to their plans for us all to live much colder, more restricted, poorer lives. I expose some of these in my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS. But I’ve just come across one that I missed. I’ll call it the “if ….., then …..” trick.

It goes like this: the catastrophists make a claim such as “if such and such happens, then something awful will happen”. The clever part of the “if ….., then …..” trick is that the second part is always true. This then gives credibility to the first part. But, in fact, the first part is usually total nonsense.

Here’s an example. A new report has shown that if seas were to rise by 6.6 feet (2 metres), then that would put most of Bangkok and its 10 million residents below sea level, contrary to previous projections that showed the Thailand capital would still be mostly above sea level. The report then goes on to detail many other horrors that would come from a one metre and a two metre rise in sea levels.

Twice as Much Land in Developing Nations Will be Swamped by Rising Seas than Previously Projected, New Research Shows

Bangkok is a coastal city, like many of the world’s cities. So it is more than obvious that a large rise in sea levels would flood the city. Thus the second part of the “if ….., then …..” trick is true.

But what about the first part – if sea levels were to rise by 6.6 feet (2 metres)?

Sea levels have risen by much more than this over the last 20,000 years:

But now sea levels are only rising by around 7 cms per 100 years

So at the present rate of sea-level rise, it would take more than 2,800 years for sea levels to reach the 6.6 feet (2 metres) rise the climate catastrophists use in their “if ….., then …..” trick. Even if sea levels were rising by 10 or even 20 cms per 100 years, that would hardly be something to worry about. So, it’s nothing you or I need to worry about. In fact our children and grandchildren and many subsequent generations don’t need to worry about this either.

Moreover, in their great new report, the climate catastrophists claim: ‘Sea level rise keeps speeding up, and “many coastal areas are lower than scientists thought they were,” said Ronald Vernimmer, lead author of the new study published last week in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.’

Yet, the bible of climate catastrophists – the IPCC reports – state that there is no sign of sea-level rise accelerating:

Moreover, the new report fails to mention that the real danger to many coastal cities is that they are built on marshy ground and are sinking under their own weight. Bangkok, for example is built on swampy land and layers of soft clay and is sinking by 2 to 3 cms a year. Yet sea levels are only rising by 7 cms every 100 years. So the Thai capital will sink more in 2 to 3 years than the sea which it borders will rise in 100 years. Many other coastal cities are sinking due to water extraction.

You’ll often see climate catastrophists using the “if ….., then …..” trick.

There was a documentary titled Earth Under Water made in 2010. The description of the film explains: “Step by step, it paints a chilling picture of the world as the sea levels rise from between one and 70 meters, unravelling the science behind this cataclysm.” Yet, if sea levels are rising by just 7 cms every 100 years, it would take 1,400 years for sea levels to rise by just one metre and 98,000 years for sea levels to rise the 70 metres the film frets about. The whole film just just an extended “if ….., then …..” trick where the initial proposition of sea levels rising between one metre and 70 metres is utter and total tripe. Oh, and anyway, long before the next 98,000 years, the Earth will be heading into the next glaciation:

So sea levels will actually have fallen as more precipitation is turned to ice.

If the Earth’s temperature were to rise by 2 degrees, then Google tells us “the climate would be disrupted with fiercer storms, higher seas, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing coral, melting ice and more people dying from heat, smog and infectious disease.” But the Earth’s temperature isn’t going to rise by 2 degrees. In fact, all the climate models currently in use hugely overestimate the rate of global warming:

So, when the climate catastrophists enthusiastically supported by the mainstream media make their next grim prediction to terrify us all into cowering submission, look out for the “if ….., then …..” trick. It’s one of the climate catastrophists’ and media’s favourite ways to bamboozle an ignorant public.

3 comments to The climate catastrophists’ “if ……, then ……” trick

  • Dave H

    Glad you’re ok David.
    Whenever i talk to anyone about this warming nonsense and they disagree with me i ask them to give me an example of how it has effected them directly ….. they can’t.

  • A Thorpe

    Good news on the health front and even better to have you back on top form.

    Why hasn’t the “if .. then” trick been spotted before? It’s obvious when pointed out. I had a debate with somebody recently who thought he had an irrefutable case to end the climate debate based on demonstrating the nonsense of net zero. Of course, there never is an irrefutable case in politics or now in climate science. I was discussing how it could be countered and that would involve the “if..then” trick but I didn’t see it. It doesn’t even have to involve any evidence and can use invalid evidence..

    I watched a short video of Jordan Peterson discussing climate and he made the point that it has been turned into a global issue rather than a local issue enabling politicians to justify more extreme local measure. This is the trick in action again.

    There seems to be no way in which we can influence the government. An election will bring in another party with the same views. The GWPF was created in 2009 and now has Net Zero Watch. It seems that it is an organisation with with a team of distinguished advisors but what have they achieved? It claims to be an educational charity and its main funding has not been declared. What if is a propaganda arm of the government making it look as though alternatives are being considered, but effectively being ignored. The establishment of a Net Zero minister says we will not change the policy.

    Is exposing the “if…then” trick our answer to ending the nonsense?

  • A Thorpe

    There is an article published today by Global Research called “Engineering a Cult of Chaos to Undermine Rational Thinking”. It surely is a more detailed observation of your “if…then” trick. It is a distortion of rational thinking to confuse people. It suggests the people start to accept that events are logical but only those in charge can understand them. The if…then trick links illogical statements.

    Here is a link to the article

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>