December 2023
« Nov    

The tricks lying climate catastrophists use

Friday/weekend blog

Wrong information = wrong decisions

I imagine it’s obvious to my readers, but not to any of our useless politicians that, if you get the wrong information, then you’ll most likely make the wrong decisions. This is why lying climate catastrophists use a wide variety of tricks to fool us into believing their nonsense about supposed climate change.

I’ll illustrate this with three examples from my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS

Trick 1: Hiding inconvenient data

Here’s a chart of acreage burnt in US forest fires since the end of the 1970s:

And here’s a 2016 article from the New York Times panicking about the increasing severity of US forest fires. The article tells us that the 10.1 million acres burnt in 2015 ‘were the most on record’:

Looking at this information, you could be forgiven for being seriously worried about the problems climate change will cause.

But here’s another chart of US forest fires, this time starting at 1916:

And here’s an article from the New York Times from 1938 reporting that 21,980,500 acres were burnt – rather more than 2015’s supposed record of 10.1 million acres:

Given this information, you’d realise that the scorching 1920s and 1930s were much hotter than anything we’re experiencing this century.  So there was absolutely no problem from supposed climate change. What the climate catastrophists have done is to hide the data which blows their whole crazed cult out of the water:

Trick 2: Propaganda instead of facts

If you were to believe the propaganda spewed out by the climate catastrophists, you’d think that many of our coastal cities and farmland would soon be inundated by rising sea levels:

But if you looked at the facts you’d see that sea levels have actually almost plateaued after large rises since the last glaciation:

Sea levels have only risen by around 1 cm over the last 120 years and there has been no discernible increase in the rate of sea-level rise:

Then you’d realise that the doom-and-disaster claims of the climate catastrophists:

Are a load of nonsense and that there is absolutely no need to spend billions supposedly protecting the world’s coasts from sea-level rise.

Trick 3: Using GIGO models

That brings us to the climate models on which our rulers are basing their decisions to commit economic suicide in the rush to ‘Net Zero’. One study of over 100 climate models showed they all had an almost Fergusonian level of uselessness.

The climate is probably warming by about 1ºC every century (the blue, green and red lines on the chart above) as we move out of the last ice age. But the models all predict levels of warming (the black line on the chart above) which are twice as fast as the actual level of warming measured by ground stations and satellites. And the reason all the models are consistently wrong is that they are all based on the mistaken assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 will inevitably lead to rising temperatures – a perfect illustration of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) or to use a more technical expression – BIBO (Bollox In, Bollox Out).

Lying climate catastrophist liars will cause a real catastrophe

I give many more examples in my book of the tricks climate catastrophists use – misrepresenting the data, fiddling the figures and even outright lies – to hustle our politicians into cravenly implementing policies which will cause a real catastrophe – the deindustrialisation, enfeeblement and impoverishment of the West handing control of the world to the Chinese and their chums in such delightful countries such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Brazil and Pakistan.

Catastrophist propaganda from the BBC

And to finish off this blog about the lies the lying climate catastrophists use, here’s a truly terrifying 3-minute video from the British Brainwashing Corporation indoctrinating children and parents with climate-catastrophist nonsense:

3 comments to The tricks lying climate catastrophists use

  • A Thorpe

    I’m pleased to see you returning to this issue. I’ve sent messages to Farage and Rees-Mogg trying to get them to link their concerns about maths and how maths can be used to examine the climate change claims. I think both of them believe that carbon dioxide is causing climate change and their concern is that the rate of change to net zero is too fast and that technology can be developed to achieve it on a longer timescale. They fail to see that it is fake science that is driving the policy of net zero. JRM was discussing electric cars recently with three people and none of them questioned where the electricity was going to come from. The standard of debate and evidence is appalling.

    I’m going to have another go at them after seeing a video by Godfrey Bloom. I’ve not heard of him but he has a website covering various issues. This is a link to the video:, which he posted recently. He is taking about the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. This isn’t any complex physics, it is just a bit of simple maths. I would have looked at it myself but I don’t have the raw data. It is surprising that more is not said of this because it proves that Al Gore was lying with his Inconvenient Truth which I understand was shown in schools. Why didn’t any of the teachers point out that no analysis had been done? Gore was asking adults and children to “see” the correlation. There are some papers which have shown there is a low correlation between temperature and CO2 with temperature leading. This is explained as the absorption and release of CO2 by the oceans as the temperature changes.

    There is also a video of Prof Brian Cox on Australian TV’s Q&A discussing this with Malcolm Roberts, the politician. Roberts does know something about climate but he was badly prepared with an hostile audience against him. Cox was another claiming there was proof of human caused climate change because of correlation. He held up separate graphs of temp and CO2 and expect people to see what he told them they should see. What is wrong with him and the Open University who produced the video for the BBC? It is nothing but lies by scientists.

    Whilst looking at Bloom’s website I found references about correlation prepared by Prof Nir Shariv, who I have always liked. I associate him more with looking at the solar influences on climate. Al Gore doesn’t get criticised for using the Antarctic Ice Core data, but Shariv was, on the basis that the Antarctic temperatures are not representative of other parts of the earth. There’s always inconsistent views by the alarmists.

    We are now also being flooded with data about the covid vaccines. There was limited initial data from trials which was inadequate to claim the effectiveness and low risk. Now we have endless claims about illness and deaths from the vaccines which in my view are probably not that reliable because the data were not collected for the purpose they are being used for. Is anybody who believed the safe and effective claims and are fully boosted going to accept that they agreed to a dangerous vaccine?

    How did we get to be in such a mess with endless propaganda and poor standards of education? What has happened to the universities? It seems impossible to change any of this, rather like trying to stop Hitler’s Germany.

  • Carolyn

    This is what really gives me the irrits! “They” are constantly on the look out for disinformation be it about covid, the vaccines or climate change and can’t wait to shut down anyone allegedly peddling said disinformation (i.e. disagreeing with them)

    Yet by using those graphs with convenient start points they are pushing dis and misinformation themselves. Isn’t this tantamount to gaslighting?

    Speaking of which I caught this podcast while nodding off the other night.
    “Secretive internet vigilantes have made it their mission to fight climate change denial on Twitter” there’s an article about it here
    It makes scary reading – a perfectly reasonable Twitter comment about CO2 is deemed to be false information

    This comment made by one of these vigilantes is very interesting:
    “But after a couple of months, you realise you don’t make an impact because, for most of these people, facts are irrelevant,” Maria says.”
    Isn’t this exactly what we say about these deluded eco idiots?

    If nothing else it’s an insight into how the opposition thinks.

    Alarmingly there is a further recommended article “How to talk to a climate denier”!
    I haven’t read it as I know it would wind me up too much. Even the damn title is wrong. None of us deny there is a climate, nor that the climate is constantly changing …….

    Meanwhile there are allegedly going to be 30,000 of these idiots on the streets of London over the weekend. Stop the planet! I want to get off. As my mother used the say: “The sights you see when you haven’t got a gun!”

  • A Thorpe

    I forgot to add a specific point about fires. Last week “Our Changing Planet” discussed fires in California and they were trying out the traditional methods of managing forests by clearing dead wood. There was no mention that the environmentalists had stopped this hence increasing the severity of fires.

    I’ve also just watched Peter Knapp of Extinction Rebellion on GB News talking about his mental health issues after reading a book by Jonathon Porritt. Why didn’t it occur to him to read two books about both sides of the argument?

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>