Archives par mot-clé : Catastrophism

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate Alarmists’ New Normal: Catastrophizing Every Weather Event

by Dr. M.  Wielicki, Oct 2, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Catastrophizing the weather…

“Catastrophizing” the weather refers to the exaggerated portrayal or emphasis on the severity, frequency, or implications of weather events beyond what scientific data and historical context might suggest.

In essence, it involves making a weather event seem more disastrous or exceptional than it truly is. [emphasis, links added]

Over time, consistent exaggeration can erode public trust in weather forecasts and warnings. If people believe that threats are frequently overblown, they may become complacent and fail to take necessary precautions during genuinely severe events.

If authorities act on exaggerated weather forecasts, it could lead to the unnecessary allocation of resources, diverting them from regions or times where they might be genuinely needed.

The constant exposure to exaggerated disaster threats can induce unnecessary fear and anxiety among the public, potentially affecting mental well-being.

If every weather event is portrayed as a catastrophe, it becomes challenging for the public to discern which events pose genuine threats. This can dilute the urgency of actual severe weather warnings.

In the context of climate change, while it’s important to communicate the real risks associated with a warming planet, it’s equally essential to avoid undue alarmism.

Balanced, accurate communication ensures that the public remains informed, however, that is not what we commonly see.

For example, the recent rains in NYC have been noted as evidence of significant climatic shifts.

Meet The Alarmists:

…

…

unclassified

Inventing The Apocalypse: Climate Doomsday Predictions Haven’t Aged Well

by B. Adams, Mar 27, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

….

 

….

 

Climate scientists and alarmists have prophesied the planet’s imminent demise nearly every year now dating back to at least the end of the Second World War.

“We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months,” the now-defunct ThinkProgress predicted 43 months ago.

Former French prime minister Laurent Fabius warned 3,239 days ago that the international community had only “500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Earlier, in 2009, Gordon Brown, the U.K.’s prime minister at the time, said we had “fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe.”

Also in 2009, former vice president Al Gore declared that “there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

In 2013, mid-melt, the Guardian ran the following headline: “US Navy predicts summer ice-free Arctic by 2016.”

The ice is still there.

“NASA Scientist: We’re Toast,” reads the headline of an Associated Press report from 2008.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The U.N.’s chief climate science body retracted the claim in 2010, explaining the prediction wasn’t based on any peer-reviewed data, but on a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999.

In 2006, Gore claimed that unless world leaders took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Earth would surpass the “point of no return” in ten years — a “true planetary emergency,” he called it.

The year 2016 came and went, and now we’re being told the early 2030s are the real point of no return.

The Guardian, citing a “secret report,” warned in 2004 that “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

The year 2022 was the U.K.’s warmest since they started keeping records in 1884. The heat was, of course, blamed on climate change.

…

unclassified

REVEALED: Al Gore’s real climate catastrophe

by Ian Plimmer & John Ruddick, Apr 29, 2021 in SpectatorAustralia

Next month is the thirtieth anniversary of the most entertaining and damning chapter in Al Gore’s career.

By the mid-nineteenth century, our knowledge of atmospheric chemistry was sufficiently advanced for a few sharp minds to ponder whether an increase in carbon dioxide might increase global temperature.  The speculation remained entirely theoretical until 1957 when an international collaboration of top geophysicists — including the Soviets — used buoys, weather balloons and so forth to collect data.  The undertaking was led by Dr Roger Revelle then based at California’s Scripps Institute of Oceanography.  Today’s global warming debate is hyper-partisan but all agree Revelle’s standing is impeccable.

Before this research, many assumed the ocean was absorbing most of the increase in carbon dioxide caused by industrialisation.  Revelle’s data, however, indicated only half was. So what was happening to the other half?  Would the planet soon overheat?

…

…