A simple philosophy when it comes to the news is, dig deeper.
Planet B Media does quite a bit of fact checking before most of our information goes out. Quite often it starts from a claim made by an organisation, such as a recent Newshub article I wrote about where the theme here was global warming.
The starting point was that New Zealand had its hottest June on record. It then said that Canada and the USA were experiencing heat waves and then this meant that global warming is happening faster than is desirable and that we must do more.
So I have been patiently waiting for the June global satellite data to be published and it’s finally out.
Here is why global data is so important. Before satellites, global temperature was increasingly more speculative the further back you go. Mainly due to where weather stations are located, not to mention the continues manipulation of the records.
Here is what was hot and what was not for June 2021
You can see New Zealand was warmer with the yellow blob over us. I doubt many would complain that we had a warm June. With maybe the exception of James Shaw and the tantrum prone Julie-Anne Genter.
You can also see Europe and North America were warm.
However balancing that was a lot of virtually no change areas (in white) and some good old cold spots, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.
Our neighbour to the west having a pretty cool June.
Overall, the globe has cooled in June to a smidgen under the 40 year average. So what the article was saying about 3 areas complexly ignored the rest of the world. nothing demonstrates more, why an entire global prospective is crucial than articles like the Newshub one.
Here is May where Europe was having a very cool spring and the US and Canada were also cool
And March. All these months,apart from May, were under the 40 year average.
What the newspapers won’t tell you, is that we had a peak warm month in February 2020 and we have dropped 0.6 of a degree from that peak. Half the months of 2021 are under the 40 year average.
Where did that heat go?
Remember, one of the theories of global warming and CO2 is trapped heat theory.
This in the view of virtually every modelling used, it is the reason that CO2 is considered bad. all this CO2 is trapping heat.
Two things are true.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2. The world has been experiencing a slow warming trend for 40 years.
See the data below.
However, the link between C02 and warming is speculation based on a correlation that, the more we measure, the less correlation we really find.
Natural variability is just as good as an explanation for warming, rather than CO2 increase.
Inter-glacier variability is better yet. Ocean cycles seem to play quite a big role too such as the current El Niño southern oscillation. and solar cycles also are known effects and seem to have a least a better correlation to temperature than it’s evil friend CO2. But again correlation and causation are not the same.
Statistics show us that ice cream sales increase at the same rate as shark attacks. But I’m sure you would all agree that banning ice cream will not stop shark attacks
CO2 climbed in saturation at the same pace throughout all of 2020 as it had prior to this crazy year. Even the grounding of half the aeroplanes of the globe and locking down gas guzzling cities didn’t slow down this climb.
Thus further proving that correlation and causation are two different beasts.
What can we learn from the fact that halving our carbon footprint from the COVID shutdowns, didn’t slow the increase of CO2 saturation in our atmosphere? That despite this increase, the globe has been cooling now for 17 months…
Perhaps we could learn that man has significantly less affect on temperatures and CO2 saturation that is currently being claimed.
There is a theory that a lot of climate related scientists believe, which is called saturation theory.
This is, that due to the wavelengths of infrared heat that the earth reflects back into the atmosphere, that this infrared (heat) is already being absorbed by the various greenhouse gasses. By adding more CO2, it is only having little to almost zero further effect on heating. this CO2 is of such an amount that adding more will not absorb any more heat as it’s been captured already.
Some people like to scoff at this calling it counter intuitive. Easiest way to explain it is if you have a fog that is so thick your headlights can’t penetrate it. Having a thicker fog will not stop more of your headlights because they are already being blocked by the water vapour in the air. That is saturation in a nutshell. Remember CO2 is not the dominant green house has, water is.
It is logical and easy to argue. Given what we have known for years about the infrared frequency levels of absorption by each of the gasses that keep us warm.
However, regardless of how many scientists disprove the theory of the warming effects of CO2. Or the observable data being so out of whack with almost all the rates at which our modellers claim. We get bombarded with the “end is nigh” from alarmists.
No matter how many experts pour cold water on the the theory, that we have enough knowledge of the all the climate systems to isolate CO2 as the climate driver we sign up to some arbitrary number of stopping 1.5 degrees warming.
Despite all of the above, and the now overwhelming evidence that blaming CO2 is as misguided as claiming the universe revolves around the earth, Our media and politicians still sell this snake oil to our educators – who in turn indoctrinate our children into this global hoax.
Try debating climate change with anyone, even a young enthusiastic climate scientist. It doesn’t take long to end up with a confused set of reasoning theories and claims.
I was told by one, that all the heating happened prior to the satellite data. How convenient that the data record has been dialled down from the observed data. So all the cooling was man made by cooling the past with an eraser.
If you want a laugh, look at the propaganda machine which is called Skepticalscience. A website that is full of garbage on climate science and even sells a course on how to argue with a denier. I got banned from the site after questioning their science. That’s how open for debate they are and not a good advertisement on how good that course is.
Anyway the reason I have mentioned all this, is one person I follow called Tony Heller gets a bit of stick from the in line community.
He has the same approach of using data to make a point against the MSM narrative. He finds data from all the agencies entrusted with capturing data as well as using the database of articles from our distant past. He then compares this captured data to show articles on climate emergencies are fake news.
For this highly scientific way of uncovering the realities of the effects of man on the climate, he gets labelled a nutty denier. That’s where we are at with today’s interconnected world. You get fact checkers by propaganda machines and cancelled by indoctrinated liberals who don’t appreciate people who think differently to their excuses for activism, or a day off. Didn’t our local activist kids cancel themselves for not having enough diversity?
The guy comments on how the news doesn’t match the data and he gets labelled as the snake oil salesman, go figure
Here is a great bit of work from Tony that earns him a fact check of being a conspiracy theorist. See what you think