All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
30:50
Debunking Weather Event Alarmism - Climate Realism by Paul Burgess (2022)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Without any valid connection to man-made CO2 emissions, the fear-mongering climate alarmists point to any weather event so as to link to man-made CO2 emissions.
On that basis of individual weather events, without a jot of scientific evidence, trillions of dollars are being demanded as compensation.
The compensation to be paid to countries such as China, who have many times over put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the UK, and continue to increase their CO2 output, In the absence of signs to back up this extreme weather alarmism, the alarmists turn to children to promote their propaganda, hoping this will promote their message that is leading to the destruction of western economies.
It is because I have watched my grandchildren being taught this nonsense from an early age that I decided to devote my time to countering propaganda peddled by our politicians and mainstream media.
I'll be using video sections from Tony Heller and John Christie in this video.
They're both really great sources of climate change truth.
Big hand for one of our school climate strikers!
A big hand, please, for Eve Tissel.
Hello, my name is Eve.
I'm nine years old.
I live in a sustainable off-grid community in the middle of a beautiful forest teeming with life.
But I'm afraid.
I'm afraid for the future.
When I'm older, I would like to see the bees buzzing through the flowers and the butterflies flying through the forest and hear the birds singing in the trees.
But I'm scared.
I'm scared that this is all a dream and that I'm living in a planet that is dying!
And I'm here!
I'm here because I don't have a future!
And you might hate me for doing this, and you're entitled to hate me!
But I wish you would direct all that anger and hatred at our government.
They are betraying young people like me.
I wouldn't have to be there if they did their lawful duty to their own citizens.
I'm part of the Just Stop Oil coalition demanding an end to all new oil and gas licenses in the UK.
And I am here to try to stop this madness.
So I've made this short video that you can show to any alarmist and ask them to counter it.
It just shows the extent of the lies.
Our children have been taught and brainwashed for decades that extreme weather is getting worse.
It actually isn't.
So I will now dispel all those fears on all the major weather events.
It's worth showing this to any activist on climate alarmism.
We will start with hurricanes.
As global temperatures rise, water on Earth's surface evaporates faster, creating more clouds and more storms.
Look down over the Atlantic.
Satellites capture clouds, shifting into shape.
They begin to spiral.
And race.
Like all hurricanes, this storm is given a name.
Harvey.
That's typical BBC propaganda.
Our state broadcaster, though we're forced to pay a tax regardless of whether we watch or not, does not allow any counter-arguments.
Hurricanes effectively move energy from the equator area up towards the poles.
And when in the Atlantic they hit America, they swivel around and head towards us in the UK, where we get storms.
So the total amount of energy is what we're measuring here.
And 2020, for example, did have more than the average.
But just look at 1933.
In 1933, when America was very hot and they had the Dust Bowl, then actually the hurricanes were much higher, as you can see here.
Now if you look at the total energy on the right of all the hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons around the world, all added together, 2020 was less than average.
Nothing to be alarmed about there.
There simply aren't more big storms in the world.
But let's look at this over time and the history of such storms.
This is the same accumulated energy graph over the last 40 years.
And as you can see, if anything, it's declining.
Again!
No cause for alarm.
No cause for young girls to cry.
This is the official table of the worst historic hurricanes in the USA area.
1780.
That's the top one.
The next one, 1900.
The next one, 1974.
the next one, 1900, the next one, 1974, the next one, 1930, the next one, 1963.
The next one, 1776.
And number 7, 1775.
The list goes on.
But historically, hurricanes had far more devastating effect.
Let's give you more data.
This is the historical frequency of hurricanes.
And as you can see, if anything, it's slightly declining.
This is because, as the world warmed since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, the temperature difference in the equator and the poles is less, and therefore there are fewer hurricanes to distribute the heat.
The less the difference between the poles and the equator, the fewer the hurricanes.
Tornadoes.
Climate change will likely make extreme weather events more common.
Some types of weather are easy to attribute to climate change, but with tornadoes, things are a bit more complicated.
Well, that's because alarmist claims become a bit more complicated when the evidence shows the exact opposite.
Well, even the alarmists struggle with this one because tornadoes, for the last 30 odd years, have about halved in frequency and size.
So that is an indication of less extreme weather no one should worry about.
I'll hand you over to John Christie for this particular diagram of hot weather in the USA.
And by the way, the USA has by far the best long-term temperature records on the planet.
Now over to John Christie.
What about high temperatures?
These are the record... the number of stations that had record high temperatures by year.
And so you see here that if you want to talk about record high temperatures in the United States, you've got to go back to the 1930s.
That's where the real story is.
In fact, 14 of the top 15 years with the most heat records occurred before 1960.
And another table showing the decrease in heat waves in the USA.
And this graph from Tony Heller shows the number of days over 95 degrees Fahrenheit in the USA since 1895 up to this year.
Before you see this next scare clip, bear in mind that I was Water Resources Engineer for Cornwall.
That's a subject I know a fair bit about.
Colliford Lake on Bodmin Moor is Cornwall's largest reservoir and in this relentless heat it is drying up.
I've done a full video on climate alarmists and droughts covering in some detail the UK and the droughts were far worse in the past.
I'll put the link in the description to this video, but here's a short excerpt from the results of my research on climate alarmists and droughts.
We'll first take a look at some really long-term drought records from the west coast of America.
Now here we have a reconstruction of the last thousand years or so of droughts in the USA.
And as you can see here, right at the end, they're claiming this little rise since we came out the Little Ice Age is actually man-made.
Little Ice Age
Okay, that was UK Droughts, that was UK Droughts, an excerpt Droughts, an excerpt out of my video on the subject.
But how about global droughts?
And here's the Global Drought Index.
As you can see, no need to panic here.
And going back a thousand years, the same for Central Europe.
While looking at this graph and how forest fires are growing, maybe one should be concerned.
Well, be concerned until you realise, and you go back in time with this graph, that what we're suffering now from is nothing compared to the past, as you can see.
But more important, when President Biden came into power, he had all this part of the graph deleted from the official records.
This is intentional hiding of historic data.
And by the way, the small increase you see is mainly because of mismanagement of forests.
They're being managed on an ideology rather than the practical way they were managed in the past.
So again, it was very much worse in the past.
Going back even further to 1600, where they could count the acres just as well as they can now.
You can see the amount of forest fires here.
But when man-management came into it, you can see the decrease.
The big lesson to take away here is the past was much worse with forest fires than today.
And it doesn't just apply to America, of course.
The global count for forest fires has also remarkably decreased.
Nothing to worry about there.
Far better today than in the past.
Of course, there will still be houses lost and tragedies.
Sometimes can't help silly people.
Headline in 2000.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.
On March 20th 2000, The Independent, a British newspaper, reported that, I quote, snowfalls are just a thing of the past.
Dr David Vinner of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, by the way a centre for alarmism, is quoted as saying that within a few years snowfalls will become a very rare and exciting event.
While another quote is that children just aren't going to know what snow is.
So we'll now look at some facts for Northern Hemisphere snow cover.
Well, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at a record in 2012-13, but to be even more current, let's look at some other figures.
This is the official graph from NOAA.
And lo and behold, this November it's at the highest it's ever been on record.
And the records have been going for 56 years.
The exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed.
And forebodingly, there's lots of indications around the world, like America having very cool afternoons.
Like this snow extent and other factors such as the Antarctic, showing indications of cooling.
No more than that, but indications of cooling.
Well, having put snow to bed, let's now turn to ice and look at the Arctic ice cover.
And for this, I'm going to turn over to John Christie and Tony Heller.
Um, we look at Arctic sea ice.
Now you got to kind of turn your brain around.
If you look at the upper left picture, today is on the left and 10,000 years ago is on the right.
So if you look at past the past few thousand years, Or from 10,000 years to 3,000 years or so.
Ice in the Arctic was very low.
The coverage is very low.
Big open expanses of sea ice all the time for thousands of years.
It's only been in the last 1,500 years that you see the concentration of sea ice increasing, peaking at the Little Ice Age, which ended about 170 years ago, about 1850.
So the sea ice in the Arctic reached its maximum It's another picture of the same thing.
175 years ago.
And it's bounced back since there.
Bottom right, it's another picture of the same thing.
This shows low values of sea ice on top, high on the bottom, and you see that low values really dominate the period 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.
So we're in a coldish period in terms of the Arctic right now.
On the bottom left is the last, um, uh, how many years?
I believe it's the last, uh, about 40 years.
Last 40 years.
The blue is the Arctic, Northern Hemisphere, and it has declined as we've all been made aware of.
The red is the sea ice around the Antarctic.
And the sea ice around the Antarctic has shown an increase up to 2014.
Then a series of huge storms came that busted up the ice and sent it to lower latitudes where it melted and really dropped it to about 2017 to a low amount.
And since 2017, it's been struggling back up.
And if you look very, very carefully at the very last thin red line there, the monthly value, it's above average again back in Antarctica.
The two basins are very different.
Antarctica has no boundary as it goes to the equator, you know, because there's just water as you go toward the equator from Antarctica.
So it can grow if it wants to.
Arctic sea ice is pretty much confined.
I mean, it's in that Arctic basin and it doesn't have much way to go out.
It can only go down and back to normal, back down, back to normal.
So it's a different kind of metric there.
So the question becomes, why all the alarm about Arctic sea ice?
I'll let Tony Heller explain.
This graph is from the 1990 IPCC report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it shows NOAA satellite data going back to 1974.
Note that NOAA starts their current graphs right at this peak in 1979 and leaves off all the data prior to that, which was much lower.
Why do they do that?
Well, the reason why they do this is simple.
By starting their graphs in 1979, right at the peak, they can show a linear downward trend, which gets blamed on carbon dioxide.
But if they started their graph when their data actually begins in 1974, then it would look like a cycle which goes up for a while and then comes down for a while, and that doesn't correlate very well with carbon dioxide.
This story already looks bad for NOAA, but it gets much worse.
There was another report written in 1985 by the Department of Energy titled Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide.
This was done by a study group who was the predecessor to the IPCC, and they showed Arctic sea ice data going all the way back to 1925 when it was high, then it declined to about 1955, rose again to 1965, and declined again to about 1974 when the IPCC data began from the 1990 report.
It shows cyclical behavior rather than linear and no correlation with carbon dioxide.
So what happens if we merge the 1985 DOE graph and the 1990 IPCC graph?
Well, let's try it and find out.
I'm bringing the two graphs together at the same scale on both axes This merged graph looks even more cyclical and less linear.
There doesn't appear to be any correlation with carbon dioxide at all.
Arctic sea ice increased from the mid-1950s until 1990.
But something else really stands out in this graph.
Look at 1979, where NOAA currently starts their sea ice graphs.
It's right at the peak for the last century.
By starting their graphs in 1979, they can show a sharp descent in sea ice since then.
So the Arctic sea ice variations are on a fairly big scale.
You have to look back maybe a hundred years to see the sort of cycle.
But what is absolutely clear here is you can get Arctic sea ice increasing despite very rapidly rising CO2 levels.
In the 70s we had the Ice Age Cummings Scare and you can see it on this graph.
Because it was cooling, and it increased the ice right up to the 1979, which is actually the highest record in the whole of this graph.
So you have nothing to worry about with sea ice.
We are in completely natural conditions.
And by the way, if the whole Arctic melted, because it's floating ice, it doesn't change sea levels at all.
And it was much lower in the 1950s.
Before many of those young alarmists, of course, were even born.
So the heist is much higher now than then.
And yet we've had all the extra CO2.
CO2. Think about it.
I'll provide the link to a separate video below this one that deals in more detail with rising sea levels and the fake alarmism.
But just for this one, I'll just concentrate on the claimed sinking islands.
Well, first look at the Indian Ocean.
And there, the Maldives have grown.
Not sunk, grown.
And that is why, of course, they're spending billions on building airports just a metre or so above the sea level.
They know the truth, but you know it's just nice to have some free money rain from heaven from Western countries.
Now let's cross over to the Pacific Ocean and its islands.
Well, lo and behold, hundreds of Pacific islands have grown.
And you know what?
None have gone.
No inhabited islands anywhere have gone.
But at the very top of the list of the islands most in danger was Tuvalu.
Headlines all over the world claiming it's going to disappear soon.
One day we'll disappear.
Tuvalu's sinking islands.
Rising seas are on the verge of swallowing two of the tiny archipelago's nine islands and the encroaching waves haunt local streams.
Sounds really bad, doesn't it?
But let's flip over to the truth.
The truth is the exact opposite.
Tuvalu has grown, and it's a process that's been going on for years and was understood by Darwin when he journeyed round the world.
He noticed the process by which islands grow, but it seems modern climate alarmists don't understand some very basic processes in the world.
To be standing somewhere that seventy years ago was a reef, And it's now an island.
It's pretty mind-blowing.
That's from Dr. Murray Ford, University of Auckland.
And unless science actually is validated by the data, by the real world, it's not working.
It has to be rejected.
As a water resource engineer, I used to be in charge for large areas where planning had to have approval to make sure there's no risk of flooding.
That was my job.
As it was to issue flood warnings.
So it is within my personal experience this.
But there are many factors that determine floods.
Nature itself is by far the biggest but if you pave over large areas you'll simply increase the speed at which the rainfall gets to the river and therefore increase the flood.
The same of course if you remove forests.
Trees hold back flood water and reduce the peak.
By a considerable amount.
And then again flood bans or protection that's not maintained.
All these are factors in floods.
But if you look back at nature, there are many, many major historic floods, the like of which we're not seeing today.
This graph from the USA shows, since 1895, periods of wet and dry, periods of droughts and wets.
And as you can see, the real wet periods were further back again.
But in truth, this shows no particular trend at all.
They're just not getting worse.
Well, if anything, floods are getting less.
Just like droughts.
Here are some examples of historic floods that put today's events into a real perspective.
What you will find here is no pattern at all.
Some of the major floods in history killed millions of people.
Just look at this list.
Well, seeing as Pakistan are demanding compensation for the flood this year, it's worth taking a look at the history there as well.
The facts are that Pakistan has been deforesting, removing forests on a grand scale, and this will increase floods.
On top of that, they have not maintained the flood bonds.
So they're going to get big problems when the floods do come.
But there's nothing unusual about the flood this year.
What, just over a thousand died?
But let's go back 72 years.
What happened then?
You can see a much bigger problem in the past.
You cannot relate any individual weather event to climate change.
You really can't.
You have to study a pattern over many, many decades to understand any climate change.
You can read many reports about what's going on in places like Pakistan.
Here's one in the Indus Delta.
Yet another problem surfaced.
Embankments had not been maintained in this region at all.
But now let's move on to give a perspective on biodiversity.
It may surprise you to learn that we live in the most biodiverse time in the history of the world.
There aren't any families of creatures going extinct.
There are individual species within families that adjust to different changing circumstances and while some may go extinct, some grow.
That is normal and so on.
What's happening is a complete distortion of the facts in order to scare you.
I'm moving on to coral reefs.
I have throughout the world swum many a coral reef.
I have sailed the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean myself.
I am more than aware of the threats to coral.
However, the hype about it is not true.
This is a typical example about the scare story about coral reefs.
Terry Hughes has spent a lifetime studying coral reefs.
A bleach coral is very, very sick.
Corals bleach when the waters around them get too warm, something that's happening with increasing frequency and intensity as a consequence of global warming.
So there you have it.
And David Attenborough there featured the Great Barrier Reef as the perfect example of coral degradation, as the perfect example of global warming damaging coral reefs.
But what is the truth?
Well, The Great Barrier Reef today is at its healthiest it's ever been on record.
And the professor who reported this was sacked for doing so.
But there is no doubt now, after a 35 year study, it's the healthiest it's ever been.
And there's one more point.
North of the Great Barrier Reef is what's known as the best coral in the world in the Coral Triangle.
And that is at a warmer temperature than the Great Barrier Reef.
Coral likes warmth.
This idea that it's as simple as when you have warm water the coral dies is absurd.
Well, the polar burst scare has been going for years.
I think we all know it.
The melting Arctic ice is going to make them disappear as a species.
Scientists have been warning us about climate change for years.
And the world certainly took notice a couple of weeks ago when a video of a starving, disoriented polar bear made its way around the planet.
He's documented what warming climate is doing for wildlife.
You're joining me from Nanuse Bay on Vancouver Island in Canada.
You took those images of that starving polar bear.
Tell us about it.
What did you see?
What struck you?
We were working in an area up in Northern Baffin Island looking, celebrating a potential creation of a marine protected area and we were seeing some bears, healthy bears, fat bears, normal bears.
So they were seeing fat bears, healthy bears, normal bears and suddenly they got to turn the corner.
We came around the corner into a bay with our boat and we noticed this slump of white fur on the ground and we didn't know if it was a dead bear or what it was, so we went on land, we positioned ourselves a long ways away and then the head moved and we realized it was a polar bear that was in trouble.
We just positioned ourselves and slowly after maybe an hour the bear very slowly got up and that's that gut-wrenching moment where you see where he's laboring to get up and dragging himself across the tundra and we didn't, you know, obviously know what to do at that moment other than film.
Well this is an amazing effect of global warming.
It just picks on the one bear.
All the rest are normal, fat and healthy.
But this one bear is subject to global warming.
Wow!
But of course, polar bear population is now at record levels, and the main reason for that is that the Arctic nations, the nations that surround the Arctic, agreed to stop shooting them in the 1970s.
That is the main reason, and the reports here very clearly show they're at record levels.
So now a look at those acid seas, which of course is a total myth.
The sea actually has a pH value of roundabout 8.2, 8.1.
It is highly alkaline.
A scientific report summed it up well.
Is there an acidification problem?
And concludes that the CO2 is an important plankton food, just like it is an important food for plants on land.
And it enriches sea life.
And that the term ocean acidification is highly misleading.
Just look what the world was like back in the Cambrian period, when all life on Earth started in the seas, and the seashells were huge.
It wasn't 420 parts per million in the atmosphere of CO2, like it is today.
It was somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 parts, at least 15 times more than today.
But the oceans weren't acidic.
Water actually sheds CO2 as it gets warmer in any event.
This graph demonstrates the relationship between temperature and the CO2 absorption of water.
The problem is the scientists use models instead of inspecting the actual thing and looking at how the biology of the sea reacts with the CO2.
And when you do that you get a totally different picture.
The CO2 is actually beneficial.
I could of course greatly expand on this video, greatly expand on each subject.
But the fact is, that the net zero campaign, the net zero policy, is inhuman.
It is going to cause more and more suffering.
And the worst part of all is, there is no need for it.
It is a totally fake philosophy.
It does not connect with real science.
And the climate scientists these days, that propagate it, should not really be calling themselves scientists.
Even John Christie, who helped with some of these graphs after appearing on a march in support of skepticism in science, was shot at seven times through his office windows.
This is the world we live in.
And it's not a world where the other side, the alarmists, can afford to have proper discussions, can afford to have an equal balance in the debate.
That fact in itself shows the fragility of their case.
I challenge anyone to come up with evidence that any single weather event can be directly attributed to man-made CO2 emissions.
▲
Export Selection