It’s not for nothing that my Second Law of the Media is: When an article claims, “science says…” or “new study shows…”, assume that it doesn’t until proven otherwise. Once again, Stuff are the proof of that rule.
Scientists have cautiously concluded climate change is partly responsible for Cyclone Gabrielle’s damage.
Assume that it doesn’t until proven otherwise. Drill down through the Stuff hyperbole and rhetorical pea-and-shells games, and it’s obvious that, once again, scientifically-illiterate legacy media journalists are trying to pull a fast one on their scientifically-illiterate readers.
But this article does something even more important: it busts wide open the central conceit of the Climate Cult’s narrative. Namely, that climate models are in any way useful for explaining, let alone predicting, real-world climate.
First off, the legacy media screeching.
Dubbed the country’s “most severe weather event this century”, the ex-tropical cyclone caused billions of dollars of damage plus a spike in public concern about climate change.
See what they did there? “This century” — meaning, in the last 23 years. That’s not even a climate cycle (roughly 30 years). But it is beyond the living memory of the goldfish-brained children who run the legacy media these days. These are ignorant lackwits for whom anything pre-Kardashians is “the olden days”. Those of you with longer memories, or the ability to do what is beyond the legacy media ignoramuses, namely, crack open a history book, will be well aware that Gabrielle was an exceptional event, but hardly unprecedented.
As for the “spike in public concern”, survey data says otherwise. Even with the legacy media going into full Climate Cult meltdown, climate change only just blipped into last place of New Zealanders’ list of concerns. Next month, it will almost certainly vanish off the radar of the public consciousness again. Which will leave it to the global elite and their legacy media bootlickers to shriek and gibber about their favourite boutique obsession.
As for what scientific data seems to be saying:
But climate scientists are more cautious, turning to weather data and computer models before making an official conclusion about the role of the heating planet in the disaster.
Don’t hold your breath expecting the “official conclusion” to be anything but a predictable Climate Cult orthodoxy. Instead, look at the evidence for yourself.
Weather records suggest climate change is responsible for between 20% and 30% of the rain that fell in Hawke’s Bay and Tairawhiti, according to an international research team. Yet, climate simulations aren’t coming to the same conclusion […]
The team compared the two regions’ figures against the last 44 years of two-day rain records, Niwa climate scientist Sam Dean said.
There’s so much wrong with this claim, that it’s difficult to know where to start. For a start, 44 years is barely enough to make any claims about a climate cycle; cherry-picking an anomalous event shows nothing about long-term trends. Jumping to the “climate change” conclusion also ignores the big, wet elephant in the room: the Tongan volcano that spewed gigalitres of water into the southern stratosphere, just a few months ago.
Even then, they are forced to admit that their claims are tenuous at best.
The team isn’t particularly confident in the figures, however. In addition, the modelling work failed to back the analysis up, Dean said.
And there’s the other elephant in the room: the yawning disconnect between climate models and the real world.
“Either the observations are just a bit of an anomaly, the models aren’t quite good enough for such a small region or most likely we need to do the analysis over a much longer period of time,” he added.
Stuff
Or — all of the above.
What all this bullshit and dodging amounts to is: we have no real evidence that its climate change, but that’s what we want you to believe, so we’re sticking to it.
