Bizarre ‘Fact Check’ of World Climate Declaration Claims No Natural Climate Change For Almost 200 Years
By Paul Homewood
Inevitable really, but the Daily Sceptic‘s recent article on the World Climate Declaration (WCD) has attracted a green-activist ‘fact check’, and on that flimsy basis has been labelled “false information” by Facebook. On August 18th we published an article reporting that scientists across the world had declared there was no climate emergency. We added that the assertions that humans cause most or all climate change and that the science behind this claim is ‘settled’ have been dealt a savage blow by the WCD. The lead signatory is the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, and he is followed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. No fewer than 235 professors have signed the Declaration. Our story on the WCD went viral on social media, and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. The article and the WCD have now been branded “incorrect” by the green activist blog Climate Feedback.
The blog’s author writes: “Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.”
To claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition, and it flies in the face of all climate science. The climate has changed on Earth since gas first made an appearance in the atmosphere. Climate Feedback’s claim is in fact a denial of climate change.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Are we supposed to ignore the changes to the Earth’s climate made by natural variability?
Volcanic activity, the jet streams and the El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). None of which has been controlled by the “primary culprit”…the CO2 “control knob”.
Facebook can claim that stuff posted on their site is not published by them, however when they tag something as ‘false’ they must certainly bring themselves into areas covered by libel law. It would be lovely to see them get stung.
There is a useful website, https://ourworldindata.org/, which has assembled annual estimates of fossil fuel consumption since the early 1800s. The total about a year ago came to 5,455,496 Terawatt hours, a ridiculously precise figure, which is equal to roughly 2.0 x 1016 Megajoules (MJ). The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 quadrillion tons (5.2 x 1015 tons) and its specific heat is about 0.001 MJ/kg/degree Centigrade. Multiplying the mass of the atmosphere by its specific heat and dividing this figure into all those megajoules gives a theoretical temperature rise if all the heat from the fossil fuels we have burnt went just to warm our planet’s atmosphere.
This simple calculation results in a temperature rise of 3.8 degrees Centigrade. Let us generously assume that half of the megajoules in the fossil fuels burnt created motion or electricity, not heat. This would give a temperature rise of 1.9 degrees Centigrade. However, a warmer atmosphere would radiate more heat into space, so a one degree rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution from our waste (entropic) heat seems reasonable. Right in the ball park, too.
There is visual evidence of this effect in the form of those dramatic NASA images of our light-spangled planet at night. Only about 15% of the electric power we generate is used for illumination, so what we see is the tip of the iceberg in terms of power generation, and this in turn is under half the entropic heat that goes into the atmosphere.
Since the specific heat capacity of the oceans is of the order of 1,000 times that of the atmosphere it rather renders that calculation moot.
Many who studied Mathematics will be aware of the work of Academician Nicolai Ivanovitch Lobachevski. What is less well know is that in later life he turned to the physical sciences and enunciated Lobachevski’s principle:
“If researchers fake the data to prove a theory, then with probability closer to one than any rational number, theory is rubbish”.
WTF is ‘the climate?’
‘To claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition’
No climate on earth has changed in 200 years. ‘The climate’ is nonsense. Earth has many climates.
‘it flies in the face of all climate science.’
Golly. All climate science is now falsified.
Correct. Good comment.
I live in an ecotone (a transition area between two biological communities) with trees seen looking out a NW window (mostly Ponderosa Pines) and the grasses and shrubs (out the other window) of the Shrub-Steppe habitat. Such is an excellent place to notice climate change. We are a BWk.
One Pine in Washington State was 370 years old, but the oldest known, in Utah, dates to the year 1075, making the tree at least 933 years old. I have several over 100 feet tall but of unknown age. No climate change here.
Temperature is not “climate” nor are weather (short or long) events.
Or you can argue that it hasn’t changed — the Arctic is still pretty arctic; temperate areas are still pretty temperate (1976, 2003 and 2022 notwithstanding) and the tropics are still kinda tropical!
Variations of a couple of degrees aren’t going to make species go extinct.
And CO2 has nothing to do with it anyway!
And “the temperature” hasn’t changed by that anyway – the average of something over some area had. A 30 year average of say 15 degrees where 15 years are 14 degrees and 15 years are 16 degrees isn’t going to be any different for virtually any species if the next 10 years are 5 years at 14.5 degrees and 5 years at 16.25 degrees. But the average is 0.4 degrees higher. And those averages are themselves averages often of other averages.
TerriJackson Msc MPhil international climate scientist
Loved that video. Wonder why the discussion never gets round to the impoverishment of our population. Fiddling the science is one thing but trying to starve us is even worse.
Well past time Facebook was held to account for these fraudulent ‘fact checkers’. They claim some form of authority yet have none of any worth.
They’re probably post-grad activists working at home in the spare bedroom. They’re entitled to their opinions but how do they get away with imposing them onto us under the guise of being ‘fact-checkers’? Scandalous misdirection.
‘Fact check’ is synonymous with propaganda these days. “We reject your facts and substitute our own.”
Its just Begging the Question. If the climate has changed as we are told it has, then the point of contention is why. You can’t prove it hasn’t by assuming your conclusion.
‘Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition’
The irony being he submits no evidence whatsoever for his assertion.
Much of ‘climate science’ is an appeal to ignorance.
Yes please. Cheers P