Something is happening, even prestigious science journals are publishing research that challenges the climate crisis, unprecedented weather narrative, although they do their best to minimize or hide the conclusions. But the fact that this is even showing up is interesting–maybe the public revulsion at the cost of so-called “renewables” and at the subsidies exclusively benefiting rich people is causing enough political blowback that the research underpinning the hysteria has to be reined in. In any event, here are a couple of examples.
This study relates to atmospheric circulation over the Pacific, which has a substantial effect on global weather. While climate models predict that this circulation, called Pacific Walker, will weaken as the earth supposedly warms, as usual, real data isn’t consistent with the models. This study looked at proxy measures over the last 800 years and found that any recent changes were consistent with natural variability over the study period. And there has been no change in trend during the period of industrialization, since 1850, that supposedly led to a substantial increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. How inconvenient indeed. (Nature Article)
More heresy is found in this study challenging one of the hysterics primary theses: that global warming is destroying the environmental niches for every type of life on earth. The authors looked at the effect of sea bottom heat waves from 1993 to 2019 on fish. Here is the abstract quote: “the effects of marine heatwaves on fish biomass were often minimal and could not be distinguished from natural and sampling variability.” Ooops, how did they let that slip by. Drats, have to find some new horror story (fiction) to support our hysteria. (Nature Article)
And speaking of renewables, what you usually don’t hear is they are inconsistent with our current grid for transmitting electricity and cause serious risk of damage to that grid. The cost to avoid that is trillions of dollars. So here is an article that recognizes that this is an issue, and that it is giving pause to those who favor forcing all power to be generated by renewables (mostly rich people who get those subsidies). But then they hilariously and ironicly try to minimize the issue by claiming that models forecasting grid doom are wrong and overstating the problem. Really, models can be wrong, and they can overstate an issue? Who knew? But of course that couldn’t apply to climate hysteria models, could it? (Science Article)