Columbia University Warns Trump Will Have Us all Cooked by 2027!
Alarmist study from Columbia University predicts that we will have a 1.7C warmer world as soon as next year thanks to US President Donald Trump’s promise to ‘Drill, baby, drill!’
An alert reader sends us Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s column in the Telegraph… and you can already taste the buttered scones, right? Or not, because apparently they’re scorched. “Brace for Trump’s brave new world of 1.7°C global warming/ Scientists predict a record-shattering year for the world’s climate in 2027 as the US keeps drilling”. Shattering! Scientists predict! Whereas we predict 2027 will come and go and no one will notice the weather being any different unless newspapers keep hollering about it. Or indeed even if they do.
The first thing in his column that caused us nearly to choke on our marmalade, if you don’t count his headline, which again he almost certainly did not write, was this passage which he did write:
“A paper by Columbia University predicts that we will have our first taste of a 1.7C world as soon as next year – a shock big enough to intrude on everybody’s consciousness.”
Wanna bet? Will people, even if it happens, be rushing up to one another in the streets going “1.7C! 1.7C! Did it intrude on your consciousness too?”
No. You won’t notice any difference if it gets an alleged 0.1C warmer. Try turning up your thermostat that much and see if anyone in the family complains or, at any rate, changes their complaint.
Just kidding; thermostats don’t work in 10ths of a degree. It’s too trivial a change. But not for climate fanatics.
The reason the headline was the first to endanger our fruit preserve was not the boring attack on Trump. It was the notion that the US EPA rescinding the dodgy “Endangerment Finding” and Trump supporting coal power could possibly have a measurable effect on global temperature within months. Far too many people who write about climate seem to have no conception of the scale involved and no interest in finding out. They just get the hymn book and start singing.
Thus here the causes of our imminent unnoticeable demise are an El Niño and the successful fight against actual pollution, in the form of aerosols, which AEP claims “has masked the latent heat effect of past CO2 emissions by around 0.5C and possibly more.”
How anyone would know such a thing is unclear, although if you feed into a computer model that insists that CO2 should have warmed the planet scarily in the last half-century but stubbornly has not that it’s aerosols that masked the effect, the model will spew back at you that CO2 should have warmed the planet scarily in the last half-century but has not due to the masking effect of aerosols. If you like that kind of thing.
His claims are then essentially rebutted by… oh. Awkward. By him, as he then writes:
“The Columbia estimate of 1.7C above 1880-1920 levels is at the high end of the scientific spectrum but the Met Office, Europe’s Copernicus service and others also expect a record-shattering year in 2027.”
So it won’t even happen. But records will be “shattered” rather than just broken… 18 months from now. Unless they’re not. Oh, and he says “the Columbia team is led by Jim Hansen, the veteran Nasa scientist”. Gotcha. The one who’s now considered even by other alarmists to have lost his bearings? As the planet seems to be cooling from that weird 2023-24 spike not warming? Well, never mind data. See, it’s all clear in theory:
“It is the paradox of our age that anti-green backlash is sweeping the West – though not the East – just as the evidence hardens and as we move closer to runaway feedback loops that ought to scare the wits out of us.”
Um what evidence? Ah:
“In case you missed it, the Green Alliance has obtained a suppressed report by the Government and the joint intelligence committee that spells out the risks. ‘Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions. Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse (irreversible loss of function beyond repair),’ said the text.”
So the people who brought you the Stern report just brought, or tried not to and did anyway, Son of Stern. But look: If “ecosystem degradation” were occurring “across all regions” one would expect to see degraded ecosystems everywhere not, say, global greening.
Still, back to the future:
“At some point there will be a backlash against the backlash and the next one may be even bigger than the Greta Thunberg storm.”
Oh, that tempest in a teapot? Where is she now, or “Fridays for Future”? But just you wait:
“All it requires is the catalyst of a climate shocker or two, or three, to recapture the headlines: a 1.7C world in 2027 would surely do it.”
Dude, you’re in the echo chamber. Nobody cares. And you’re trying to recruit other fools with the old siren song that for conservatives to win they have to be liberals:
“My advice to the Tories is listen hard to distant but approaching thunder. Climate negligence and fossil politics will not be a winning formula in the hotter world of the next election. That niche is best left to Reform. There is a wide-open window for the Conservatives to be the responsible party of nature and free market, winning back the hard-working silent middle as urban Labour lurches further to the welfare Left. Ecology will soon be fashionable again.”
And ecology is climate and climate is ecology. There is only one monocause. Which just worked so well for the Tories under, say, Boris Johnson that they doubtless can’t wait to try it again because of insider headlines.
source climatediscussionnexus.com
Len Winokur
| #
So the poor folk freezing their nuts off in the northern Alaskan winter at -30 Celsius will soon have to contend with freezing them off at -28.3 Celsius.
Reply