The Guardian Spouting Climate Nonsense Again
A few days ago, The Guardian; that “bastion of accurate reporting”, ran an article with the headline ‘We cannot adapt our way out of climate crisis, warns leading scientist‘
The article is not long, so I reproduce it in full, interspersed with my own comments:
The world cannot adapt its way out of the climate crisis, and counting on adaptation to limit damage is no substitute for urgently cutting greenhouse gases, a leading climate scientist has warned.
Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy in the US and professor at Texas Tech University, said the world was heading for dangers unseen in the 10,000 years of human civilisation, and efforts to make the world more resilient were needed but by themselves could not soften the impact enough.
What dangers are those then? No details of course.
“People do not understand the magnitude of what is going on,” she said. “This will be greater than anything we have ever seen in the past. This will be unprecedented. Every living thing will be affected.”
I looked up Katharine Hayhoe, and found she calls herself a climate scientist, she does not appear to have any formal climate qualification. According to Wikipedia, she has a Bachelor of Science degree in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto, has a Master of Science qualification and is a Doctor of Philosophy.
She was one of the authors of the Third National Climate Assessment in 2014, and was an ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
She is highly critical of climate skeptics. On September 28th, 2018, she said:
“The six stages of climate denial are: It’s not real. It’s not us. It’s not that bad. It’s too expensive to fix. Aha, here’s a great solution (that actually does nothing). And – oh no! Now it’s too late. You really should have warned us earlier.”
So she’s very much “unbiased” then…
While countries can start to adapt to some of the impacts, for instance with seawalls and flood barriers, and by making their infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, if global heating is allowed to continue then the world will rapidly reach a point beyond what can be adapted to.
Wrong. Dr Tim Ball told me in a warmer world, you get FEWER storms forming, and those that do form are LESS intense.
“If we continue with business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, there is no adaptation that is possible. You just can’t,” she said, in an interview with the Guardian.
We are not continuing with ‘business-as-usual’ emissions. Just about every country, with a few notable exceptions, has dramatically reduced emissions.
These impacts would be felt across the world, she warned. “Our infrastructure, worth trillions of dollars, built over decades, was built for a planet that no longer exists,” she said.
A planet that no longer exists? Seriously?? I want some of what she is smoking.
Changing that infrastructure would cost further trillions, so allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue to grow would mean ever-rising impacts and costs.
The whole of modern life was at stake, she added. “Human civilisation is based on the assumption of a stable climate,” she said. “But we are moving far beyond the stable range.”
A stable climate? When in the Earth’s history has the climate been ‘stable’??
Earlier this month, Stuart Kirk, the head of responsible investment at the global bank HSBC, made headlines by suggesting that financial institutions should discount the risks of the climate crisis as the world could adapt to its impacts.
He noted that Amsterdam was built on land below sea level, and suggested that areas climate scientists have predicted would be vulnerable to inundation, such as Miami, could be similarly adapted to cope with the risk.
“Who cares if Miami is six metres under water in 100 years?” he asked an investor conference. HSBC moved quickly to disown Kirk’s comments and suspend him.
HSBC Asset Management’s chief executive, Nicolas Moreau, said Kirk’s remarks “do not reflect the views of HSBC Asset Management nor HSBC Group in any way”, and reiterated the bank’s commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Stuart Kirk is just the latest in a long line of people who are suspended, censored and/or sacked for daring to speak the truth. That cannot be allowed.
“HSBC regards climate change as one of the most serious emergencies facing the planet, and is committed to supporting its customers in their transition to net zero and a sustainable future.”
Hayhoe, who has been a lead author on US national climate assessments, said Kirk’s comments seemed to reflect an attitude that was gaining ground among “climate dismissers”, who try to minimise the level of risk from climate change by saying the impacts would be manageable.
However, the world’s leading climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned earlier this year that continued global heating, beyond 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, would wreak devastation across the globe, in the form of floods, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather, with swathes of the planet becoming unsuitable for agriculture and effectively uninhabitable, causing extreme harm to human society in many places.
In fact, the IPCC have said they have ‘low confidence’ (their words for there is no evidence) that human activity is causing any deterioration in the climate, so Hayhoe is taking a leaf out of Graham Redfearn’s book and making scare stories up out of whole cloth.
Hayhoe said the IPCC findings had not been broadly understood by many people. “This is an unprecedented experiment with the climate,” she said. “The reality is that we will not have anything left that we value, if we do not address the climate crisis.”
Too right many people have misunderstood what the IPCC writes.
In fact, their summaries, released weeks or months before the full reports, often bear no resemblance to what scientists actually say in the full report, but they seem to rely on policy-makers only reading the summaries and not the full reports, and are therefore being deliberately deceived into creating solutions for a problem that does not exist.
The current warming period since the Little Ice Age has been hugely beneficial in just about every aspect of human society. Warmth is good. Cold kills 15 times as many people as heat. A warmer planet is a prosperous one, and is only in danger after data tampering to create the false impression the planet is heating out of control.
It isn’t, the planet is healthier now than it was a century ago.
In conclusion, I offer this image of what really drives our climate:-
See the Guardian article here: theguardian.com
Header image: American Museum of Natural History
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a university graduate in space science and British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
John Doran
| #
The UN IPCC is a fraud factory dedicated to supporting the current “warming crisis” con.
This is made more than clear in Geology Prof Ian Plimer’s great book:
Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science
Substantial, 500+ pages, 2000+ref’s & worth it.
JD.
Reply
John Doran
| #
In fact, we are more likely headed into a mini ice age:
youtube.com/watch?v=M_iqIj38UmY
JD.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Andy,
The problem lies with our type of democracy. We have a Top Down form of government. Here we elect a group to lead us for a number of years – then come back to ‘the people’ for a new election and ‘to serve’ for another term. What this does is to separate the spenders (government) from the funders (the people).
My answer is to combine the spenders with the people to come up with a form of Bottom Up government. This is not really a new idea, because it has worked successfully in Switzerland for hundreds of years. What this effectively does is keep the spenders ‘living within their means’.
Reply
Andy
| #
Interesting idea Robert!
Reply
MattH
| #
Robert is, in fact, supporting the concept of democracy.
Currently most Western ‘democracies’ vote for 3 or 4 years of tyranny. People thrive when they have stability in their lives but with the change of government every second or third term the ideologies of one ‘party’ are unpicked and change is imposed without any informed community mandate.
Winning an election does not give a group of people a ‘mandate to impose their own set of beliefs and prejudices on society.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy and Robert,
Andy, what Robert wrote about the government of Switzerland should not be news to you. For he has regularly drown our attentions to the political system of Switzerland.
However, he has not written about how citizens of Switzerland chose not to chose sides during WWII. Every colony of England, sent help to England, including the USA, who had fought a war to gain their independence from England, went to the aid of the free independent nations of Europe during WWII. Even German and Italian citizens of the USA, who had migrated to the USA less than a century earlier, went to Europe to fight the evil German and Italian governments. But the Swiss government of the Swiss people chose not to chose sides.
It is the people of a nation who matter; not their governments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Jerry,
The Swiss provided a state of sanctuary to the many sides of the conflict known as WW2. This was a stabilising factor in what became a long drawn out war.
As you say “the Swiss government of the Swiss people chose not to chose sides”, because the people knew they lived in a land locked country and would be easy fodder for any aggressor. The people got it right when governments all around them got it wrong – just like global warming and covid19?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert and Matt,
To support a democracy someone must FIGHT. For there are EVIL PEOPLE.
Have a good day. Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry and Robert:
WW2 was just another Zionist staged event. Germany led by the Zionist puppet Hitler was never a threat to the U.S. but in fact had been built up by massive aid from Wall St. including G.M, Ford, Dupont, ATT and many other Amer. corp. Standard Oil held the contract for tetraethyl lead used by the Germans for high altitude bombing and also brought in critical oil for the Germans from their huge refinery in Aruba, off the coast of Venezuela. Prescott Bush was the main intermediary between the Germans and Wall street.
Germany never attacked the U.S. even after Roosenvelt gave 50 battleships to Britain, massive :”lend lease” aid, operated recognizance for the British and finally even started firing on German U boats.
Reply
DESALARY
| #
I have made 100 DLR every hour in one day.That was my ideal day in my life and my boss b was very content with me..CNN is additionally intrigued from my work and is very happy..
For more ……….————- …… Click My Profile
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
My cousin, who as a 18 year old, was not motivated to study during his first year of college, so he joined the Navy which his father and uncle (Germans) had during WWII The Navy discovered my cousin had practical skills and sent him to college to become a nuclear engineer and he served underwater for long times as one of Admiral Rickovers’ boys during the Cold War.
Today, my cousin forward daily many emails which his military buds sent to him. One of today’s was about small PRACICal inventions of Japanese inventors and manufactures which have not yet made it to the USA markets.
I make this comment to see if you PSI would publish the pictures of these inventions for the millions of PSI readers to see and be inspired.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy
| #
Hi Jerry, you could email John O’Sullivan to see if he would be interested in your photographs, but it would need an article to go with them.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
What a wonderful closing picture. It illustrates how tiny the Solar Systems’ planets are with regard to the Sun. If you have an energy mystery – why is my planet warming up? – then the first suspect should be the Sun.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
Without the Sun there would be no gravity, hence no solar system. Yes, the Sun warms the every daytime and some nights, without nighttime clouds, the earth’s surface temperature cools by emitting the solar radiation absorbed during the daytime back to space.
However, my favorite meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe, ‘Weather and Climate’, 1966, wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
HerbbRose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You just can’t get it right. Clouds form when the water absorbing heat at the Earth’s surface cools and radiates that heat. A cloud is a sign of the loss of heat by water, so when there are no clouds it means the water is still absorbing heat, having not reached the point where it is in equilibrium and radiating more heat than it’s absorbing.
Water in the atmosphere is not a gas but a liquid so when clouds disappear without producing rain it is a result of them absorbing heat. Clouds are an indication of the energy contained in the water in the atmosphere
Herb.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Jerry even believes that the NASA money laundering fake space agency has sent a helicopter from Earth to Mars (Devon Island) and that if flys in zero (vacuum) atmosphere.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Jerry even believes that the NASA money laundering fake space agency has sent a helicopter from Earth to Mars (Devon Island) and that if flys in zero (vacuum) atmosphere.
You’ve been caught red-handed royal on that one allready, and It isn’t a vacuum either. As you stated at the time, you got that info from NASA..
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
I have been caught on nothing. I use the commonly accepted data as to the Martian atmosphere, which is essentially a vacuum. If NASA (and others) did not think this was the case they would not state it because it does not help their case as far as flying any propeller aircraft. They just assume as with fake planes flying through structural steel and concrete buildings, that there are people stupid enough to believe it. NASA has a huge CGI operation in Louisiana and also a base on Devon Island. If they can fly a helicopter in an atmosphere 0.1of 1% of Earths (a vacuum) then they should be able to duplicate it in a vacuum here. They cannot.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Just so you know, I want the truth, and I’ll go to some length to get it if I have to.
“I use the commonly accepted data as to the Martian atmosphere”
Commonly accepted, came from NASA. Your claim, came from NASA, as you admitted yesterday. Therefore your ‘money laundering’ and fake claim is invalid.
“They just assume as with fake planes flying through structural steel and concrete buildings,”
Are you serious? Null point in the context of this discussion.
“they should be able to duplicate it in a vacuum here. They cannot.”
NASA say they have, and you cannot prove otherwise.
“I have been caught on nothing”
Your own words say you have.
Just for the record, below is where you state NASA are behind your claim of Mars’ atmosphere. I will keep a copy of the page, and I have included links to the original comments for completeness as I only posted the relevant parts for clarity, so no ‘fraud’ can be claimed on my part:
Howdy
June 4, 2022 at 9:24 pm | #
“almost zero pressure on Mars”
You didn’t answer the question Mark. Where does your information come from to support your claim above?
https://principia-scientific.com/nasas-161-second-helicopter-tour-of-martian-terrain/#comment-72757
Mark Tapley
June 4, 2022 at 10:00 pm | #
Hello Howdy:
NASA admits that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is one tenth of 1% of that on earth.
https://principia-scientific.com/nasas-161-second-helicopter-tour-of-martian-terrain/#comment-72761
Herb posts a comment.
Howdy
June 4, 2022 at 10:22 pm | #
“NASA admits that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is one tenth of 1% of that on earth”
You claim repeatedly that NASA is all fake and fraud. That all the claimed space operations were either CGI, or done on Devon Island. You can’t pick and choose, either NASA is fake, or it’s genuine, so why are you now taking a NASA originated statement that you have repeatedly scoffed at the means It was acquired by being impossible, to support your argument when you allready stated It is fake?
This applies to all those who made the same claim as you about Mars density/pressure/thinness, whatever. You all use a NASA generated figure while claiming NASA are fake. Kind of blows your whole argument wide open don’t you think?
https://principia-scientific.com/nasas-161-second-helicopter-tour-of-martian-terrain/#comment-72764
Reply
Andy
| #
I have never seen so much hatred in one person. Had you been in the Wermacht during WWII you would have been in your element.
Reply