Climate sense
Luboš Motl, writing on his blog The Reference Frame, examines the current fad of blaming extreme weather on climate change, and recent comments by Gavin Schmidt:
There has been a lot of havoc in the media world about two recent papers in Nature whose authors argued that bad rainstorms are caused by humans (Min et al.) and that the British 2000 floods were caused by humans (Pall et al.).
The idea that climate extremes are supposed to get larger is one of the most omni-present manifestations of the climate doomsday religion.
This thesis contradicts pretty much all empirical data as well as theoretical analyses of the climate. The global temperature has probably increased in the last 100 years but the extremes have not. However, many AGW believers, including many of those you could otherwise count as doubters (e.g. the former Czech representative in the IPCC) love to parrot this complete pseudoscientific nonsense.
If you graph the intensity or number of hurricanes; the temperature fluctuations; the total number of extreme temperature events; or many other things that depend on “non-uniformity” and “non-constancy” of the quantities describing the atmosphere, you will see that there’s been no significant global trend in either of them during the last 100 years or so.
All those graphs are noisy – unlike the temperature (following a pink noise curve), all these graphs resemble white noise (because there’s no reason to think that e.g. the annual or monthly amount of precipitation should be a continuous function). But the “signal” never exceeds the “noise” in a statistically significant way.
I have created many such graphs using the WeatherData function in Mathematica. I wonder – if those people really believe that the measures of extremeness are going up, why do they do so? Haven’t they managed to draw a single graph of this type which is almost enough to see that this whole thesis is just plain rubbish?
It seems to me that the honest believers build their opinions on the climate models that suffer from some kind of numerical instability – and they’re not capable to distinguish the climate models from the reality or to see that these effects obviously can’t be happening in the real world. And by the way, they have probably never played with the same model without the CO2 increase to see that the instability is still there.
The idea that all extremes are getting stronger – a basic pillar of the climate doomsday beliefs – is actually so silly that even one of the most famous climate cranks, Gavin Schmidt, has been able to figure our and admit that it’s wrong.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
POLAR BEARS ARE INCREASING IN NUMBER, NOT DECREASING
Canada’s growing polar bear population ‘becoming a problem,’
locals say – Orlando Seminole County Enquirer.
http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say
POLAR BEARS ARE INCREASING IN NUMBER, NOT DECREASING
Canada’s growing polar bear population ‘becoming a problem,’
locals say – Orlando Seminole County Enquirer.
http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say
I wonder if any of this would qualify as “extreme weather”?
Read it .. and more .. here:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8840044?
And all of this centuries before the invention of the SUV.
Great stuff Eloi, but already dismissed by the Climate Cult alarmists as an “anomaly” (best joke I think I’ve heard in years)
There’s really no point arguing with them – they are blinded fanatics.
The only productive way of countering their lies now is via blogs like this (FANTASTIC work Simon and others) where people can use reason and logic to confront the lies, spin and propaganda head on.
Most people aren’t as daft as these cultists think and only the intellectually slothful will remain deceived.
Al Gore admits global warming propaganda is a part of global governance Listen 1:04.
One thing is for sure, somewhere, a young researcher with stars in his eyes, is busy torturing statistical models. His hope will be that very soon, he will create a hockey stick graph of extreme weather events showing a shocking increase in the last 30 years. His hope will be that his graph will grace the cover of nature, get into al Al Gore film and be featured prominently in the next IPCC assesssment report.
Why not? It’s happened before when inconvenient empirical data contradicted the theory of the day.