The Emperor’s New Climate

In the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” clothing experts lied about making the Emperor new clothes. Nobody could see his clothing, but they were afraid and embarrassed to question authority. Even the Emperor was afraid to question “the experts.”

Fast forward to the present. professional fraudsters like Heidi Cullen believe they can convince people the climate is changing – by lying to them. But only one in three Americans are delusional or stupid enough to believe they are experiencing climate change. Heidi Cullen’s climate fraud is being crushed by reality.

Most people don’t see how climate change is affecting their lives—and that’s a problem | Popular Science

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Emperor’s New Climate

  1. Bob Grise says:

    I watched Heidi on the weather channel years ago. It was clear to me then that she was a con artist. Say…what does a warming world look like? Well, I live in Minnesota and I just looked at statewide temps and Hibbing MN, home town of retired NBA star Kevin Mchale, just set an all time record. Their current temp is 37. The record low for this date is…oops…WAS 38. Almost July and furnaces are running….. Let’s do the math. We have record high crop yields and no noticeable warming. And the problem is…what??????

  2. gator69 says:

    Cullen also worried that media covering extreme weather operated off outdated information: They would say you couldn’t tie any specific event to climate change. “Now the techniques exist,” Cullen says.

    Really? Techniques?

  3. oldbrew says:

    Maybe 7 in 1o Americans believe global warming is real and happening, but that says nothing about what they do or don’t believe the causes might be.

    This is where the arguments get shady and propagandists can use confusion and unspoken implication as a tactic.

    Re specific events, even the IPCC has warned against using them as evidence of anything. The objective should be to try and identify trends, and by definition one event is not a trend.

    • griff says:

      Well you could look at 38 years of arctic sea ice satellite data… or all arctic sea ice data back to the 1850s and clearly see a trend – decline in extent and area nad volume, for which natural cycles/variability cannot account.

      And so on.

      Plenty of long term, observational evidence to back up the indisputable basic physics.

      • RAH says:

        “indisputable basic physics”. Like the “indisputable basic physics” which demands an upper tropospheric hot spot over the tropics?

        BTW griff
        US Navy IIC shows Artic sea ice right at the 30 year mean.
        Your crystal ball must be cloudy.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You wouldn’t have even the slightest clue of “basic physics”, griff.

        There is actually ZERO real physics behind the CO2 scam.

        There is no scientific proof that CO2 causes warming of the convective atmosphere or of oceans.

        It is a fable, a fantasy.

        1850 was the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years

        Move to Siberia if you want that bitter, spitefully cold time.

        But you won’t will you.

        … You like the WARMTH of your fossil fuel warmed inner-city ghetto basement. You are NOTHING but a hypocritical little slow-minded troll.

      • Brad says:

        You have zero idea what natural variablity of arctic sea ice should be. We do not have long enough or detailed enough records to know that. You just parrot the lies you hear over and over.

      • gator69 says:

        …decline in extent and area nad volume, for which natural cycles/variability cannot account.

        Genocide Griff returns with another moronic observation.

        Ms Griff, we are in an interglacial, and ice is supposed to be melting, naturally.

        If I take a block of ice out of a freezer and place it on a counter at 50 degrees fahrenheit, it will melt. If I turn the temperature down to 40 degrees F, will that block of ice still melt, or will it freeze?

        Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • RAH says:

        Arctic sea ice and temperature stable for the last 12 years.

        • The sea ice chart shows the trend in the northern hemisphere, where 8/9 of humanity resides–in part because of the availability of terra firma on which to stand. Only 1/9 of the world’s population lives in the Southern Hemisphere. If misanthropomorphic CO2 is a more important GHG than H2O, might Antarctic sea ice show a steeper uptrend? The Brewer-Dobson effect, plus the simple fact that it one expects density to be greater near the source, suggest this comparison. Is there an online guide to harvesting these data for input into graphs?

      • sunsettommy says:

        Meanwhile the warmist troll loon Griff, continues to ignore a lot of research about little to no Summer ice,here is one of them of a time 1,000 years ago,when there were little to no summer ice in the Arctic region.

        Birds and Climatic Change

        Kenneth Williamson

        Published in 1975

        Between 1000 and 1300 average summer temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. Eric the Red, a renowned world citizen of that time, has been much maligned as the first progressive publicity man for giving Greenland
        a false image in order to attract settlers; but in truth, the southwest of that vast country was warmer and greener by far than at any time until the Fieldfares Turdus pilaris arrived there in the mid-1930s. The sea-temperature of the Atlantic
        was higher than it has been since, and there appears to have been none or very little ice to hinder the Vikings’ communications between Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and Labrador (Mowat 1965). Indeed Brooks (1926) considers that the polar ice-cap may have disappeared entirely during the summer months, to build anew each winter.”
        Researchers knew about this DECADES ago,yet we see many ignorant trolls today,like Griff, continue to make foolish statements.

        • R Shearer says:

          In many parts of the world, receding glaciers are exposing vegetation that was growing about 1000 years ago, where it is still too cold to grow today.

  4. CheshireRed says:

    During the formative years of the Pause (the early 2000’s) the failure of temperatures to continuously sky-rocket created a problem for alarmists. They and their models were screaming ‘we’re all gonna die’! while Mother Nature calmly shooed such silliness away.

    Likewise the complete lack of an unusual series of catastrophic weather events caused consternation and it all became a bit embarrassing, so alarmists started the completely bogus meme that ‘climate change is here, now’.

    That’s what we’re getting now; an assertion that’s backed up by….almost no evidence whatsoever.

    Take any random 100 ‘weather index’ indicators, eg precipitation, ice pack, sea levels, river levels, drought, crop yields, tornadoes and so on from around the world. At any given time most will be bang average for the time of year, a few will be slightly above or below average and a handful may be running as outliers. That’s where we are now and what’s conspicuously missing is a whole series of unusual events. Alarmists focus like a laser on any outliers…hence a drier than average river becomes headline news, Arctic sea ice is perennially said to be on the brink of ‘catastrophe’ and so on. By focussing on a handful of events they can create a scary-sounding news article and make it seem the End of the World Is Nigh but the unpalatable reality (for alarmists) is THERE IS OBVIOUISLY NO WEATHER OR CLIMATE CRISIS.

    They’re almost a busted flush now. Only policy overhang and investment and reputational protection is keeping the scam alive.

  5. TA says:

    From the article: “According to a recent Yale survey, 7 in 10 Americans believe global warming is real and happening. And 6 in 10 believe it is affecting U.S. weather. But only 1 in 3 say they’ve personally felt its effects.”

    This would just go to demonstrate the power of MSM propaganda which sells this CAGW narrative to the public. But when it comes to personal experience, 2/3 of those polled say they don’t see the climate being affected detrimentally.

    My personal experience is that the climate is much milder this century than in my youth. Much milder. Claiming this is the “hottest year evah!” or that the Earth’s weather is much more extreme today than at any time in the past is ridiculous and flies in the face of the facts.

    • Brad says:

      Belief > observation = faith

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I’d like to see such surveys to ask one additional question:

      Why do you believe or do not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and happening?

      I know the difficulty is in categorizing the answers but in my personal experience it is the most important question. The responses I’ve been getting from believers over the years range from regurgitating the “scientific” talking points of the day by those that follow alarmist publications (activists), through references to any recent hot weather and bewilderment that I would ask such a silly question because everyone is supposed to know that “scientists” say so (typical TV news watchers), all the way to a few being genuinely puzzled that they can’t explain why they hold such views.

  6. TA says:

    Griff wrote: “Well you could look at 38 years of arctic sea ice satellite data… or all arctic sea ice data back to the 1850s and clearly see a trend – decline in extent and area nad volume, for which natural cycles/variability cannot account.”

    Griff, the arctic sea ice chart shows the ice getting thinner in warm periods of time such as from 1910 to 1940, and then getting thicker in cooler times, from 1940 to 1978, and then getting thinner again as the climate warmed from 1978 to the present.

    It sure looks like natural variability to me. The temps go up, the ice thins, the temps go down, the ice thickens. Currently the temps are up, although not going higher, so the ice is thin, but this proves nothing about CO2 and does not disprove natural variablity.

    The ice should be thinner now because it is hotter now than 1978. But it’s not hotter now than in the 1930’s, and the ice is not as thin as it was then. We are going to have to get hotter than the 1930’s before anyone can start speculating on whether this is out of the bounds of natural climate change or not.

    We have a long way to go to get back to being as hot as during the 1930’s, and we may not get back there, at least for a while, we may instead be headed lower, and then the arctic ice will thicken, just like the last time we headed lower in the 1940’s.

    Nothing to CO2 here.

    The only hope for the CAGW narrative is that the temps start going up, up, up, and stay up. It’s looking bad for the Alarmist home team.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Arctic Sea ice gets too much attention. It’s total volume/mass is practically nothing in the grand scheme of things.

      1. If it ALL melted, the oceans’ temperature would be affected 0.001 C.

      2. Or, looking at it the other way, if the oceans’ temperature changed a scant 0.001 C, it would represent enough BTU’s to melt ALL the Arctic Sea ice.

  7. THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES were put to the test in the Solomon Asch experiment published in 1955, when Scientific American was still a little of both. Three-quarters of persons qualified to enroll in college eagerly lie about a simple and obvious fact to fit in with a crowd of dupes or liars. But that effect drops by about 16% as soon as anyone asserts the obvious fact the dupes deny. This is why totalitarians–even before the experiment–were quick to execute whistleblowers. From Zamyatin’s “We” through Rand’s “Anthem” and Orwell’s “1984” the very real phenomenon all three writers felt on their hides is recounted as fiction. Tony is costing looter Svengalis more and more Trilbys as comprehension dawns in the light of data from measurements.

  8. R Shearer says:

    What percentage believe that Daylight savings time actually changes the length of daylight. They are in that 7 out of 10.

  9. Gamecock says:

    Surveys can produce any result you want.

    They are not data.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *