“Academic Rigor”

“The Conversation” has banned anyone who tells the truth about climate, and only allows people who write incoherent nonsense like the article below.

The author says global warming is destabilizing the jet stream, bringing “more frequent bouts of wild weather.” Someone is waging a battle for the jet stream above his head.

Then he says these bouts have always happened, but are now milder than they used to be.

He claims we are getting worse heatwaves and droughts, but not freezes.

He then claims that the tropics are heating faster than the rest of the world – a claim which has been made about almost every place else on earth.

Finally he says that the jet stream may not be more erratic, but the climate is destabilizing anyway.

A battle for the jet stream is raging above our heads

The National Climate Assessment shows the exact opposite of what he claims. Heatwaves have become much less severe.


Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

And NOAA shows that droughts have become less severe over time.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The author used a keen combination of poor research and self-contradiction, in an effort to promote his book.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to “Academic Rigor”

  1. Geoff Sherrington says:

    In Australia’s 6 State capital cities, there has been essentially no change in heatwaves since their temperature records began. I have looked at heatwaves described by number of consecutive days of length 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 days, the hottest such cluster each year. I examined official claims that heatwaves we’re becoming longer, hotter and more frequent and found these claims mostly false or marginal and unconvincing. Perth city is an exception, with official data showing a century of hotter heatwaves with time.
    So I am nonplussed why the official line is contradicted by their own data. Sure, there might be many remote locations where heatwaves are doing just that; but such places are less relevant for purposes like planning hospitals for heatwave victims, planning helicopter deployment for fighting fires threatening suburbs and so on.
    I offered this simple analysis to the BOM a couple of years ago but they rejected it disdainfully, writing that they could not consider other than a formal, peer reviewed scientific publication.
    Geoff S

  2. Petit_Barde says:

    Isn’t the author of this sharticle Tim Woollings (thus “he”) ?

  3. Margaret Smith says:

    I noticed that over at WUWT the contributors are having fun with this, too

  4. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Tony, correction Tim is a him.
    I like this at the end: “Before you go…
    The Conversation aims to rebuild trust in experts and promote more informed public debate. Our independent fact-based journalism is essential for a healthy democracy. Your support for it will ensure quality information remains free and accessible.”

    “public debate”!!!!!! Ha ha ha! By banning people who disagree with them.

    • Petit_Barde says:

      They brilliantly adopted the orwellian speaking :

      Their “Informed public debate” is Authoritarian Rhetoric and Propaganda.
      Their “Healthy democracy” is Fascism and Corruption.
      Their “Academic rigor” is Buffoonery and Quackery.

      • Tel says:

        When you hear the socialists say “Having the Conversation” they really mean you should shut up, listen to them, and do what your are told.

  5. Filbert Cobb says:

    Since introducing their new policy The Conversation has become indistinguishable from the BBC.

  6. Thaipixie says:

    Academic rigor, journalistic flair=fiction, lies and propaganda….

  7. annieoakley says:

    The arrogance of these people is breathtaking. Thinking that they can control the Jet Stream is beyond foolish.

  8. GCSquared says:

    People used to think that celestial beings might be responsible for these phenomena, so I thought it as sensible as anything else to look into the possibility of propitiating Aeolus and the other wind deities whose struggles are responsible for this effect.

    I found a climate study from the Greek tourist bureau at Delphi that compared this strategy with imposing carbon taxes. On a drachma-by-drachma basis, their models predicted that leaving the same offering at Delphi compared with levying a tax with the UN led to a 57% reduction in chance of drought.

    But there might be even more effective policies: the climatologists at the tourist bureau on the island of Aeolia have models predicted a 67% reduction if you made the contribution there.

    I hope this good news will allay some of Greta’s concerns, and that she can enjoy what remains of the rest of her childhood.

  9. Aussie says:

    Another example of the supreme stupidity of the “climate change” crowd.
    What disturbs me about the Conversation is that in its echo chamber where only science deniers are allowed has it ever occurred to these people that they may be wrong?

    Probably not, and so in their arrogance they discuss ever more stupid and senseless ideas, and have nobody to inject any commonsense or call for scientific rigour. That may be too frightening…

    And the Conversation receives Australian govt funds…which is just plain wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.