By Paul Homewood
The BBC has published an alleged fact-check of what “climate deniers” say.
No wonder it’s filled with straw, omissions, half-truths, and misinformation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-enosystem-59251912
CLAIM 1:
As they admit, the sun has an impact on climate, and may be one of the reasons for recent global warming.
However, they conveniently ignore the real argument of skeptical scientists, of which there are many.
No one has yet come up with a plausible explanation for what caused the Little Ice Age, and until we do, we won’t be able to fully explain the warming that followed. It is widely accepted that at least some of the warming since the 19th century is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, and that this is an important factor in forecasting future temperature increases.
We also know that climate models are always too hot. So the real debate is climate susceptibility, and whether the temperature rise is so small it doesn’t matter, as many scientists argue.
CLAIM 2:
It is a fact that cold kills many times more than heat. Meanwhile, as countries become more prosperous, its inhabitants can be protected from the worst effects of heat, e.g. mechanization, air conditioning, etc.
On the other hand, giving up fossil fuels can have serious impacts on human health as the weather gets colder.
The claims of extreme precipitation are simply absurd and are not backed up by any hard data. And as we know crop yields have skyrocketed in recent years, and not decreased.
Ultimately, economists tend to agree that the world would actually be better off with a small amount of extra warming, maybe 1C.
CLAIM 3:
If renewable energy is really cheaper and really works, it will automatically gradually prevail, just as society has progressed in every way in the past.
However, of course, there is no evidence that they can replace fossil fuels or be cheaper when all the indirect costs are added up.
Climate skeptics have every right to highlight the enormous risk posed to our energy security, and therefore our economy as a whole, in the name of climate change. BBC does not solve this problem.
Instead, they can only cite a handful of trivial studies that suggest the global economy could shrink by 18%. Even this is not true, because they just say it will be 18% smaller than what happened. In fact, no one has a clue what the global economy will look like in 30 years’ time.
But there is no evidence, merely GIGO computer models, that the weather will become more extreme, anyway the whole argument is bogus.
CLAIM 4:
This is the classic “Watch the Pea” story!
The truth about the Texas blackout is indisputable. Wind power has crossed the edge of the cliff, when large sections are closed by winter storms. Only backup power can prevent catastrophic power outages. Many wind and solar farms won’t be able to help because you can’t turn them on and off.
But even then, due to the closure of much coal and gas-convertible power capacity in recent years to make way for renewables, grid capacity in Texas remains tight. The strain this put on the grid led to protracted blackouts that followed.
By the way, ISD Global is a contrarian organization. Why the BBC even thinks they can give unbiased advice on renewables is a mystery.
The argument about Venezuela is simply absurd and thrown in like a red herring.
Why not ask the skeptics?
We know that climate skeptics are no longer allowed into the BBC, but if they want to know what the skeptics think, why doesn’t the BBC actually ask some of them to contribute and have a proper debate to them, instead of inventing the BBC’s version of denialism?
Related
