Report claims extreme weather on DECLINE - but is someone lying?

Is there a correct way to view this issue?

There are claims that extreme weather is on the decline, in spite of claims that global warming is on the rise. The suggestion is global warming does not have the ill effects predicted by scientists, or that global warming is not happening at all. Is this the case?

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) -- According to a group of skeptics who delivered a report to the UN, in November 2016, extreme weather events are on the decline, not a rise, as predicted by global warming models.

According to global warming theory, energy from the Sun is being trapped in our atmosphere by human carbon emissions. While nature can easily cope with ordinary natural emissions, the double whammy of humans cutting down forests while burning fossil fuels means CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere faster than nature can take it up.

This increased energy should manifest itself in two ways. The first is through warming global temperatures. The second is though more extreme, violent and erratic weather. Both make sense. More energy means more chaos. It's like the difference between a soda can on a shelf and one being shaken.

The report, issued by the skeptics, remains at complete odds with the reports issued by NASA, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, and many other scientific institutions.

It was also announced this week that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have just passed 410 ppm for the first time in recorded human history.

So why the difference? Is someone lying?

The heart of the problem is that we are dealing with core beliefs and near-religious convictions. However, unlike people who believe conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 truthers, moon landing skeptics, and anti-vaxxers, we are not dealing with a simple set of variables that can be easily defended. Instead, we are dealing with weather and climate, which are incredibly complex.

Global warming models fail for the simple reason that no model is capable of taking into account all the variables that impact the climate. It is likely we have not even discovered all the variables.

This may seem like a death knell them for global warming concern since it is difficult to justify policy changes based on flawed modeling, but the trends remain in place. The trend towards a warming, more dangerous planet should suffice to justify at least some basic, common sense measures.

Those trends are also under scrutiny. According to the 2016 State of the Climate report, they don't exist. If anything, they are in decline.

In a spirit of intellectual fairness, it is impossible to resolve this dispute within the context of a single overview article such as this. It is likely both sides are presenting data that is carefully selected, possibly curated to portray the circumstances that affirm each bias.

The only definitive conclusion will come from a careful review of the data, on an individual basis, with an agreement made to standardize the analysis. For example, how many years should be included in a sample? What scales should be used? What counts as extreme, or simply as in or out? 

This discussion is important. Global warming could be the greatest threat to humanity in centuries, or it might be a mild inconvenience. It could also be an elaborate hoax designed to distract and disenfranchise entire populations.

But it will remain impossible to determine the truth of the matter so long as anarchy rules. Both the "alarmists" and the "skeptics" must agree on methods, scales and measures before we can come to a final consensus on the issue.

Perhaps this lack of standardization is what we should be more concerned with than the weather outside. The weather will always be, but without agreement on what is serious and what is not, or how we should react to it, we will remain at its mercy.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online