By Jo Nova
Modern science is just a competition to see who can cry the most. It’s national policy by agony aunt analysis. The terror and tears are right there in the national policy news at The Guardian. Six months after the UK experienced a hypothetical 40 degree minute the media are still dining out on the psychoanalysis of it.
Outlook? Terrifying: TV weather presenters on the hell and horror of the climate crisis
Guardian
What is it like to have a front row seat for the worst show in the world? Four meteorologists describe how they are explaining the reality to viewers – and coping with it themselves
Long gone is the British stiff upper lip as the Luftwaffe bomb London, now beach weather brings tears:
Switching channels, the ITV meteorologist Laura Tobin, who does the weather bulletins on Good Morning Britain, was also on duty that day. Like Rich, she had been watching the models with a mixture of incredulity and dread. “I remember when I did my first bulletin on that Tuesday morning I forecast that we would break 40C. Then when I sat down and chatted to my producer, I had tears in my eyes. Something I had thought would be a reality in the future was a reality that day. We shouldn’t be reaching these temperatures – it would be impossible to without climate change.”
TV journalists are, in theory, supposed to ask hard questions — like maybe whether hot records mean anything at all when they are recorded with equipment that sits next to hot tarmac, has an error margin of 1 to 2C, and lasted less than three minutes. Three of the five hottest spots that day were also at airports while a station in the green fields of Harpenden only reach 37.8°C. See Cliscep for all those details.
If you don’t like forty degree days, don’t build next to a tarmac.
It was hardly the “New Normal” it was the hyped hot two-minutes
What if the planet doesn’t need saving? Laura Tobin is selling a book.
As the DailySceptic points out:
The record [at RAF Coningsby] was set at 3.12pm following a sudden jump in temperature of 0.6°C in the previous two minutes. Sixty seconds later, the temperature fell to 39.7°C. The Met Office has refused to answer our questions on the matter.
So the record probably didn’t even exist, and even if it did, it’s hardly a PTSD event to be psychoanalysed months later. Get ready for therapy:
I’m talking to four weather presenters and meteorologists about what it is like to have a front row seat at the worst show in the world: the climate crisis.
Weather is not the same as climate, except when it is:
Of course, weather is not the same thing as the climate: one happens over days, the other decades. But, as Clare Nasir puts it: “Climate impacts weather.”
Obviously the weather-isn’t-climate line is getting to them. Let’s use it.
And they know their whole faith comes back to climate models
If you start with useless models — CO2 can pretend to fill in for all the other variables you forgot:
She explains how scientists have learned to detect a climate-change footprint in a particular weather event (extreme heat, rain, storms, etc) “by running the computer models with the scenario that has just happened but with lower amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to see if you could actually squeeze out that temperature, or that amount of rainfall. They then go back and put in a lot of different scenarios so they can calculate the likelihood of this event happening because of climate change. They can put a number on it – say, for example, it’s 100 times more likely this event has occurred because of climate change.”
Climate models are just the neolithic binary entrails that modern shamen read. The modelers don’t even include electromagnetism, space weather, cosmic rays and changes in UV spectrum. If any of those changed the climate in the last fifty years, the models will blame CO2 instead. That’s what they are designed to do…
Laura Tobin in Svalbard GMB
Tobin’s in tears again: “there’ll be no more reindeer”
This is what 40 years of feminism has brought us, the right for women to cry on TV?
In 2021 Tobin went to Svalbard, the Norwegian archipelago in the Arctic, to report for Good Morning Britain. She saw how the glaciers had receded, how the fjords were no longer freezing over, how this was affecting the wildlife: polar bears were dying, human economies were dying. And again there were tears, this time live on camera. “I didn’t mean to. I didn’t want it to be about me crying; I wanted it to be about the science. But I just saw the reality of it and it moved me. I realised that we – everybody – is responsible for that change. Seeing the reality compared to seeing and knowing the science was different. That was the moment for me when I was like: I want my daughter to come back and see this. If we don’t change there may be no reindeer, polar bears or glaciers when she’s my age. That was reality.”
It doesn’t get much more embarrassing for women in science than disappearing reindeer, except possibly for women who use namecalling, guilt, and ad hom attacks:
Back then, [Clair] Nasir says, the media thought it needed to provide a “balanced” point of view, and “even though the science at that point was pretty much spot on, they were allowing these climate deniers – whether they were in the pockets of the fossil fuel companies or whatever – to come on to voice their opinions without any factual backing whatsoever. I’m going to say this in the harshest possible terms: everybody had blood on their hands.”
It’s not science, it’s just a Psy-Op. The money is a billion times bigger on their side. Someone tell Clair about the $130 trillion dollar banker cartel called GFANZ.