What I want to do in this final post is highlight the one theme which runs throughout ‘Climate Change – The Facts’ from beginning to end, the notion that climate change is here, right now and adversely affecting people across the globe. Climate change propagandists have long been faced with the dilemma of how to communicate the supposed danger which climate change poses and the supposed urgency of the need for mitigation policy when, in actual fact, the world has only warmed by about 1 degree Celsius on average since 1850 and, according to satellite data, has been warming at a steady, non accelerating average rate of 0.13C per decade since 1979?

They’ve tried melting glaciers, melting polar sea-ice, disappearing polar bears and penguins, tragic walrus cliff falls (Attenborough narrated that nonsense too), insect apocalypses, sinking islands, mass bleaching and death of coral reefs, even shrinking Chamois deer, plus any number of other increasingly ludicrous scare stories propagated by activists, scientists and the global media, all to limited effect, because basically, most of them lack hard evidence, have been exaggerated, wrongly attributed to anthropogenic climate change, or have been comprehensively debunked by sceptics. So they’ve turned to the weather. The latest wheeze is a disingenuous, deceptive, poorly evidenced and scientifically dubious attempt to link specific extreme weather events which have caused mass death and destruction to ‘ongoing climate change’. Peter Stott of the Met Office pioneered this approach in 2003 when he ‘attributed’ the European heatwave of that year to climate change. Extreme weather attribution was born and it is now a key weapon in the armoury of politicians, climate alarmists, propagandists, activist scientists  and renewables advocates who wish to convince us of the supposed existential threat of climate change.

Hence, the program starts thus:

David Attenborough: Right now, we are facing our greatest threat in thousands of years – climate change.

Naomi Oreskes: For a long time, climate change was something that scientists were predicting that would happen in the future. But that’s no longer the case.

Richard Lazarus: What we’re doing right now is we’re so rapidly changing the climate, for the first time in the world’s history people can see the impact of climate change.

Mark Maslin: Greater storms, greater floods, greater heatwaves, extreme sea-level rise.

Michael Mann: All of this is happening far faster than any of us thought possible.

“Greater storms, greater floods, greater heatwaves” according to Maslin. Here is what the IPCC latest Special Report on global warming of 1.5C has to say about these various types of extreme weather: The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale, but that there was high confidence in observed trends in some regions of the world, including drought increases in the Mediterranean and West Africa and drought decreases in central North America and northwest Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a). The recent literature does not suggest that the SREX and AR5 assessment of drought trends should be revised, except in the Mediterranean region. A large part of the observed regional trends in streamflow and runoff might have resulted from internal multi-decadal and multi-year climate variations, especially the Pacific decadal variability (PDV), the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), although the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols could also be important (Hidalgo et al., 2009; Gu and Adler, 2013, 2015; Chiew et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2016; Gudmundsson et al., 2017). Additionally, other human activities can influence the hydrological cycle, such as land-use/land-cover change, modifications in river morphology and water table depth, construction and operation of hydropower plants, dikes and weirs, wetland drainage, and agricultural practices such as water withdrawal for irrigation.

In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are not statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers (high confidence), while flood frequency and extreme streamflow have increased in some regions (high confidence).

3.3.6 Numerous studies leading up to and after AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy (Emanuel, 2005; Elsner et al., 2008; Knutson et al., 2010; Holland and Bruyère, 2014; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015; Walsh et al., 2016). A theoretical physical basis for such a decrease to occur under global warming was recently provided by Kang and Elsner (2015). However, using a relatively short (20 year) and relatively homogeneous remotely sensed record, Klotzbach (2006) reported no significant trends in global cyclonic activity, consistent with more recent findings of Holland and Bruyère (2014). Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four-decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.

That debunks most of what Maslin said. SR15 did find robust evidence for increases in the frequency of extreme high temperatures, but only since 1950.

Mann’s ‘all of this’ is extreme weather (and non-existent ‘extreme’ sea level rise), not climate change, which, globally, is most often defined as the long term secular warming trend of the earth’s average surface temperature. We as human beings cannot detect this progressive warming trend. Scientists tell us that all or most of it since 1950 is due to GHG emissions. Other scientists, with even less evidence for assigning causation than that which was garnered for the presentation of the IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM attribution statement, state that all warming since 1850 or thereabouts is man-made (or should that be Mann-made?). You can see the attraction: tell the public that a lot of the bad weather (or even very ‘good’ weather) they are currently subject to the vagaries of is due to nasty fossil fuel emissions, then tell them it will only get worse if we all (or some of us, as the case may be) don’t stop using fossil fuels pretty soon. Hey Presto, you hopefully make them more willing to shell out for windmills, electric cars, solar panels, New Green Deals, etc. etc., plus have spy-in-the-home smart meters fitted which will turn their ‘smart’ domestic appliances on and off and ration their electricity usage during times when the wind isn’t blowing. Project Climate Fear on Stilts, aka Bad Stuff is Happening and Worse Stuff Will Happen, aka Extreme Weather Attribution Pseudoscience.

Of the post industrial warming trend, Peter Stott says this:

Peter Stott: We have temperature records going back over a hundred years. There are dips and troughs, and there are some years that are not as warm as other years, but what we’ve seen is this steady and unremitting temperature trend. Twenty of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 22 years.

Peter Stott: What’s striking is that warming trend cannot be explained by natural factors but is caused by human activities, in particular our use of fossil fuels.

What’s striking is that the warming trend pre 1950 can be and largely has been explained by natural causes, because the contribution from GHGs before 1950 cannot fully account for the 1910-1940s rapid warming, nor can the subsequent more modest mid 20th century cooling be unequivocally attributed to human causes (i.e. anthropogenic aerosols). Stott, by saying what he does about all of the post industrial warming, is not relying upon sound science, but on minority opinion. There is no official attribution statement from the IPCC re. pre 1950 warming, only an opinion in SR15 based on a limited number of scientific papers that all post industrial warming is anthropogenic. Therefore he is parroting ‘science’ poorly backed up by actual evidence, which is contradicted by a larger body of research which is rather better grounded in evidence.

But he’s not content to unjustifiably attribute the 1C global warming since 1850 to greenhouse gas emissions; he then makes a further leap of faith regarding current observed weather across the globe:

Peter Stott: One degree Celsius global warming may not sound like much, but it’s having a dramatic effect on our weather.

Peter Stott: We’re seeing extreme heat in southern Africa, Japan, North America, in the UK as well.

Stott then goes on to talk about last year’s heatwave in the UK which was part of a larger pattern of extreme weather events (mainly heatwaves) which occurred across the northern hemisphere during summer 2018:

Peter Stott: Last year we had a heatwave that was actually the joint warmest on record, alongside 1976. And we’ve been analysing this, here at the Met Office. What that showed us was that the chances of that heatwave had increased by about 30 times, so it’s now about 30 times more likely that we had that heatwave than we would have had, without climate change.

Female newsreader: Today the mercury hit a scorching 35 degrees Celsius…

Peter Stott: So it doesn’t mean to say that every single weather event is due to climate change. But what climate change does mean is that with the baseline climate having changed, then the frequency of the extreme temperatures is increasing. And that has a substantial effect.

It would be nice to actually examine this attribution study but it has not been peer-reviewed, nor has it been published in a scientific journal. I can find no public access to it via the Met Office website either. But that did not stop Stott from hawking it at the COP24 conference in Katowice, Poland as further ‘evidence’ that we are deleteriously changing the climate (and weather):

The sweltering heat that hit the UK this summer was made 30 times more likely by human-caused climate change, a Met Office analysis has found . . . .

Without rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, such heatwaves would happen every other year by mid-century, the Met Office said. Its analysis showed the average UK temperature during June, July and August was more than 2C above pre-industrial levels . . . . .

The research was launched at the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, and the Met Office’s Prof Peter Stott, who led the work, said: “World leaders should be listening not just to scientists but also to the people who are being affected by extreme weather events right now. They are seeing it with their own eyes and suffering from it. Humanity just won’t be able to cope with the world we are heading for.”

Stott said scientists were making links across the world between extreme weather events and climate change, from heatwaves in Japan to wildfires in California: “We’re seeing it happen again and again across the world. This whole sequence of events would not have happened without climate change.”

What “whole sequence of events would not have happened without climate change”? One can only presume it was the sequence of extreme weather events (heatwaves in Japan, wildfires in California, etc.) which marked the summer of 2018 in the northern hemisphere. This aptly illustrates how disingenuous Stott is re. his communication of extreme weather attribution and he is no less disingenuous when being interviewed by the BBC. On the one hand he says you can’t attribute specific events to climate change, only assess the increasing likelihood of them happening, then he goes on to say that a whole sequence of extreme weather events could not have happened without climate change! He uses exactly the same tactic in ‘The Facts’ too, talking about the heatwave which killed the bats in Australia:

Peter Stott: Scientists have shown that it’s simply inconceivable that you would see these temperatures without the fact of climate change.

Say what? Where have scientists shown this? It’s palpable nonsense, lies even. Temperatures in Australia during current heatwaves are not unprecedented. It is likely that even more intense heatwaves occurred during the 19th century. The difference is there were no guilt-tripping climate change alarmists around at that time to film poor little baby bats clinging to their dead mothers, saying “this is climate change in action”, then to have a ‘scientist’ confirm that the heatwave which killed their mums would have been “inconceivable” if it were not for man-made global warming caused by our SUVs.

Stotts’s offhand attribution of the sequence of extreme weather events in 2018 to climate change can be challenged, as I will do below. Not having access to his non-peer reviwed unpublished study, his attribution of the 2018 UK heatwave cannot be critiqued, but I examined a separate attribution of the 2018 northern European early summer heatwave here and that study had holes in which you could drive a coach and horses through.

Recall that June and July 2018 were very dry, as well as very hot. Quite similar to 1976 in fact, with a similar pattern of a blocking high in place over northern Europe, drawing hot dry air from the continent, even as far south as from the Sahara. Stott tells us that “basic physics” predicts the atmosphere will actually get wetter as it gets warmer.

David Attenborough: But it’s not just through extreme heat events that climate change is having an effect. It’s changing our weather systems in other ways.

Peter Stott: This is a basic result of physics. With a degree Celsius of warming, there’s more moisture evaporating off the oceans.

Michael Mann: When there’s more moisture in the air, you’re gonna get more rainfall, you’re gonna get super storms and force flooding events. We are seeing the impacts of climate change now, play out in real time. They’re no longer subtle.

Mann also chimes in to confirm Stott’s statement. They’re right of course, at least as far as the “basic physics” is concerned. As it happens, summers in the UK have indeed been getting warmer and wetter since the mid to late 1970s:




2018 (June and July only – August was wet) and 1976 (and 1995) were among the notable exceptions – hot but very dry. So, Stott tells us that hot, dry summers like 2018 (and like 1976) are now 30 times more likely because of climate change, despite insisting that “basic physics” tells us that the atmosphere will become more moist through evaporation as the climate gets warmer, despite the observational fact that UK summers have become both progressively wetter and warmer on average since the mid to late 70s. I believe this is what is known in meteorological/climatological circles as having your climate cake with weather icing on top and eating it.

Paul Matthews wrote a post about the absurd switch of emphasis to hot, dry summers as ‘evidence’ of climate change (because we happened to get one in 2018), from a run of cooler, wetter summers from about 2007 which was also attributed to climate change – also by Peter Stott! Once again, you really can’t make this stuff up:

When it comes to global warming, we can forget the jolly predictions of Jeremy Clarkson and his ilk of a Mediterranean climate in which we lounge among the olive groves of Yorkshire sipping a fine Scottish champagne. The truth is likely to be much duller, and much nastier – and we have already had a taste of it. “We will see lots more floods, droughts, such as we’ve had this year in the UK,” says Peter Stott, leader of the climate change monitoring and attribution team at the Met Office.

A series of unusually wet and cold summers has afflicted the UK for several years. Remember the devastating floods of 2007, when some areas received double their normal rainfall for June? Or the predictions of a “barbecue summer” in 2009 that backfired badly on the Met Office as the (correctly anticipated) high temperatures were accompanied by heavy clouds and rainstorms? The impression that many Britons have had that summer weather has been getting worse in recent years is borne out by the data – five out of the last six years (2007-2012), have shown below-average sunshine from June to August, and in some cases well below average. All have had above-average rainfall – in some cases more than 50% above the long-term average. “It is not just a perception – we have had a run of relatively poor summers,” says Stott.

Crap, wet summer = climate change. Gorgeous, hot, dry summer = climate change.

Sequence of extreme weather events = climate change. No, Peter Stott: extreme weather = ‘jet stream’ configuration:

“We find that the position of the North Atlantic Jet in summer has been a strong driver of climate extremes in Europe for the last 300 years,” Trouet said.

Having a 290-year record of the position of the jet stream let Trouet and her colleagues determine that swings between northern and southern positions of the jet became more frequent in the second half of the 20th century, she said.

“Since 1960 we get more years when the jet is in an extreme position.” Trouet said, adding that the increase is unprecedented.

When the North Atlantic Jet is in the extreme northern position, the British Isles and western Europe have a summer heat wave while southeastern Europe has heavy rains and flooding, she said.

When the jet is in the extreme southern position, the situation flips: Western Europe has heavy rains and flooding while southeastern Europe has extreme high temperatures, drought and wildfires.



But why is so much of our world currently being afflicted with blisteringly hot weather? What is driving the wildfires, the soaring temperatures and those melting rooftops? These are tricky questions to answer, such is the complex nature of the planet’s weather systems. Most scientists point to a number of factors with global warming being the most obvious candidate. Others warn that it would be wrong to overstate its role in the current heatwaves, however.

“Yes, it is hard not to believe that climate change has to be playing a part in what is going on round the globe at present,” said Dann Mitchell of Bristol University. “There have been some remarkable extremes recorded in the past few weeks, after all. However, we should take care about overstating climate change’s influence for it is equally clear there are also other influences at work.

One of those other factors is the jet stream – a core of strong winds around five to seven miles above the Earth’s surface that blow from west to east and which steer weather around the globe. Sometimes, when they are intense, they bring storms. On other occasions, when they are weak, they bring very calm and settled days. And that is what is occurring at present.

“The jet stream we are currently experiencing is extremely weak and, as a result, areas of atmospheric high pressure are lingering for long periods over the same place,” added Mitchell.

Other factors involved in creating the meteorological conditions that have brought such heat to the northern hemisphere include substantial changes to sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. “These are part of a phenomenon known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation,” said Professor Adam Scaife, of the Met Office.

“In fact, the situation is very like the one we had in 1976, when we had similar ocean temperatures in the Atlantic and an unchanging jet stream that left great areas of high pressure over many areas for long periods,” said Scaife.

“And of course, that year we had one of the driest, sunniest and warmest summers in the UK in the 20th century.”


More facts left out by the BBC in their desperate and wholly disreputable bid to misinform the public about extreme weather by attributing much of it to man-made climate change. There will be those of course who immediately say ‘Yes, but the jet stream has been affected by climate change, so in actual fact, extreme weather is caused by climate change, just not directly. That assertion also is scientifically bankrupt.


  1. Thanks for the series Jaime.
    notice on the weather maps on tv they are starting to show the bigger picture regarding how our UK weather is affected by planetary jet steam changes.

    but they still love to get the “hottest evva for this time of year” or “hottest day this year” Global Warming/Climate Change meme out to the viewers.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jaime,

    I would like to add my thanks to those that have already been expressed. I was lucky enough to have missed the programme concerned and so I have nothing much to say for myself. Besides which, I don’t see a great deal to be gained by trying to add to what is already a thorough analysis provided by yourself, Richard, Geoff and Paul. I wish the CliScep old guard the best of luck with their complaint, but once a 92 year old national treasure has wobbled his jowls with sage disapproval I fear that any further objection from yourself will simply be dismissed as more naughtiness from those climate change denying weirdos. My pessimistic view on this is probably another good reason for me to take a back seat – you would be better off without having my negativity spoil the vibes man.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks John, you’re totally correct – complaining to the BBC is a complete waste of time, but it is a necessary prerequisite for submitting a complaint to Ofcom, who one hopes may address the criticisms with a little more seriousness. I am a natural born pessimist, I must admit, but I harbour this absurd optimism that, when push comes to shove and all the ‘facts’ (framed with the requisite caveats) are in, as opposed to just those few ‘facts’ (unframed by caveats) which those pulling the strings would prefer us to know, then people will take note and make rational decisions.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Some of the noticeable sound-bites of recent months have been the frequent reference to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” without reference to any new science or analysis. Is this ramping up of the rhetoric a deliberate push for victory or a desperate ploy to stave off defeat? Whatever the motive it places the more extreme of the alarmist elements out on a very long pole. Assuming scepticism is not swept aside in the interim, does this ramped up extremism place them in future jeopardy?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Well here we are.. Jeremy Corbyn is putting for a motion to declare a climate emergency

    Still no idea what it means, beyond MP saying they will stop lying about climate, will they vote for it.. cause they will, easy virtue signalling, and anyone who dare not=climate denier, nearly as bad as being labelled an Islamophobe .. if they had any sense they would vote it down as pointless, by saying we already did, we all voted for the UKClimate Change Act


  6. Sir David and his cut and paste editors are piecing together a video Nicene Creed
    for a post rational age.
    Great work, Jaime.
    Thank you for doing such an in-depth forensic report on an appalling pile of propaganda.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Touching comment in the Gaurdian from –

    “I worked on David Attenborough’s documentary. The grim reality gave me climate anxiety – by Liv Grant”

    a snippet – “My nights became ones of sleeplessness with a tight racing heart. I have been hit by a panic attack in the snack aisle of a supermarket, overwhelmed by the countless choices and their consequences. Hot sunny days in April scare me. I cannot stop thinking about climate change.”

    I love Hot sunny days in April (my Birthday month), but you can’t please everyone!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Dougie. How odd. On another and slightly older thread here I drew attention to the Liv Grant “confessional” and Mark Hodgson later picked out exactly the same snippet – her fear of warm April days. Something most people in the UK enjoyed.
    For me the reason for posting was to bring to your attention the immaturity and relative lack of relevant experience Liv Grant had to have been appointed a qualified researcher for a programme as significant as Attenbollocks was. It is a small part of an explanation of why that travesty was so very bad.


  9. I meant to add that I came to love and cherish UK Aprils when I lived in the Prairie provinces of Canada and visited the UK over the Easter vacations. In Saskatchewan and Alberta there is no Spring, just an muddy interval between the disappearance of the permanent Winter snow cover and Summer, when plants grew. This interval I would call “The Brown”; very depressing. Visiting the UK showed how much we missed, especially the spring flowers. Liv should spend a stint on secondment to Regina or Edmonton to re-establish her appreciation of UK Aprils.


  10. Dougie, my heart bleeds, it really does:

    “Last year, I was living a charmed life. I graduated from university and jetted off (painfully ironic, I know) to lead an expedition on a remote South Pacific island, where I studied one of the world’s rarest parrots and the role of culture in conservation. Within a few days of my return I somehow stepped into a job at the BBC on a documentary about climate change.

    I spoke to scientists who described the so-loud-it-gives-you-whiplash crack of a glacier calving off the Greenland ice shelf. Another told me of the horror he felt when his calculations revealed that the current logging and burning of tropical forests releases more carbon dioxide than our remaining forests could possibly absorb.”

    Snowflake idiotic millennial fresh out of University lands a decent, well paid job and can’t handle the tales of ‘horror’ she hears about the sound of glaciers calving and a scientist’s realisation from his calculations that we’re all doomed because the carbon cycle is bust, which he could not possibly know.

    She should try working in Asia, helping to end the dog meat trade or the bear bile trade, or on the frontline helping orangutans made homeless by illegal logging activity (which has nothing to do with climate change) – then she would have some f***ing horror stories to write about in the Guardian, whilst getting paid for it of course. Sick of these people, I really am.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Alan, it seems like Liv Grant is making a career of being a professional ‘climate worrier’ then. Who would employ her? She’ll probably start claiming industrial compensation soon for being exposed to extreme anxiety by her reckless employers.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The Liv Grant article (and many like it) has this advantage, that if you read it, and follow some of the links for 20 minutes, you begin to understand the reasons for the hysteria around us. I clicked on her link at “climate anxiety”, which led me to another Guardian article: “Readers on a year of climate anxiety” which led me to an article by a climate science professor just cured of leukemia stating that “the odds of human civilization reaching the 22nd century are often estimated at no better than 50/50” which linked to the New York magazine article “the Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace Wells, which links back to Mann and Hansen.

    Now if someone had pointed out to Mann that turning his data upside down and refusing to acknowledge his mistake made hum unsuitable to work in a university, and to Hansen that tampering with the central heating in a congressional hearing on climate change was the equivalent of lying to Congress, and an imprisonable offence, then they wouldn’t be there rattling the links at the end of the chain like pantomime ghosts, would they?

    We who were around when Hansen made his death train comments, and when Mann’s climategate emails were being investigated, know who these people are. But the newer Guardian readers will have no idea.


  13. Geoff. Perhaps more importantly the newer Guardian writers have no idea.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.