Climatologist Roy Spencer pointed out that those claims were unsubstantiated. “Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend toward classifying events as ‘1 in 1,000 years,’ when there is no way of knowing such things...Remember, it is perfectly normal to have a 1 in 100-year event every year...as long as they occur in different locations. That’s how weather records work.”
Marc Morano on "The Weather Lottery": Your chance of the winning the lottery is very low, but the chance of someone, somewhere winning the lottery are very high. The climate campaigners and the media essentially hype the “winners” of the extreme weather lottery, wherever they are, and attempt to imply these events are happening everywhere. Extreme weather always strikes somewhere at some time, and it always will, so there is no shortage of examples of “record” storms. Lotteries and casinos do the same thing in their ads—showing the winners, and implying that you are just one ticket or spin away from joining them.
Meteorologist Topper Shutt explained the misuse of the term 100-year flood after Hurricane Harvey hit Houston in 2017. “A 500-year flood does not mean that an area will see a flood of that magnitude once in 500 years. It means that in any given year there is a .2% chance of a 500-year flood and likewise a 1% chance every year for a 100-year flood,” Shutt wrote. “Remember, we are talking about billions of years of climate and usually just a hundred years of actual, observational data."
Morano: "Not everyone, however, is a fan of Warren's legislation... "This is virtue signaling of the highest order for her Democratic base, Marc Morano, the editor of ClimateDepot.com, said on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday. He argued that Warren's bill would give the U.S. government and the Securities and Exchange Commission extensive power to go after companies and "shake them down."
Morano: "My book details the absurdity of all of this, pay up or face bad weather. The government has to protect us from bad weather."
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."
Christopher Monckton: "At long last, following the warming effect of the El Niño of 2016, there are signs of a reasonably significant La Niña, which may well usher in another Pause in global temperature, which may even prove similar to the Great Pause that endured for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015, during which a third of our entire industrial-era influence on global temperature drove a zero trend in global warming. ... As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months.
However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause."