Ramez Naam is today's climate denier-liar-BSer. He does an interview (click on above image) based entirely on fear-mongering, completely void of scientific fact and slickly distorts the truth.
His comments that Hurricane Sandy and recent forest fires are attributable to climate change would earn him the infamous 'bullshite' button that Al Gore has won so often.
His mentioning of climate studies, which are dependent on failed climate models, is a pathetic joke designed to sucker the low information gullible investor.
Obviously, he's a climate reality denier who must deny the following since he's pushing the CO2-unicorn fantasy:
The empirical evidence and research that Ramez Naam denies:
Natural climate change that never stops has been documented in thousands of peer reviewed studies, and the evidence keeps building that climate change is the normal condition...(Ramez Naam denies this)
The natural warming, a climate change rebound from the immensely cold Little Ice Age continues and likely will continue, because that's what natural climate change does regardless of CO2 levels...(Ramez Naam denies this)
The IPCC and the world's major climate agencies' CO2-centric climate models have failed abysmally at global temperature predictions, per the actual scientific evidence...(Ramez Naam denies this)
In contrast to the sophisticated climate model predictions of runaway ("tipping point") global warming, in reality, real-world global warming, as measured by satellites, has disappeared for over 16 years despite the gargantuan increases in CO2 emissions...(Ramez Naam denies this)
New climate research determined that the IPCC climate models prediction of an imminent huge sea level rise, thus flooding coastal regions and producing 50 million climate refugees, was drastically wrong - instead, the current sea level trend is a measly 6-9 inches per century...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Meteorologists and scientists (and weather/climate models) are unable to predict short-term weather events/disasters and long-term climate change...(Ramez Naam denies this)Prior to the 1990's (pre-350ppm atmospheric levels) the world suffered year after year major and extreme weather-related disasters...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Scientists are unable to connect human-caused climate change (versus natural climate change and natural weather incidents) to disaster losses...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Researchers confirmed that increasing costs of disasters is not associated with an increase of greenhouse gases...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Scientists have determined, globally, weather related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%)...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Scientists have determined that insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Peer reviewed research has found that hurricane, tornado, flood and drought disaster frequencies have not increased globally, or in the U.S. ...(Ramez Naam denies this)
- Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective)...(Ramez Naam denies this)
- Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940...(Ramez Naam denies this)
- Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined...(Ramez Naam denies this)
- Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years...(Ramez Naam denies this)
A Llyod's of London global survey of corporate executives regarding risks their companies face in 2013 ranked 'climate change' as one of the smallest risks, just less than 'ocean pirate' risk and a bit more than 'space weather' risk...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Ramez Naam is a smart guy. Why does someone like Naam reject the scientific and empirical evidence? Climate change history? The peer reviewed research? Just what the heck makes Ramez tick?
Well, watch the video (click the image above) and you decide. Hmmm.....I wonder if he's long in renewable energy positions, eh?