Do you ever get into debates about global warming? I do. And when I do, I find it useful to have all the studies I need available to counter the slogans of the secular left true believers. In this post, we will take a look at a recent study from 2024 published by the Fraser Institute in Canada. They’re using data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Here is the link, from True North, my favorite source for Canadian news. (Bookmark them!)
Excerpt:
A Fraser Institute study found that although global temperatures have increased “moderately” since 1950, there is no evidence to suggest that extreme weather events are on the rise despite the assertions of climate activists and Canada’s government.
The study analyzed data found in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) and found that in many cases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events decreased or stayed the same rather than escalating.
The author of the study, Kenneth Green, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute spoke to True North about his findings.
Green has a doctoral degree in Environmental Science and Engineering from UCLA, and has been studying environmental policy since before receiving his doctorate in 1984.
“When you dig into the actual underlying data on what’s happening, rather than the claims of politicians, you find that extreme weather events are pretty uncertain as to whether we’re seeing extreme weather changing or will see extreme weather changing,” said Green.
Put this link away for the next time that you get into a debate on global warming! I think you’ll have fun with it.
By the way, if you know any young Christians, remind them of the need to do well in their studies. It sure is nice to find someone who doesn’t swallow global warming propaganda, but who has a doctoral degree in Environmental Science and Engineering from UCLA. Make sure your kids or the kids at church aim high, because we can all use this kind of data.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
What is the most effective refutation of climate change rhetoric that requires the least scientific knowledge?
LikeLike
The Medieval Warming Period
LikeLike
I appreciate the response, but could you be more specific? I don’t think Google is going to help me find the argument you have in mind, and, sure enough, when I used what you gave me as a search term, Google responded with links to people who explain why the Medieval Warm Period should not be considered a valid refutation of the modern climate change argument.
LikeLike
The best way to embarrass a member of the Climate Change cult is to propose a proven scientific solution for “global warming” that doesn’t empower tyrannical socialist government. Propose that the government authorize private ownership of “mini” thorium nuclear reactors. They’re similar in size to what powers aircraft carriers and are nearly meltdown-proof designs.
They run for 50+ years virtually for free and are ultra low maintenance…and each one powers thousands of homes.
We could literally provide “100% green” independent, redundant power to every home in America for pennies.
All Congress would have to get out of the way.
But the second you do that, an environmental cult believer will go bananas. Because their goal isn’t a clean environment or renewable energy, or economic liberty and independence. Their goal is tyranny and misery through fascist government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. Any environmentalist that is totally against nuclear just wants higher taxes and an all-powerful government to redistribute wealth which is just communism in disguise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent comment! Agree 100%
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your argument resonates with me. However, I presume the Climate Change cult will respond to it by invoking the specter of many “Chernobyls.” How do you put laymen (non-scientists) at ease that proliferation of nuclear reactors won’t lead to more nuclear accidents?
LikeLike