Extreme weather events are symptomatic of climate change.
Why are you backing the Rockefeller oil industry?
Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Why are you backing the Rockefeller oil industry?
somebody who refuse to give up his use of fossil fuels have no business asking me why am i backing oil
and somebody who blindly believes in climate change a scam bought, supported by and funded by the Rockefeller treasonous family. have no right to accuse me of supporting Rockefeller oil
New Video : Disasters Slated For 2020
With all the press coverage on viruses, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that global warming is going to destroy the planet this year.
https://youtu.be/Y2W1_6LajuM
With all the press coverage on viruses, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that global warming is going to destroy the planet this year.
https://youtu.be/Y2W1_6LajuM
You don't know that the Rockefeller money came from oil, do you?
And do you know who is funding the propaganda you post here?
give up your use of fossil fuels, stop driving cars that use gas made from oil, stop using plastics that are in your phones and computers, plastics are made from oil
Study Shows Climate Change Expands Migratory Bird Ranges
the study
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/05/20/2000299117
The researchers found:
Annual resident bird species (birds that do not migrate) have, as a whole, increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is wonderful news.
Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is also wonderful news.
Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics have had no change in their northern ranges, though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking. That is not good news.
Study Shows Climate Change Expands North American Bird Ranges – Media Sounds Alarm
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/...orth-american-bird-ranges-media-sounds-alarm/
A newly published study shows North American birds are taking advantage of global warming to expand their ranges northward, without any shrinkage in the southern edge of their North American ranges. Rather than celebrate this good news for birds, climate alarmists and their media puppets are crying “Crisis!”
A Google News search this morning for the term “climate change” shows articles about the new bird-range study are among the top search results. Incredibly, the titles for media articles about the study include, “Migratory Birds Are Failing to Adapt to Climate Change,” “Migratory birds in the Eastern US are struggling to adapt to climate change,” and “National Audubon Society Says Climate Change Is Pushing Bird Boundaries, Community Scientists Confirm.” Saying birds are “struggling” and “failing” to adapt to climate change, or that climate change is “pushing” bird boundaries, are grossly misleading ways to describe the good news of expanding bird ranges.
In the study, wildlife researchers working for the federal government tracked bird ranges during the past 50 years. They published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found:
Annual resident bird species (birds that do not migrate) have, as a whole, increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is wonderful news.
Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is also wonderful news.
Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics have had no change in their northern ranges, though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking. That is not good news.
So, most North American birds have larger ranges today, thanks to global warming. Annual resident birds species and migratory birds within North America have not experienced shrinking southern ranges. The only concerning part of the survey is the subset of birds that winter outside the United States in Third World countries. They appear to have shrinking ranges within those Third World countries. Overall, the findings are quite good news for birds, and should be reported as such.
Even the one subset of the study that might raise concern, declining ranges in Third World nations, is quite a stretch to blame on global warming. If all other bird species, with southern ranges not in Third World nations, see no decline in their southern ranges, why would there be shrinkage of southern ranges only in Third World countries. The answer can likely be found in what the authors of the study explicitly acknowledge – “[T]he primary threats to North American birds are thought to include habitat loss, invasive species, and direct and indirect anthropogenic mortality.” Also, “these threats are likely the primary drivers of declines in North America’s” birds, the authors report.
Habitat loss and other threats to bird species are much greater in tropical Third Would countries than in eco-conscious North America. North American bird range is growing. Birds that spend some of their time in North America and some of their time in Third World nations experience no range shrinkage in their North American ranges but some shrinkage in their Third World ranges. The driving cause for the shrinkage of southern ranges for birds wintering in Third World countries clearly appears to be non-climate pressures on birds and other species in Third World countries. Indeed, the authors themselves note “deforestation and other factors in tropical nations” may be pressuring that subset of birds migrating from tropical nations.
In summary, the new study on climate change and bird ranges is good news. As a general rule, global warming is causing an expansion of bird ranges. To the extent a subset of bird species defies the overall trend, the reason appears to be non-climate pressures in Third World countries. When the media describe the overall good news from the study as birds “struggling,” “failing,” or having their boundaries “pushed” by global warming, it reveals their biased and dishonest agenda.
the study
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/05/20/2000299117
The researchers found:
Annual resident bird species (birds that do not migrate) have, as a whole, increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is wonderful news.
Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is also wonderful news.
Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics have had no change in their northern ranges, though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking. That is not good news.
Study Shows Climate Change Expands North American Bird Ranges – Media Sounds Alarm
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/...orth-american-bird-ranges-media-sounds-alarm/
A newly published study shows North American birds are taking advantage of global warming to expand their ranges northward, without any shrinkage in the southern edge of their North American ranges. Rather than celebrate this good news for birds, climate alarmists and their media puppets are crying “Crisis!”
A Google News search this morning for the term “climate change” shows articles about the new bird-range study are among the top search results. Incredibly, the titles for media articles about the study include, “Migratory Birds Are Failing to Adapt to Climate Change,” “Migratory birds in the Eastern US are struggling to adapt to climate change,” and “National Audubon Society Says Climate Change Is Pushing Bird Boundaries, Community Scientists Confirm.” Saying birds are “struggling” and “failing” to adapt to climate change, or that climate change is “pushing” bird boundaries, are grossly misleading ways to describe the good news of expanding bird ranges.
In the study, wildlife researchers working for the federal government tracked bird ranges during the past 50 years. They published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found:
Annual resident bird species (birds that do not migrate) have, as a whole, increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is wonderful news.
Birds that migrate within North America have increased their ranges northward toward the poles without losing any of their southern ranges. That is also wonderful news.
Birds that migrate to North America from the tropics have had no change in their northern ranges, though their southern range in Third World tropical nations appears to be shrinking. That is not good news.
So, most North American birds have larger ranges today, thanks to global warming. Annual resident birds species and migratory birds within North America have not experienced shrinking southern ranges. The only concerning part of the survey is the subset of birds that winter outside the United States in Third World countries. They appear to have shrinking ranges within those Third World countries. Overall, the findings are quite good news for birds, and should be reported as such.
Even the one subset of the study that might raise concern, declining ranges in Third World nations, is quite a stretch to blame on global warming. If all other bird species, with southern ranges not in Third World nations, see no decline in their southern ranges, why would there be shrinkage of southern ranges only in Third World countries. The answer can likely be found in what the authors of the study explicitly acknowledge – “[T]he primary threats to North American birds are thought to include habitat loss, invasive species, and direct and indirect anthropogenic mortality.” Also, “these threats are likely the primary drivers of declines in North America’s” birds, the authors report.
Habitat loss and other threats to bird species are much greater in tropical Third Would countries than in eco-conscious North America. North American bird range is growing. Birds that spend some of their time in North America and some of their time in Third World nations experience no range shrinkage in their North American ranges but some shrinkage in their Third World ranges. The driving cause for the shrinkage of southern ranges for birds wintering in Third World countries clearly appears to be non-climate pressures on birds and other species in Third World countries. Indeed, the authors themselves note “deforestation and other factors in tropical nations” may be pressuring that subset of birds migrating from tropical nations.
In summary, the new study on climate change and bird ranges is good news. As a general rule, global warming is causing an expansion of bird ranges. To the extent a subset of bird species defies the overall trend, the reason appears to be non-climate pressures in Third World countries. When the media describe the overall good news from the study as birds “struggling,” “failing,” or having their boundaries “pushed” by global warming, it reveals their biased and dishonest agenda.
You think climate change is good news?
Stop pushing that Rockefeller propaganda.
Nineteen of the 20 warmest years all have occurred since 2001,
The US had an unprecedented heatwave during May and June, 1934. Temperatures in the Midwest and Upper Great Plains were over 100 degrees every day from May 26 through June 8, and peaked at 111 degrees on May 30. Temperatures were about 40 degrees warmer than today’s forecast.
2012 subaru wrx specs 0 60
The heatwave actually began on May 8, and continued all summer.
2012 subaru wrx specs 0 60
The US experienced an unprecedented drought that summer.
2012 subaru wrx specs 0 60
The heat and drought wasn’t confined to the US. The entire planet was experiencing unprecedented extreme weather.
2012 subaru wrx specs 0 60
franky cannot explain what is causing extreme weather in 1934 heat and droughts all over the world this is when C02 levels where around 300 or so PPM well bellow 417ppm today
trying to say this is all rockeffeller propaganda when they are the ones funding climate alarmist propaganda many of his propaganda outlet get funds from the rockeffers
here is one of them
https://insideclimatenews.org/about/our-funders
Has nothing to do with global temperature records, CM.
Stop spamming with so much rockefeller funded oil propaganda.
Alarmists, Media Blame Cyclical Locust Plagues On Climate Change
Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades, following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history.
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame.
They are lying.
“India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years, and the climate crisis is partly to blame,” says an article published in Ecowatch.
Nevertheless, the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is especially severe compared to other historical locus invasions.
The article presents no evidence to back up its assertion because no such evidence exists.
“Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan, but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974,” writes Ecowatch.
As the article admits, these events have happened repeatedly before, with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when the mainstream media were warning about a coming ice age.
Locust plagues have struck periodically, but with some regularity all over the globe throughout history.
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes, “[t]he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad, the Bible, and the Quran. Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.”
And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe, with one paper noting,
“The history of locust plagues shows how pervasive plagues were, and when records are more complete in later history seemingly almost continuous in occurrence. If it was like this in Europe where the majority of historical records come from, how much more so must it have been in Africa where conditions were much more conducive to locusts?”
As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States, “the speed, ferocity, and devastation of locusts, particularly the Rocky Mountain locust, would have once been a fact of life for a sweep of American farmers from California to Texas to Minnesota.”
The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875, which was 150 years of global warming ago, during the late stages of the Little Ice Age.
Farm Progress says:
“In 1875, the largest locust swarm in history was recorded over the Midwest — 198,000 square miles. (For a size reference, California covers 163,696 square miles.) The 1875 swarm was estimated to contain several trillion locusts and probably weighed several million tons. That was the largest locust cloud in world history, according to Jeffrey Lockwood, author of ‘The Devastating Rise and Mysterious Disappearance of the Insect that Shaped the American Frontier.’”
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water, crops, plants, and vegetation. This has benefited people, desirable wildlife, and locusts.
The benefits of more water and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis, simply because locusts also benefit from better conditions for all life.
Another natural but, in some sense, a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Wikipedia notes,
“Recently, changes in agricultural practices and better surveillance of locations where swarms tend to originate, have meant that control measures can be used at an early stage. The traditional means of control are based on the use of insecticides from the ground or the air, but other methods using biological control are proving effective.”
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns, however, many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned.
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to the 2020 locust eruption.
In Africa, where the current locust eruption first arose, above-average rainfall, heavy vegetation, and multiple years of good crop production made conditions ripe of the locust population boom.
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent.
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa, areas with limited roads and infrastructure, and really erupted just as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting.
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region.
In other regions, political instability also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population.
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war, leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours.
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides themselves.
In short, myriad factors have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but there is no evidence that they are historically unusual.
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed, it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans, wildlife, vegetation, and crop production.
Climate alarmists, however, don’t want people to hear that.
Instead, they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal climate would be one of drought, crop failure, water shortages, and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else.
Yeah, ok.
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/no-climate-change-didnt-invent-cyclical-locust-plagues/
Parts of India are undergoing their worst locust invasion in decades, following a cycle that has occurred throughout recorded history.
Climate alarmists and their media ventriloquist dummies are claiming climate change must be to blame.
They are lying.
“India is facing its worst desert locust invasion in nearly 30 years, and the climate crisis is partly to blame,” says an article published in Ecowatch.
Nevertheless, the Ecowatch article presents no evidence this cyclical locust invasion is either caused by climate change or is especially severe compared to other historical locus invasions.
The article presents no evidence to back up its assertion because no such evidence exists.
“Locusts are not uncommon in the northwest Indian state of Rajasthan, but this year they have also entered the states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for the first time since 1993 and the state of Maharashtra for the first time since 1974,” writes Ecowatch.
As the article admits, these events have happened repeatedly before, with the 1974 locust plague occurring during a 30-year global cooling period when the mainstream media were warning about a coming ice age.
Locust plagues have struck periodically, but with some regularity all over the globe throughout history.
The Wikipedia entry on locust notes, “[t]he ancient Egyptians carved them on their tombs and the insects are mentioned in the Iliad, the Bible, and the Quran. Swarms have devastated crops and been a contributory cause of famines and human migrations.”
And academic papers also show locust plagues have even been common across Europe, with one paper noting,
“The history of locust plagues shows how pervasive plagues were, and when records are more complete in later history seemingly almost continuous in occurrence. If it was like this in Europe where the majority of historical records come from, how much more so must it have been in Africa where conditions were much more conducive to locusts?”
As a 2013 article in Farm Progress notes in the United States, “the speed, ferocity, and devastation of locusts, particularly the Rocky Mountain locust, would have once been a fact of life for a sweep of American farmers from California to Texas to Minnesota.”
The worst locust plague recorded in the United States since European colonization was recorded in 1875, which was 150 years of global warming ago, during the late stages of the Little Ice Age.
Farm Progress says:
“In 1875, the largest locust swarm in history was recorded over the Midwest — 198,000 square miles. (For a size reference, California covers 163,696 square miles.) The 1875 swarm was estimated to contain several trillion locusts and probably weighed several million tons. That was the largest locust cloud in world history, according to Jeffrey Lockwood, author of ‘The Devastating Rise and Mysterious Disappearance of the Insect that Shaped the American Frontier.’”
Abundant rainfall in recent years has brought more abundant water, crops, plants, and vegetation. This has benefited people, desirable wildlife, and locusts.
The benefits of more water and food for all life do not become a crisis – or even a politically advantageous climate crisis, simply because locusts also benefit from better conditions for all life.
Another natural but, in some sense, a unique factor contributing to the locus plague this year was its coincidental arrival with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Wikipedia notes,
“Recently, changes in agricultural practices and better surveillance of locations where swarms tend to originate, have meant that control measures can be used at an early stage. The traditional means of control are based on the use of insecticides from the ground or the air, but other methods using biological control are proving effective.”
Amidst the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns, however, many of these normal monitoring and response mechanisms were abandoned.
A recent article in Wired discusses the problems that occurred with monitoring and response to the 2020 locust eruption.
In Africa, where the current locust eruption first arose, above-average rainfall, heavy vegetation, and multiple years of good crop production made conditions ripe of the locust population boom.
The Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization operates a network of monitoring and response teams across much of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent.
The current locust population explosion occurred in fairly wild and remote areas in the Middle East and Africa, areas with limited roads and infrastructure, and really erupted just as the Coronavirus shutdown was hitting.
These factors combined to hamper locust monitoring and response across the region.
In other regions, political instability also prevented an effective response to the booming locust population.
Yemen has been ravaged by years of war, leaving it unable no to deploy the specially trained crews the government had previously used to spray common pesticides that effectively kill locusts in mere hours.
The ongoing civil war there also made it too dangerous for farmers and other regular folks to spray the pesticides themselves.
In short, myriad factors have contributed to the current locust plague striking large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but there is no evidence that they are historically unusual.
To the extent any particular weather or climate factors can be blamed, it would be weather and climate factors that greatly benefit humans, wildlife, vegetation, and crop production.
Climate alarmists, however, don’t want people to hear that.
Instead, they pick out the small downside and implicitly tell people that an ideal climate would be one of drought, crop failure, water shortages, and sparse plant growth to deprive food for locusts – and everything else.
Yeah, ok.
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/no-climate-change-didnt-invent-cyclical-locust-plagues/
Now you're posting from right wing, possibly neo-nazi sites?
https://www.desmogblog.com/naomi-seibt
Funded by the Rockefeller funded Heartland Institute.
Shouldn't you be out throwing stones at BLM right now, a group you say you hate?
Today, the region north of Svalbard is encrusted with sea ice for all but a few weeks per year, and summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) hover near 0°C.
Scientists (Brice et al., 2020) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago.
In early September 2019, Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “disappearing” sea ice that had captured their ship in central Svalbard.
This region is presently free of sea ice for only a few weeks per year (late August).
Observational measurements (Rösel et al., 2018) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years (1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015, 2017) than it was in 1955 (0.94 of a meter).
best picture on the internet
A study site northeast of Svalbard (Brice et al., 2020) reveals today’s sea surface temperatures of “<0°C” are at least 4°C colder than they were just a few thousand years ago when the Arctic was sea ice-free for all but “a couple of months” every year.
best picture on the internet
Per Brice et al. (2020), the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “optimum” during “the interval around 3000-2000 cal yr BP” such that late Stone Age human settlements north of Svalbard were “feasible”.
“Although our core was collected offshore, far from human settlement, the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history. Hence, our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard. Such a finding does not support directly the hypothesis of Stone Age settlements in Svalbard proposed by Christiansson and Simonsen (1970) but provides a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.”
Notice the graphics that show today’s sea ice monthly duration (~11 months per year) and summer sea surface temperatures (zero degrees Celsius) are among the highest and lowest (respectively) of the Holocene.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/05/28...early-sea-ice-free-year-round-4100-years-ago/
Scientists (Brice et al., 2020) have determined this same region had sea ice-free conditions last about 10 months per year while SSTs reached 4°C just ~4,100 years ago.
In early September 2019, Arctic explorers once again needed to be rescued from the “disappearing” sea ice that had captured their ship in central Svalbard.
This region is presently free of sea ice for only a few weeks per year (late August).
Observational measurements (Rösel et al., 2018) of the sea ice north of Svalbard indicate the ice has actually been significantly thicker in recent years (1.56 to 1.65 meters in 2015, 2017) than it was in 1955 (0.94 of a meter).
best picture on the internet
A study site northeast of Svalbard (Brice et al., 2020) reveals today’s sea surface temperatures of “<0°C” are at least 4°C colder than they were just a few thousand years ago when the Arctic was sea ice-free for all but “a couple of months” every year.
best picture on the internet
Per Brice et al. (2020), the much warmer Arctic climate and absence of sea ice reached an “optimum” during “the interval around 3000-2000 cal yr BP” such that late Stone Age human settlements north of Svalbard were “feasible”.
“Although our core was collected offshore, far from human settlement, the data compiled here and the reconstruction we propose provide some clues on the regional climate and marine environmental history. Hence, our study yields some information about the fact that the interval around 3000–2000 cal yr BP was probably the most favorable time window of the Holocene for human occupation in the area of northern Svalbard. Such a finding does not support directly the hypothesis of Stone Age settlements in Svalbard proposed by Christiansson and Simonsen (1970) but provides a climatological and oceanographical framework that would make it feasible.”
Notice the graphics that show today’s sea ice monthly duration (~11 months per year) and summer sea surface temperatures (zero degrees Celsius) are among the highest and lowest (respectively) of the Holocene.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/05/28...early-sea-ice-free-year-round-4100-years-ago/
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?709440-Hamas-arrests-Peace-Activists
franky here in he last few weeks defending Hamas
pot meets kettle Franky have a history of quoting mondoweiss a hate site that regulalry incite hate against Jews and is funded by an alt-rightisht Unz. he stopped citing that website after i mentioned this
he also likes to quote websites that are linked to hamas, one whose name i forgot owned by a convicted terrorist who was member of a popular front for palestine group, etc
You've been railing about the Rockefellers for years but never linked their connection to the oil industry before?
And are you still really against BLM?
Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception
The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim.
The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion, has been reported – without any critical examination – by the New York Times, Washington Post, The Weather Channel, and others. The Environmental Defense Fund is even using the new study to raise money for itself.
The headline for the Washington Post article tells us what the alarmists are peddling in this new study: “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely because of climate change, study shows.” The truth, as shown by objective scientific facts, is quite different.
The study’s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first half of the 39-year time period, the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades.
As an initial matter, the authors are dubiously claiming that merely 20 years of a minor variation in hurricane numbers is sufficient to prove a substantial long-term trend and a definitive link to climate change as the causal factor. This is a preposterous claim to make over such a short period. For example, objective data – as shown in the graph below (see climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png) – show that over a 25-year period from 1992 through 2014, the frequency of hurricanes declined significantly and the frequency of major hurricanes did not increase at all. This was also during a period of global warming. Why is that 25-year period irrelevant when it is so similar in time and length to the authors’ cherry-picked 29-year period? The fact is, there will always be natural and largely random variation in the frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc., within periods of just a few decades.
Second, the data show essentially no change in the frequency of major hurricanes since the early 1990s. Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years, during which there has been no trend. The fact that the 1980s were quieter than the 1990s is largely r relevant to the assertion that global warming is currently causing an increase in strong hurricanes. To the contrary, the lack of any increase during the past 30 years is much more relevant.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development.
Fourth and finally, media outlets like the Washington Post even misrepresent the misleading and cherry-picked conclusions of the authors’ study. As noted, the authors note a very minor increase in the percentage of tropical storms that become hurricanes, even while the overall frequency of major hurricanes has not increased during the past 30 years. Compare that to the Washington Post’s headline assertion that “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely.” Strong hurricanes are not more likely at all, let alone “far” more likely.
The new study, and its accompanying media coverage, represent a perfect example of the horse-dung sensationalism that climate alarmists tell us is “settled science.” The only settled science is that alarmists will go to incredible lengths to manipulate and misrepresent objective scientific facts for the cause of promoting their alarmist Climate Delusion.
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/...-study-sets-new-low-for-misleading-deception/
The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim.
The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion, has been reported – without any critical examination – by the New York Times, Washington Post, The Weather Channel, and others. The Environmental Defense Fund is even using the new study to raise money for itself.
The headline for the Washington Post article tells us what the alarmists are peddling in this new study: “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely because of climate change, study shows.” The truth, as shown by objective scientific facts, is quite different.
The study’s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first half of the 39-year time period, the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades.
As an initial matter, the authors are dubiously claiming that merely 20 years of a minor variation in hurricane numbers is sufficient to prove a substantial long-term trend and a definitive link to climate change as the causal factor. This is a preposterous claim to make over such a short period. For example, objective data – as shown in the graph below (see climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png) – show that over a 25-year period from 1992 through 2014, the frequency of hurricanes declined significantly and the frequency of major hurricanes did not increase at all. This was also during a period of global warming. Why is that 25-year period irrelevant when it is so similar in time and length to the authors’ cherry-picked 29-year period? The fact is, there will always be natural and largely random variation in the frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc., within periods of just a few decades.
Second, the data show essentially no change in the frequency of major hurricanes since the early 1990s. Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years, during which there has been no trend. The fact that the 1980s were quieter than the 1990s is largely r relevant to the assertion that global warming is currently causing an increase in strong hurricanes. To the contrary, the lack of any increase during the past 30 years is much more relevant.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development.
Fourth and finally, media outlets like the Washington Post even misrepresent the misleading and cherry-picked conclusions of the authors’ study. As noted, the authors note a very minor increase in the percentage of tropical storms that become hurricanes, even while the overall frequency of major hurricanes has not increased during the past 30 years. Compare that to the Washington Post’s headline assertion that “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely.” Strong hurricanes are not more likely at all, let alone “far” more likely.
The new study, and its accompanying media coverage, represent a perfect example of the horse-dung sensationalism that climate alarmists tell us is “settled science.” The only settled science is that alarmists will go to incredible lengths to manipulate and misrepresent objective scientific facts for the cause of promoting their alarmist Climate Delusion.
https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/...-study-sets-new-low-for-misleading-deception/
You fall for propaganda so easily, just a basic bait and switch like swapping out 'frequency' of storms with 'intensity' of storms.
If you can't pick up basics like that, what makes you think you're smart enough to really understand the debate?
Why do you push that right wing, Rockefeller, racist, oil propaganda?
Alarmist queen Hayhoe takedown by Friends of Science
If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people.
Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada.
The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is“Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “Facts versus Fortune Telling”.
There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis.
Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political.
What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making.
Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary:
“This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.”
Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings:
“Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.”
“More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.”
“Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.”
There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research.
The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/03/alarmist-queen-hayhoe-takedown-by-friends-of-science/
If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people.
Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada.
The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is“Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “Facts versus Fortune Telling”.
There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis.
Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political.
What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making.
Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary:
“This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.”
Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings:
“Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.”
“More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.”
“Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.”
There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research.
The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/03/alarmist-queen-hayhoe-takedown-by-friends-of-science/
Portland School Board Bans Books That Question Climate Cult Dogma
The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.
The resolution, introduced by school board member Mike Rosen, also directs the superintendent and staff to develop a plan for offering “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice” in all Portland public schools, the Portland Tribune reported.
“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux said during board testimony Tuesday. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”
Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.
“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”
Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.
“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/20/oregon-school-board-bans-books-that-question-clima/
The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.
The resolution, introduced by school board member Mike Rosen, also directs the superintendent and staff to develop a plan for offering “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice” in all Portland public schools, the Portland Tribune reported.
“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux said during board testimony Tuesday. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”
Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.
“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”
Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.
“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/20/oregon-school-board-bans-books-that-question-clima/
