Trudeau and the Liberals have been growing carbon emission
since they took over in 2016. It is an error not to hold them
accountable for Canada's record wildfire.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Trudeau and the Liberals have been growing carbon emission
since they took over in 2016. It is an error not to hold them
accountable for Canada's record wildfire.
When gasoline is no longer affordable and people have to
give up driving and switch to public transit.
Nah, when the oil&gas industry has been sued until they are broke and they can no longer pay to put conservatives in power.
14 US cities initiate new globalist climate plan in partnership with Soros and the Clintons
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a globalist enterprise with at least 14 partners right here in the U.S., and, they have set an "ambitious target" to convince the masses to give up meat, dairy, and private car ownership, as well as almost all flights, to supposedly save the planet and control temperatures forever around the current level.
From RedState yesterday:
Major funders and partners of the organization include George Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Clinton Foundation, and The World Bank.
Michael Bloomberg, the president of the group, is himself transported via gas-guzzling private jets and limousines, to his many mansions around the world. From Fox News:
He probably pretends he cares about his carbon footprint by buying worthless pieces of paper called carbon credits. His real estate portfolio consists of "at least 11 homes," and he owns a fleet of luxury personal vehicles:
They want to outlaw milk; does that include breastfeeding? Pretty sure that's a dairy product, and women and babies breathe out that vicious CO2, a non-pollutant, clear gas that makes plants thrive.
These billionaires generate massive pollution and pollute people's minds with talking points to indoctrinate the people to fall for pure propaganda.
What you will never see in these articles or in these policies is scientific data that show a direct correlation between milk and temperature, cars and temperature, meat and temperature, the population and temperature, crude oil consumption and temperature, or CO2 and temperature. The temperature fluctuates no matter what the other variables do.
You will also not see any correlation between any of these variables and storm activity or sea levels.
When there is no correlation, you can't assume causation. It is all a scam.
The sole purpose of these big government policies by leftists is to control our lives.
These billionaires and other leftists pretend they care about the poor and middle classes and small business, but every day, they show that is a blatant lie. They are extremely dangerous to our survival as a great and prosperous country, as are all the journalists who regurgitate the talking points without asking questions or doing any research.
14 US cities initiate new globalist climate plan in partnership with Soros and the Clintons - American Thinker
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a globalist enterprise with at least 14 partners right here in the U.S., and, they have set an "ambitious target" to convince the masses to give up meat, dairy, and private car ownership, as well as almost all flights, to supposedly save the planet and control temperatures forever around the current level.
From RedState yesterday:
So 14 leftist cities in the U.S. have signed on to this commitment to take away freedom of choice from their citizens, while people suffer under rampant crime and children perform poorly in schools, but their priority is to take away milk, meat, and gas-powered cars. Got it.
Major funders and partners of the organization include George Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Clinton Foundation, and The World Bank.
Michael Bloomberg, the president of the group, is himself transported via gas-guzzling private jets and limousines, to his many mansions around the world. From Fox News:
Bloomberg has access to multiple private jets, but he wants to limit us to one short-haul flight every three years.
He probably pretends he cares about his carbon footprint by buying worthless pieces of paper called carbon credits. His real estate portfolio consists of "at least 11 homes," and he owns a fleet of luxury personal vehicles:
Bloomberg and other green pushers tell people their gas-powered cars are destroying the planet, yet he has a massive car collection of gas-guzzlers.
They want to outlaw milk; does that include breastfeeding? Pretty sure that's a dairy product, and women and babies breathe out that vicious CO2, a non-pollutant, clear gas that makes plants thrive.
These billionaires generate massive pollution and pollute people's minds with talking points to indoctrinate the people to fall for pure propaganda.
What you will never see in these articles or in these policies is scientific data that show a direct correlation between milk and temperature, cars and temperature, meat and temperature, the population and temperature, crude oil consumption and temperature, or CO2 and temperature. The temperature fluctuates no matter what the other variables do.
You will also not see any correlation between any of these variables and storm activity or sea levels.
When there is no correlation, you can't assume causation. It is all a scam.
The sole purpose of these big government policies by leftists is to control our lives.
These billionaires and other leftists pretend they care about the poor and middle classes and small business, but every day, they show that is a blatant lie. They are extremely dangerous to our survival as a great and prosperous country, as are all the journalists who regurgitate the talking points without asking questions or doing any research.
14 US cities initiate new globalist climate plan in partnership with Soros and the Clintons - American Thinker
actually the biggest human error is abandoning independent thought and dogmatic acceptance of a false narrative
two thing to note about wild fires
#1. Burn acreage has steadily decreased while atmospheric CO2 increased
Go figure ?
#2
What happened in 2020 which resulted in the lowest burn acreage in 40 years?
Oh Yeah, lockdowns >>> including the arsonists
What a surprise, you're jumping right into antisemitic conspiracy theories.
How, according to your theory, do you explain this?
That chart is wrong on two levels:actually the biggest human error is abandoning independent thought and dogmatic acceptance of a false narrative
two thing to note about wild fires
#1. Burn acreage has steadily decreased while atmospheric CO2 increased
Go figure ?
#2
What happened in 2020 which resulted in the lowest burn acreage in 40 years?
Oh Yeah, lockdowns >>> including the arsonists
1) reporting during the 30's was too messed up, it included areas burnt for land clearing.
2) your chart is old
Here's what's going on.
New data on forest fires confirms what we’ve long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread, burning nearly twice as much tree cover today as they did 20 years ago.
A Whistle-Blower Details How Scientists Conspire To Depublish Non-Consensus Papers
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming.
The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr. Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. [emphasis, links added]
This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr. Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists.
Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A Critical Assessment Of Extreme Events Trends In Times Of Global Warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.
The witch-hunt has Australian elements. Last September, The Australian’s environment writer, Graham Lloyd, highlighted the paper [archived here] and its conclusion that the “extreme events emergency” was overblown.
Sky News Australia, which twice reported the study, picked up more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments.
The green-left Guardian countered with a hit piece by in-house catastrophist Graham Readfearn featuring professors Lisa Alexander and Steve Sherwood, both of NSW University. They alleged cherry-picking and misquoting.
Their main specific complaint was that the Italians’ paper had drawn on the 2013 Fifth IPCC Report rather than the recent Sixth Report. (The Italians say they submitted the paper before the Sixth Report emerged).
The Guardian’s fuss caught the attention of Agence France-Presse’s (AFP) Marlowe Hood, who modestly styles himself “Senior Editor, Future of the Planet” and “Herald of the Anthropocene”.
He penned his diatribe for The Australian [archived and also here] against the Italians’ paper. Jumping the gun on any editorial inquiry, AFP branded the study “faulty” and “fundamentally flawed”, involving “discredited assertions” and “grossly manipulated data”.
This abuse was normal since AFP and The Guardian are leaders of the Covering Climate Now (CCN) coalition of some 500 media outlets with a reach of a 2 billion audience.
These outlets signed the CCN pledge to hype catastrophism and rebut and censor any skepticism about our planet’s forecast fiery fate.
The whistle-blowers’ documents reveal how this media pile-on – as distinct from reasoned scientific complaint — led the journal’s owner, Springer, to demand “action”.
Springer aimed to force the editor to publish at least an erratum and, preferably, retract it altogether, restoring climate right-think.
The publishers have now decided on the retraction and the axe will fall any day now. But the process was ratbaggery in place of the normal rigorous and honorable protocols.
Meanwhile, unabashed Italian authors Alimonti and Mariani successfully published last week an updated version of their paper, also peer-reviewed and in a different scientific journal.
Chapter and verse on the controversy are available at The Honest Broker, the blog of Dr. Roger J. Pielke Jr., a world-leading expert in monetary loss trends from extreme events.
Noted climatologist Dr. Judith Curry tweeted,
In all fairness, you can read a detailed argument here by an advocate for the paper’s retraction. But even Andy Revkin, a leading US journalist of warmist persuasion, has explained,
Professor Gianluca Alimonti, Milan University, and senior researcher, Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Many of his papers involve work on the 7000-tonne ATLAS detector at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. He lists 300+ publications and presentations.
Renato Angelo Ricci, Padova University, Padua. He’s worked with Legnaro National Laboratories, one of the four major research centers of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN). He’s of such prestige that INFN dedicated to him its tenth annual Varenna Conference on nuclear reaction mechanisms. [1] The corrupted Wikipedia Italy dismisses him as a climate skeptic.
Luigi Mariani, Milan University, also of INFN. He’s with the Lombard Museum of Agricultural History and has published 137 papers.
Franco Prodi, National Academy of Science, Verona and Italian National Research Council – Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. 193 publications, 2300 citations: “Main fields of interest are physics of clouds and precipitation, hail and precipitation growth, aerosol physics, atmospheric radiation, severe storm studies, and radar-meteorological investigations, satellite meteorology and nowcasting [very short term weather forecasting].”
The Guardian noted that three of the four Italians had signed a “no emergency” skeptic declaration last year as if that disqualified them from proper research.
The Guardian didn’t mention that the same declaration, with its 1,600 signatories, was led by two Nobel Laureates in Physics, John Clauser (2022) and Ivar Giaever (1973). [2]
The comments of Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, of Pennsylvania University, about Alimonti and Ricci are illuminating. He described their journal article as:
His 1,000-year graph was used as a corporate logo by the IPCC in its 2001 Third Report [3], which subsequently downplayed it to near-invisibility in its Fourth Report six years later.
Mann had committed the scientific no-go of furtively patching measured global temperatures from 1961 to his proxy-reconstructed temperature graph derived from tree-ring sampling. [4]
This was done, in the Climategate words of Dr Phil Jones (Nov 16, 1999) to “hide the decline” of the 20th-century proxy trend, which threatened to render Mann’s entire temperature reconstruction spurious. [5]
Australia’s top catastrophist is Macquarie University’s Distinguished Professor of Biology Lesley Hughes, whose specialty is entomology, e.g., ant-tended butterfly ejaculations, though more recently she’s been publishing on Lethal consequences: climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. (It’s had record coral cover for the past two years).
Her Climate Council colleague and dud prophet Tim Flannery is a mammologist.
The Italians’ desk review spends 20 pages arguing from 82 relevant papers. Their English is well expressed though the syntax is slightly unusual. It’s their conclusions (below) that have generated such recursive fury [6] among the anointed climate crowd:
And the late Professor Will Steffen, who steered Australian federal climate policy for two decades, alerted the Royal Society that climate change might well end the Homo Sapiens species. [7]
The Guardian’s attack piece quoted Professor Lisa Alexander, a UNSW rainfall-extreme specialist, saying that, contrary to the paper’s “selective and biased” claims, “there is definitely an increase in precipitation extremes” and it’s “attributed to human activity”.
The paper had “totally misrepresented” her own papers’ findings, she said. She wanted the paper rejected or heavily revised.
So far so trenchant, but when you look up one of her two co-authored papers cited by the Italians, you discover that it messed up Figures 2,3,4,5,7,8, and 9 – which is all but three of its ten Figures. [8] The journal had to run a corresponding erratum and update.
An unkind critic might mention pots calling kettles black. Incidentally, Alexander’s UNSW team, led by Andy Pitman (famed for his inadvertent candor that “warming doesn’t cause droughts”) attracted a giant Australian Research Council (ARC) taxpayer grant of $32,134,273, no less.
Her other paper, with no corrections, was supported by an ARC grant of only $356,402.
In both papers, Professor Alexander commendably stresses the massive data uncertainties in her field of rainfall extremes, caused by unreliable rain recording, missing data across swathes of entire continents, and too-short records.
As she warned:
In the second reference, the Italians show concern – as she does — about data quality for extreme downpours. (The Italians mention inter alia that bugs often climb into the gauges and their corpses upset the mechanism).
AFP’s Marlowe in his hit piece quotes Richard Betts (UK Met Office) bagging the Italians. In a masterpiece of bitchy innuendo the AFP snarked, “Betts stopped short of calling for withdrawal, drawing a distinction between cherry-picking data and outright fraud.”
Other critics quoted were Friedericke Otto, of the UK’s Grantham Institute, along with Stefan Rahmstorf from the dark-green Postdam Institute.
Otto complained the Italians were writing “in bad faith” — whatever that means. Rahmstorf’s gripe was that the research was published in a physics journal rather than a climate one (the latter, of course, 97 percent captured by the catastrophe crowd as peer reviewers).
“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf said.
Otto agreed, demanding that it be withdrawn “loudly and publicly”, presumably to scapegoat the authors. An Exeter University professor said he wouldn’t go that far, fearing bad publicity about censorship – a good point.
Now for the whistle-blower’s documentation:
Read rest at Quadrant
A Whistle-Blower Details How Scientists Conspire To Depublish Non-Consensus Papers - Climate Change Dispatch
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming.
The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr. Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. [emphasis, links added]
This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr. Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists.
Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A Critical Assessment Of Extreme Events Trends In Times Of Global Warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.
The witch-hunt has Australian elements. Last September, The Australian’s environment writer, Graham Lloyd, highlighted the paper [archived here] and its conclusion that the “extreme events emergency” was overblown.
Sky News Australia, which twice reported the study, picked up more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments.
The green-left Guardian countered with a hit piece by in-house catastrophist Graham Readfearn featuring professors Lisa Alexander and Steve Sherwood, both of NSW University. They alleged cherry-picking and misquoting.
Their main specific complaint was that the Italians’ paper had drawn on the 2013 Fifth IPCC Report rather than the recent Sixth Report. (The Italians say they submitted the paper before the Sixth Report emerged).
The Guardian’s fuss caught the attention of Agence France-Presse’s (AFP) Marlowe Hood, who modestly styles himself “Senior Editor, Future of the Planet” and “Herald of the Anthropocene”.
He penned his diatribe for The Australian [archived and also here] against the Italians’ paper. Jumping the gun on any editorial inquiry, AFP branded the study “faulty” and “fundamentally flawed”, involving “discredited assertions” and “grossly manipulated data”.
This abuse was normal since AFP and The Guardian are leaders of the Covering Climate Now (CCN) coalition of some 500 media outlets with a reach of a 2 billion audience.
These outlets signed the CCN pledge to hype catastrophism and rebut and censor any skepticism about our planet’s forecast fiery fate.
The whistle-blowers’ documents reveal how this media pile-on – as distinct from reasoned scientific complaint — led the journal’s owner, Springer, to demand “action”.
Springer aimed to force the editor to publish at least an erratum and, preferably, retract it altogether, restoring climate right-think.
The publishers have now decided on the retraction and the axe will fall any day now. But the process was ratbaggery in place of the normal rigorous and honorable protocols.
Meanwhile, unabashed Italian authors Alimonti and Mariani successfully published last week an updated version of their paper, also peer-reviewed and in a different scientific journal.
Chapter and verse on the controversy are available at The Honest Broker, the blog of Dr. Roger J. Pielke Jr., a world-leading expert in monetary loss trends from extreme events.
Noted climatologist Dr. Judith Curry tweeted,
The controversy turns on how the IPCC Sixth Report is interpreted, as it seems to place [two bobs each way] on trends in extremes.
In all fairness, you can read a detailed argument here by an advocate for the paper’s retraction. But even Andy Revkin, a leading US journalist of warmist persuasion, has explained,
I’ll now background the Italian defendants in this politicized fracas. They enjoy prestigious reputations, but that doesn’t mean, of course, that they’re right.
Professor Gianluca Alimonti, Milan University, and senior researcher, Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Many of his papers involve work on the 7000-tonne ATLAS detector at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. He lists 300+ publications and presentations. Renato Angelo Ricci, Padova University, Padua. He’s worked with Legnaro National Laboratories, one of the four major research centers of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN). He’s of such prestige that INFN dedicated to him its tenth annual Varenna Conference on nuclear reaction mechanisms. [1] The corrupted Wikipedia Italy dismisses him as a climate skeptic. Luigi Mariani, Milan University, also of INFN. He’s with the Lombard Museum of Agricultural History and has published 137 papers. Franco Prodi, National Academy of Science, Verona and Italian National Research Council – Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. 193 publications, 2300 citations: “Main fields of interest are physics of clouds and precipitation, hail and precipitation growth, aerosol physics, atmospheric radiation, severe storm studies, and radar-meteorological investigations, satellite meteorology and nowcasting [very short term weather forecasting].”The Guardian noted that three of the four Italians had signed a “no emergency” skeptic declaration last year as if that disqualified them from proper research.
The Guardian didn’t mention that the same declaration, with its 1,600 signatories, was led by two Nobel Laureates in Physics, John Clauser (2022) and Ivar Giaever (1973). [2]
The comments of Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, of Pennsylvania University, about Alimonti and Ricci are illuminating. He described their journal article as:
Mann himself is a connoisseur of wrong (and self-evidently in need of remedial courtesy classes). His notorious 1999 Hockeystick paper purportedly proved unprecedented 20th-century global heat.
His 1,000-year graph was used as a corporate logo by the IPCC in its 2001 Third Report [3], which subsequently downplayed it to near-invisibility in its Fourth Report six years later.
Mann had committed the scientific no-go of furtively patching measured global temperatures from 1961 to his proxy-reconstructed temperature graph derived from tree-ring sampling. [4]
This was done, in the Climategate words of Dr Phil Jones (Nov 16, 1999) to “hide the decline” of the 20th-century proxy trend, which threatened to render Mann’s entire temperature reconstruction spurious. [5]
Australia’s top catastrophist is Macquarie University’s Distinguished Professor of Biology Lesley Hughes, whose specialty is entomology, e.g., ant-tended butterfly ejaculations, though more recently she’s been publishing on Lethal consequences: climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. (It’s had record coral cover for the past two years).
Her Climate Council colleague and dud prophet Tim Flannery is a mammologist.
The Italians’ desk review spends 20 pages arguing from 82 relevant papers. Their English is well expressed though the syntax is slightly unusual. It’s their conclusions (below) that have generated such recursive fury [6] among the anointed climate crowd:
While a tad sentimental, it’s not over the top compared with say, the IPCC’s UN head Antonio Guterres announcing last month that we’re now suffering “global boiling”.
And the late Professor Will Steffen, who steered Australian federal climate policy for two decades, alerted the Royal Society that climate change might well end the Homo Sapiens species. [7]
The Guardian’s attack piece quoted Professor Lisa Alexander, a UNSW rainfall-extreme specialist, saying that, contrary to the paper’s “selective and biased” claims, “there is definitely an increase in precipitation extremes” and it’s “attributed to human activity”.
The paper had “totally misrepresented” her own papers’ findings, she said. She wanted the paper rejected or heavily revised.
So far so trenchant, but when you look up one of her two co-authored papers cited by the Italians, you discover that it messed up Figures 2,3,4,5,7,8, and 9 – which is all but three of its ten Figures. [8] The journal had to run a corresponding erratum and update.
An unkind critic might mention pots calling kettles black. Incidentally, Alexander’s UNSW team, led by Andy Pitman (famed for his inadvertent candor that “warming doesn’t cause droughts”) attracted a giant Australian Research Council (ARC) taxpayer grant of $32,134,273, no less.
Her other paper, with no corrections, was supported by an ARC grant of only $356,402.
In both papers, Professor Alexander commendably stresses the massive data uncertainties in her field of rainfall extremes, caused by unreliable rain recording, missing data across swathes of entire continents, and too-short records.
As she warned:
As for allegedly misrepresenting her work, I don’t see it. In the Italian paper’s first reference, it accepts her conclusion about rain generally increasing. [9]
In the second reference, the Italians show concern – as she does — about data quality for extreme downpours. (The Italians mention inter alia that bugs often climb into the gauges and their corpses upset the mechanism).
AFP’s Marlowe in his hit piece quotes Richard Betts (UK Met Office) bagging the Italians. In a masterpiece of bitchy innuendo the AFP snarked, “Betts stopped short of calling for withdrawal, drawing a distinction between cherry-picking data and outright fraud.”
Other critics quoted were Friedericke Otto, of the UK’s Grantham Institute, along with Stefan Rahmstorf from the dark-green Postdam Institute.
Otto complained the Italians were writing “in bad faith” — whatever that means. Rahmstorf’s gripe was that the research was published in a physics journal rather than a climate one (the latter, of course, 97 percent captured by the catastrophe crowd as peer reviewers).
“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf said.
Otto agreed, demanding that it be withdrawn “loudly and publicly”, presumably to scapegoat the authors. An Exeter University professor said he wouldn’t go that far, fearing bad publicity about censorship – a good point.
Now for the whistle-blower’s documentation:
Read rest at Quadrant
A Whistle-Blower Details How Scientists Conspire To Depublish Non-Consensus Papers - Climate Change Dispatch
August 1, 2023
Does it seem as though every news story lately is on climate doom?
By D. Parker
Ah, summertime, when living is easy — those days when you spend time outdoors at the beach or the pool with a cold beverage and steaks or burgers on the grill, when you can travel and camp in a national park and take in nature's magnificent beauty. At least, that's the way it used to be, until the fascist far left decided to cynically take full advantage of the fact that it gets warm in the summer and cold in the winter (at least in the Northern Hemisphere).
As is the case with other subjects, anti-liberty leftists love to lie with language, substituting nondescript terms for similar but specific words to pull a fast one on the public, replacing sex with gender, crime with violence, and temperature with heat. Each sounds like a similar concept, but since they are different, and scientifically non-specific in this context, they can play all kinds of propaganda games, creating crisis or reframing a debate without notice.
For the usually warm season of summer, they use the non-specific terms heat or hot in place of what normal people would refer to as temperature. In this context, the latter has a specific scientific definition; thus, they don't have to worry about those pesky bugaboos of journalism called "facts." They can play fast and loose with the language, because how do you define the heat in this context? Just as it's difficult to nail down the definition of violence or gender.
But even worse than that, you've probably also noticed that these days that there isn't a news story that somehow doesn't have a climate connection.
That is by design, and not an overwrought term "conspiracy theory." (The ruling class needs to know that it's used that excuse far too many times, but we digress.) What are global cooling, global warming, global boiling, climate change, climate crisis, and now climate emergency? Will it soon be climate calamity, catastrophe, or cataclysm, depending on which sounds scariest and will bring in the most money and votes?
The initiative of the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, proudly announced four years ago, was entitled "Covering Climate Now," "Transforming the media's coverage of the climate crisis." It quickly amassed more than 170 news outlets from around the world to Rahm this propaganda down our throats. It triumphantly announced that "Climate Stories Are Everywhere."
Then there is the Global Heat Health Information Network under the banners of the World Health Organization (the fun folks from the COVID lockdowns) and the World Meteorological Organization.
Very much like the Covering Climate Now cabal, the GHHIN offers helpful hints on how to cover the "Climate Emergency," such as this gem from its page on Reporting on Extreme Heat and Health:
Then if you wondered why there's been a dearth of the normal images of people enjoying the usual seasonal activities of this time of year, here is your answer:
Covering Climate Now ever so helpfully offers these ten tips in best media practices for getting the climate story right:
We're guessing that now that we've pointed out that they are disingenuously using heat instead of temperature and are following the panic propaganda practices, you'll notice that they are everywhere. But don't worry: we can boldly predict that in six months, they'll be talking about the cold or snow (or lack of either one) being a sure sign of the climate emergency. Because they've stacked the deck either way on this.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a longtime contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Does it seem as though every news story lately is on climate doom? - American Thinker
Does it seem as though every news story lately is on climate doom?
By D. Parker
Ah, summertime, when living is easy — those days when you spend time outdoors at the beach or the pool with a cold beverage and steaks or burgers on the grill, when you can travel and camp in a national park and take in nature's magnificent beauty. At least, that's the way it used to be, until the fascist far left decided to cynically take full advantage of the fact that it gets warm in the summer and cold in the winter (at least in the Northern Hemisphere).
As is the case with other subjects, anti-liberty leftists love to lie with language, substituting nondescript terms for similar but specific words to pull a fast one on the public, replacing sex with gender, crime with violence, and temperature with heat. Each sounds like a similar concept, but since they are different, and scientifically non-specific in this context, they can play all kinds of propaganda games, creating crisis or reframing a debate without notice.
For the usually warm season of summer, they use the non-specific terms heat or hot in place of what normal people would refer to as temperature. In this context, the latter has a specific scientific definition; thus, they don't have to worry about those pesky bugaboos of journalism called "facts." They can play fast and loose with the language, because how do you define the heat in this context? Just as it's difficult to nail down the definition of violence or gender.
But even worse than that, you've probably also noticed that these days that there isn't a news story that somehow doesn't have a climate connection.
That is by design, and not an overwrought term "conspiracy theory." (The ruling class needs to know that it's used that excuse far too many times, but we digress.) What are global cooling, global warming, global boiling, climate change, climate crisis, and now climate emergency? Will it soon be climate calamity, catastrophe, or cataclysm, depending on which sounds scariest and will bring in the most money and votes?
The initiative of the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, proudly announced four years ago, was entitled "Covering Climate Now," "Transforming the media's coverage of the climate crisis." It quickly amassed more than 170 news outlets from around the world to Rahm this propaganda down our throats. It triumphantly announced that "Climate Stories Are Everywhere."
Then there is the Global Heat Health Information Network under the banners of the World Health Organization (the fun folks from the COVID lockdowns) and the World Meteorological Organization.
Very much like the Covering Climate Now cabal, the GHHIN offers helpful hints on how to cover the "Climate Emergency," such as this gem from its page on Reporting on Extreme Heat and Health:
That preventive action inevitably entails voting for leftists and giving up your individual liberty and private property for the vague promise that it will somehow save the planet, even if the major producers aren't going to do the same. Look how well that COVID lockdown worked out for the non-ruling class.
Then if you wondered why there's been a dearth of the normal images of people enjoying the usual seasonal activities of this time of year, here is your answer:
So much for fun in the sun; there are fear and potential votes to be forced from people out of the sheer terror of summertime heat.
Covering Climate Now ever so helpfully offers these ten tips in best media practices for getting the climate story right:
The worst is this handy little guide (offered in a downloadable "and fun" PDF) to Making the Climate Connection to share with your newsroom:
Note that this was changed sometime between Feb. 26, 2023 and May 19, 2023. Perhaps it was too explicit in telling the national socialist media what to say.
We're guessing that now that we've pointed out that they are disingenuously using heat instead of temperature and are following the panic propaganda practices, you'll notice that they are everywhere. But don't worry: we can boldly predict that in six months, they'll be talking about the cold or snow (or lack of either one) being a sure sign of the climate emergency. Because they've stacked the deck either way on this.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a longtime contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Does it seem as though every news story lately is on climate doom? - American Thinker
Holy shit, you're going back to the long debunked 'climategate' emails?
The ones that were investigated 7 times and found were nothing like the oil industry claimed?
You must be getting desperate for material.
Does it seem like there is a massive forest fire, storm, drought or extreme event almost every day this summer?
Blame that on climate change, not the people reporting on it.
Foolish comparison. So you're ok with sinking trillions of dollars to perhaps reduce global temperatures by less than 1 degree F by 2100.So let's do nothing.
It's the same faulty logic as we see in controlling gun casualties. If we can't get a perfect plan, let's do nothing.
Earth to shack - the climate does what it does. Humans have little impact. History has proven that.
Kirk, Exxon projected very accurately the amount of warming we are experiencing today in the '80's.
They knew their products would warm the planet this much and instead of doing anything spent billions on lobbyists and disinformation.
2ºC is 1/2 an IAU, that is an Ice Age Unit.
As in 4ºC cooler and the planet is in an ice age.
4ºC warmer and we're in a thermal maximum, which is now 2.8ºC away.
This summer of massive forest fires, storms, drought and extreme events is what we see with only 1.2ºC.
Human activities have infinitely greater (and negative) impact on Earth's
environment and ecology than its climate. To politicians and activists it is
however the climate change issue they could exploit to serve their interest.
That partially explains the failure of the influence of the climate movement
in bringing on meaningful carbon emission reduction.
No, the climate change your products caused is still the biggest problem facing humanity.
You keep harping on this talking point. Exxon knew squat. It was speculation. There was no real science behind it. There still isn't 40+ years later.
I didn't say environment, I said climate. The climate is controlled mostly by the sun and its impact on ocean currents.
No doubt human activity affects our environment negatively. Mass deforestation, garbage in the ocean, toxic spills etc etc.
