Science "journalists" who promulgate climate change hysteria have been recently pushing the fearmongering of the "hottest" year meme (or "warmest" if you prefer), which is essentially a lie...apparently, both the world's food crops and the public are simply now ignoring the proclamations of these chicken little, climate-cult doomsday criers.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.
Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.
Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.
And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.
On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.
It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.
WUWT produces another example of the elite establishments' propaganda promoting bogus climate change alarmism. There is little, if any, empirical evidence of the climate refugee claim, unless one actually believes the output of egregiously error-prone climate computer models.
Instead of educating its readers about global warming reality, the Smithsonian delivers typically lame press release "science," enhanced with hyperbolic statements, which have been thoroughly debunked in the past.
Personally, I canceled my Smithsonian subscription over a decade ago after tiring from their constant anti-empirical, political-agenda science. But for those who still do subscribe, one might want to keep this infograph handy to help spot the magazine's bogus claims and bad science reporting.
For your added pleasure, obvious additional speculative hyperbole from the magazine:
====> "Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender...Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes...Even people who don’t have to move will experience a bewildering sense of dislocation as the environment changes around them—as Northern winters start to be measured in weeks rather than months."
Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
Mainstream journalism continues in its death spiral as it loses public appeal, primarily due to biased "reporting" and outright misrepresentation about important policy debates.
When the historians decades from now do an objective analysis of how American mainstream journalism self-destructed, classic examples to be studied will be the activist/advocacy science journalists who willfully ignore empirical evidence in order to push their preferred political agenda.
The good news? The average American now pretty much ignores these bullsheeeeters.
The Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.
As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.
The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.
A partial list includes:
The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral
"The 5-year mean global temperature has
been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability
and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist,
"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just
0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero.
This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans
Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a
pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially
over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton
This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.
Why do Americans think so little of the mainstream press?
The New York Times epitomizes the principal reason why Americans hold journalism in such low esteem.
The public expects objective reporting on the critical issues of energy and climate. But that's not what they get from the NYT and other mainstream outlets.
Instead, as Bjorn Lomberg documents, this NYT's reporter is more interested in being an advocate, an anti-CO2 activist instead of reporting the actual facts and known science. He delivers a form of corrupted journalism, and that's why he needs to employ catastrophic scenarios with exaggerations, myths, urban legends, distortions, lies and whatever else it takes to scare the public.
For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2-caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)...this style of sensationalist, tabloid "climate science" journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck-on-stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
While left-leaning U.S. politicians, bureaucrats and the partisan mainstream press continue to push the silly catastrophic AGW hysteria from human CO2 emissions, a significant cooling trend (per NOAA) across a critically important global breadbasket continues - if the latest 15-year global cooling trend persists, crop yields will suffer immensely
As has been well documented, global warming has gone AWOL and in some regions of the world, global cooling trends have materialized, which scientists across the world are starting to express concern with.
In the key crop regions of the U.S., there has been an extended cooling trend that persists despite the immense human CO2 emissions released over the last two decades. The above four NOAA charts depict those cooling trends across the a wide swath of American agricultural production. These charts represent the main American corn, soybean, spring and winter wheat growing areas.
What the huge U.S. breadbasket needs at this point is a few years of some good old fashioned global warming that will reverse the potential devastation a mass cooling would deliver to crop yields.
Unfortunately, though, it appears nature is not delivering what the American farmers and ranchers need this spring.
100% of climate scientists now agree that accelerating global warming has robustly stalled- the IPCC's gold-standard UK HadCRUT global temperature dataset confirms what skeptical scientists have long publicly discussed
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
In contrast to the crazed, paranoid, lefty-loon rants of an obviously disturbed, anti-science journalist, what do actual scientists say about global warming....let's summarize with a favorite...
Read here. It is well known that climate doomsday journalists have a serious aversion to actual empirical evidence and ignore the overwhelming amount of new peer-reviewed studies that seriously challenge their anti-science, green-religion belief system about global warming.
And now comes a new study by a huge international team of scientists, Niu et al, that points out an inconvenient scientific truth. The world's ecosystems (plants, animals and microbes) indeed prosper within warmer climate regimes - they successfully adapt and evolve with higher temps.
"In introducing their huge collaborative study, the sixty-eight authors say "it is well documented that plants, animals and microbes acclimate and/or adapt to prevailing environmental conditions in a way that can optimize their functioning under varying temperatures, which is collectively termed optimality...say they found that "the temperature response of NEE followed a peak curve, with the optimum temperature (corresponding to the maximum magnitude of NEE) being positively correlated with annual mean temperature over years and across sites," and they say that "shifts of the optimum temperature of NEE were mostly a result of temperature acclimation of gross primary productivity (upward shift of optimum temperature)...they indicate that "extended growing seasons, increased nitrogen mineralization, and enhanced root growth may also have contributed to the increased CO2 uptake under higher temperatures, leading to the upward shift in the optimum temperature of gross primary productivity in warmer years."" [Shuli Niu, Yiqi Luo, Shenfeng Fei, Wenping Yuan, David Schimel, Beverly E. Law, Christof Ammann, M. Altaf Arain, Almut Arneth, Marc Aubinet, Alan Barr, Jason Beringer, Christian Bernhofer, T. Andrew Black, Nina Buchmann, Alessandro Cescatti, Jiquan Chen, Kenneth J. Davis, Ebba Dellwik, Ankur R. Desai, Sophia Etzold, Louis Francois, Damiano Gianelle, Bert Gielen, Allen Goldstein, Margriet Groenendijk, Lianhong Gu, Niall Hanan, Carole Helfter, Takashi Hirano, David Y. Hollinger, Mike B. Jones, Gerard Kiely, Thomas E. Kolb, Werner L. Kutsch, Peter Lafleur, David M. Lawrence, Linghao Li, Anders Lindroth, Marcy Litvak, Denis Loustau, Magnus Lund, Michal Marek, Timothy A. Martin, Giorgio Matteucci, Mirco Migliavacca, Leonardo Montagnani, Eddy Moors, J. William Munger, Asko Noormets, Walter Oechel, Janusz Olejnik, Kyaw Tha Paw U, Kim Pilegaard, Serge Rambal, Antonio Raschi, Russell L. Scott, Günther Seufert, Donatella Spano, Paul Stoy, Mark A. Sutton, Andrej Varlagin, Timo Vesala, Ensheng Weng, Georg Wohlfahrt, Bai Yang, Zhongda Zhang and Xuhui Zhou 2012: New Phytologist]
'C3' Conclusions: So, who you going to believe about global warming? The anti-science, lefty-loon doomsday fanatics like Al Gore and David Appell, or 68 expert scientists regarding thermal optimality and our favorite optimist, Bobby McFerrin? We conclude the latter group to be a better indication of climate reality and outlook. The green anti-science zealots really need to stop and smell the roses every once in a while, and be thankful how both life and climate have improved since the Little Ice Age - a suggested therapy for their miserable attitudes should include listening to "Don't Worry, Be Happy" at least 3 times per day, which will hopefully dull the catastrophic-fear paranoia edge they continuously live on.
The latest HadCRUT global temperatures indicate a modern global cooling regime has been in place over the last 15 years - in addition, many world regions have experienced weather events that corroborate a global cooling phase
Despite the protestations of the climate doomsday scientists and their faithful cohorts (mindless parrots?) in the mainstream press, the extremely hot weather, in parts of the U.S., is an exception.
(And, btw, the current heat wave and severe weather in the U.S. is not unusual - hmmm...if only the lazy MSM doomsday parrots reporters would get off their fat keisters, eh...)
Across the globe, reports of colder temperatures and cold inclement weather abound, which the large MSM outlets in the U.S. have failed to report. Because of the extreme one-sided reporting of the hot summer (ie, "global warming") in the U.S., most Americans remain ignorant of significant weather and climatic conditions across the world. This level of global ignorance is highly correlated to the god-awful, biased reporting done by the Seth Borensteins of the world.
Below are recent examples of conditions that prevail outside America's Midwest and East Coast areas that major U.S. media/press outlets won't mention:
Read here. That the anti-science and anti-empirical evidence bias runs rampant in the mainstream media is now taken for fact. Whether it's the UK, US or Australia, the left-liberal dominated media fear-mongering on climate change and global warming, tossing empirical evidence out the window, leaves lots to be desired.
The latest example is the Guardian, which reports that Arctic sea ice has declined by 75% over the last few decades - a very scary sounding decline. And they can get away with this because their readers are incredibly susceptible to most types of anti-science propaganda, such as the recent claims that vaccines cause autism.
In the Arctic sea ice case though, a 75% decline would be represented by the red line in the adjacent chart - sea ice has never reached that level no matter what the mainstream press "reports." Instead, recent sea ice decline is represented by the blue curve, which by early spring 2012 had recovered to its 30-year average.
"The Guardian managed to outdo itself in it’s latest foray into global warming, claiming that Arctic sea ice has declined by three quarters in the last three decades. In a series of “factoids” following an interview with pop celebrity and latest Greenpeace spokesperson for the Arctic ice, Jarvis Cocker, Lucy Seigle, the Guardian’s environment reporter, informed readers that: "Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years.""
Conclusions for mainstream media bias: Climate change reporting by large media outlets is totally untrustworthy. The left-liberal-progressive political agenda prevents an accurate reporting of global warming empirical evidence. Instead of receiving objective journalism, readers and viewers are constantly subjected to fear-mongering, anti-science opinions.
Read here. The predicted "accelerating" sea level rise has been a fearmongering staple of the IPCC's global warming alarmists and the mainstream press for decades. For pure hysteria sake, nothing beats the image of flooding populous coastal areas with the intent to frighten the public.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, the empirical evidence does not support their grossly speculative predictions from discredited climate models.
Firstly, the "accelerating" global sea level rise has not taken place as multiple research studies have documented.
Secondly, the alarmist creed that the melting of Greenland's glaciers would cause devastating ocean rises has been completely debunked by a new peer reviewed study on some 200+ glaciers on the world's largest island.
"...titled “21st Century Evolution of Greenland Outlet Glacier Velocities” [Moon et al.] examined the flow characteristics from nearly 200 glaciers across Greenland for the period 2000-2010 as analyzed using synthetic aperture radar data collected from various satellites...And what they found...was that the patterns of flow rate changes across Greenland were complex, both in space and time. Glaciers that were accelerating during a few years were found to be decelerating in others. Some accelerating glaciers were found in close proximity to other glaciers that were decelerating..."Finally, our observations have implications for recent work on sea level rise...Our wide sampling of actual 2000 to 2010 changes shows that glacier acceleration across the ice sheet remains far below these estimates, suggesting that sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (9.3 cm [3.7 inches] by 2100) at present...Our result is consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models."" [Twila Moon, Ian Joughin, Ben Smith, Ian Howat 2012: Science]
Conclusion: Accelerating global sea level rise from melting glaciers is not happening as predicted. The retreat of Greenland's glaciers is not a major contributor to sea level increases and there exists no empirical evidence that this will change by year 2100.
The ever growing global warming science facts continue to make a shambles of the IPCC's and MSM's case that catastrophic global warming is ravaging Earth and humanity - the lies, myths and hysteria crumble under evidentiary weight
(click on images to enlarge)
The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.
The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.
Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.
The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.
Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.
Conclusion: Global warming science facts have completely demolished the lies, myths and hysteria of the IPCC and the MSM. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, these "institutions" don't falter in their pursuit of a political agenda based on falsehoods. For an expanding cornucopia of reasons, no longer does either institution deserve the belief or trust of the public.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?
These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.
The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?
The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!
The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.
The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.
Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.
Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).
Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)
Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.
As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).
Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.
The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.
Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.
Read here. The evidence continues to pour in discrediting the IPCC's fabricated disaster claims of catastrophic sea level rises. Researchers from the around the world have documented that the predicted "accelerating" and "dangerous" sea level increases are not happening.
The latest research by Albrecht et al. focuses on sea levels near the Jutland peninsula (the German Bight). These EU researchers were unable to discern the "unprecedented" sea level increases from the actual empirical evidence, which is evidence that the mainstream media and the IPCC alarmists conveniently ignore.
"Focusing on regional mean sea level (RMSL) changes in the North Sea and, more precisely, in the German Bight, Albrecht et al. developed an index time series for the RMSL employing two different approaches...basing their work on homogenized annual mean sea level data covering the period 1843-2008 that were acquired by 15 tide gauges...suggesting that "regional mean sea level increased at rates between 1.64 and 1.74 mm/year with a 90% confidence range of 0.28 mm/year in each case." As for whether or not there was an acceleration in RMSL rise within the past few decades, they note that in terms of 20-year trends, the most recent rates are "relatively high." However, they report that these rates "are not unusual and that similar rates could also be identified earlier in the record."...they go on to note that "the same conclusion concerning a possible acceleration in the recent past was drawn by Haigh et al. (2009) for the North Sea region of the English Channel.""[Frauke Albrecht, Thomas Wahl, Jürgen Jensen, Ralf Weisse 2011: Ocean Dynamics]
Conclusion: EU scientists prove, using tide gauge station data, that the long predicted catastrophic sea level rise has not happened despite the global warming that has taken place since the Little Ice Age end.
Without any empirical evidence, the mainstream media continues to report that global warming is causing an increase of severe weather events - latest scientific analysis of tornadoes disproves IPCC alarmist claims to be meritless
Read here. The IPCC continues to push the bogus claim that "global warming" (supposedly due to human CO2) is (and will) causing more severe weather events with the publication of their new 'SREX' report.
The incredibly stupid and lazy journalists covering climate science dutifully report the desired summary propaganda that the IPCC wants heard. Yet if they made any effort, the reporters would soon discover that the empirical evidence does not support the the IPCC hypothesis that past warming has caused more severe weather.
The adjacent violent tornado chart is a clear cut example that alarmist claims of more severe weather due to warming is indeed not factual.
In addition, climate science journalists are soooo lazy, and obviously enraptured (cult-like?) with misleading the public about climate disasters, they always seem to miss the IPCC's fine print, such as this in the new 'SREX' report:
“While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to the question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme.”...“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”...“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados.”...“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.”
Conclusions: First, severe weather events have not increased as a result of global warming - in fact, even the IPCC admits there is no increasing trend of said events. Second, climate science reporters and the mainstream media continue to mislead and misinform the public and policymakers with bogus reports of 'cherry-picked' extreme weather events, both current and predicted.
Latest global temperature info refutes the extraordinary 'cherry picking' of Tom Yulsman, well known CAGW climate model cultist advocate - the doomsday kool-aid "science" of fanatics green-disoriented individuals
(click on each image to enlarge)
To be honest, I've been waiting for almost three years to write about this article penned by Tom Yulsman, but never mentioned it until now. His recent, idiotic challenging article about 'cherry picking' by skeptics just flat-out exhibits the typical brain-gyrating hypocrisy mental process of your standard cult fanatic warmista, and then I got thinking about that old article.
"...I [Tom Yulsman] drank the cap-and-trade Kool-Aid, spiked by a generous portion of climate modeling."
No shit, Sherlock. Tom Yulsman fancies himself an environmental journalist, but in reality, he's a hack propagandist advocate for the climate doomsday cult tribe located in his region of Colorado. An propagandist advocate for a cargo cult unique style of climate-science where Kool-Aid appears to be the chosen elixir.
In his most recent article, he chooses to push the blatant propaganda misunderstanding that skeptics only 'cherry pick' their climate data, but then proceeds, in literal black and white, to demonstrate his superior skills as the ultimate 'cherry picking' CAGW cultist tribe spokesperson. Let's review:
Tom Yulsman, doomsday cultist advocate and cherry picking expert
Synopsis: Yulsman uses the first three weeks of March, 2012 as evidence that humans are causing global warming - "But over the very long run, the picture has been pretty clear: Humans are winning — as this March’s extraordinary weather suggests"...alrighty then, Tom.
First, talk about 'cherry picking'. This cultist advocate basis his whole article on a portion of a single freaking month
Second, the early March warmth was primarily located in certain regional areas of the U.S., not a global phenomenon - more convenient 'cherry picking'
Third, as the NASA global atmosphere temperature chart #1 shows, March through the 26th has not exhibited global temperatures out of the ordinary.
Fourth, as the HadCRUT global temperature charts #2-5 reveal, global warming has been modest, to non-existent over the last 30 years, depending on the given time span examined, despite the obvious 30-year, non-stop growth of CO2 levels.
Fifth, Yulsman exposes his amazing lack of climate science knowledge (cultist ignorance?) when he wonders about the following: "Watts up with the 17-year period." It's a 'you've-got-to-be-kidding' moment - this "science" journalist isn't even aware that a major CAGW climate modeler published a study in 2011 claiming that temperature benchmarks should be using 17 years as the measurement period. (Psssst...Tom, try googling "climate +17-years"...second item on first page of search. You're welcome. Say hello to Ben S. for me. Thanks.)
Sixth, he 'cherry picks' quotes from Jeff Masters, a known internet weather crackpot, who expounds on the March warming in Michigan, yet actual NOAA U.S. temperature data has March 1910 as warmer and that goes unmentioned.
Seventh, he 'cherry picks' a single study about the 2003 European heat wave that claims that event was a result of human factors, yet ignores all the other studies suggesting such heat waves are natural phenomenons.
Eighth, I'm not making this up, Yulsman 'cherry picks' a single, "renowned," cartoon video as his scientific evidence that humans are to blame for global warming - gee, I wonder if instead this video would help better explain AGW to Tom's erudite readers:
Ninth, knowing full well that the CAGW cultists scientists can't explain the lack of recent global warming over the last 15 years, Tom chooses to 'cherry pick' a single study that speculates that all the previous predicted warming from the climate models is really disappearing into the deep oceans. However, as our cult propagandist advocate fails to mention, all the empirical scientific evidence disproves that AGW alarmist speculation.
Tenth, going back to those 'cherry picked' first 3-weeks of March, 'Kool-Aid' Tom just happens to forget to speak of the previous 52-week period - and for good reason. Obviously, as the chart on the right shows, the CAGW fanatics faithful are notoriously reluctant to talk about those temperatures, which has the world monstrously cooling at a minus 18.3 degrees by 2100.
Note: Readers, please remember that linear trend figures used in the charts are not predictions! Also, the charts' blue curves are 2nd order polynomial trend fits as calculated by Excel.
Conclusion:Tom Yulsman, the 'cherry picking' expert and climate doomsday cultist advocate, reminds me of Harold Camping and all the other crazies eccentrics. In my mind's-eye, Tom even looks like Harold - yikes!
A plethora of temperature charts that CAGW cult tribe 'cherry pickers' always avoid: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts, and of course, an extensive list of severe weather events prior to the 1980's that the cultists always seem to forget about.
p.s. Update: Rest assured, image #6 above is not really Tom Yulsman! He is infinitely better looking and younger. And more than 'robustly' likely, he is a great guy; someone to go out have an after work beverage with and shoot the skeptics shit with - just don't let him 'cherry pick' the Kool-Aid drinks. :-)
The catastrophic prediction that the world's major glaciers, including those of the Himalayas, were melting to nothingness turns out to be spectacularly wrong - global warming scientists & MSM press literally stunned by real world facts
Read here and here. During a week where honest scientists and the gullible mainstream press were again whacked in the head by the infamous 2x4 of global warming alarmist corruption, new research based on empirical evidence continues to reveal that the IPCC's alarmist predictions are bogus, if not terminally corrupt.
New satellite evidence shows that the Himalayan glaciers have lost zero ice for the last 10 years, which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Federation and U.S. climate scientists have predicted, and claimed to actually be happening.
As one of the world's major 'Big Green' propaganda alarmist tools, the UK's Guardian had to be stunned itself to write this about the Himalayan glaciers and the related 'stunned' climate scientists.
"The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows"..."The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas...have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows...The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
As the sordid fakery and fabrications of a major global warming alarmist scientist, Peter Gleick, continues to embarrassingly unravel, the mainstream press also has to cope with real world climate facts - the world is not dangerously warming and causing all the exaggerated global warming catastrophes they previously reported (predicted).
Due to the incredibly bad reporting by the mainstream press, many Americans believe the U.S. suffers from "accelerated warming" and increasing severe weather - neither are true
First, as the adjacent chart reveals, U.S. temperatures are not "accelerating." The red curve is the 12-month moving average (since 1895), which clearly shows no acceleration, and shows zero relationship to the growing levels of atmospheric CO2 levels (black dots).
As can be seen, U.S. monthly temperatures have a wide variation (the blue up/down plot) in any given year, fluctuating between low and high extremes.
Again, no "accelerating" warming trend is evident from the actual temperature empirical evidence. (click on charts to enlarge)
Read here. This second chart plots the total number of severe tornadoes (F2, F3, F4 & F5) in decade groups (the 2000's include 2011). This actual empirical evidence substantiates that severe weather events, as represented by extreme tornadoes, are not increasing in the U.S.
Conclusion: The mainstream press (eg., NYT, WaPo, Time, CBS, NBC, LA Times, etc.) willfully and unequivocally reports misinformation regarding severe weather and global warming. They do so to purposefully mislead the public and policymakers regarding global warming and climate change.
New Zealand empirical research completely deflates wild predictions of IPCC's Rahmstorf and other global warming alarmists such as Heidi Cullen
Read here. The IPCC has literally been wrong with almost 100% of their catastrophic climate predictions. The latest confirmation of their prediction incompetence is the failure of the seas to rise to dangerous levels per latest New Zealand tide gauge data.
New peer research found, In a nutshell, that seas around New Zealand have been rising at only a 7 inch per century rate. That is a fraction of the IPCC's worst case scenario prediction that the mainstream press exclusively reports.
The mainstream press has consistently misinformed and mislead the public regarding global warming science - the NYTs does it again with the never-ending, bogus methane gas scare
Read here. The New York Times, the essential U.S. propaganda instrument for left / liberal / progressive /Democrat policies, has for decades gleefully misrepresented actual climate science, plus wildly exaggerating the global warming fears expressed by scientists who rely on government funding for their current or future research.
The latest example of this was the NY Times's story about the feared methane gas "tipping point" that is being caused by the "accelerating" (Not!) global warming.
As the above chart indicates, the growth of methane gas concentration at surface level in the Arctic region has slowed considerably since the 1980s (blue trend line). This actual empirical evidence refutes the "climate science" from "experts" that the NYTs has reported for years. Contrary to what the NYTs tells its readers, the minor global warming has not caused a rapid growth of methane gas due to a melting of the Arctic frozen regions.
Using Excel, the trend growth lines for the different periods of methane levels were calculated for the above chart. The green trend line of the 2000s has a slightly less slope than the red trend line, which means that surface methane gas growth has slowed since the 80s, considerably.
Unfortunately, the vast legions of left-oriented readers that only get their climate science from the mainstream media remain immensely ignorant to the actual empirical evidence. Instead, outlets such as the Times and the Washington Post primarily publish biased "press release" science that has the sole purpose of misleading the public through fear of the future. Literally, this is the reason why progressives / leftists appear so incredibly stupid about man-made (Hardly!) global warming.
Go here for DIY science; plot methane measurements from around the world for yourself. Note that this site does not include 2011 data yet.
The mainstream print media has been misinforming the public for years about man's affect on coral reefs - finally, '60 Minutes' tells truth that NYT & WAPO cover up
Read here. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is one of few climate scientists who has long insisted that human influence on climate is much more than just the CO2 greenhouse gas. For Americans, a recent the '60 Minutes' TV episode on the devastation of coral reefs pretty much vindicates Pielke's view that any number of non-CO2 factors significantly influence the world's climate and habitats.
"Scientists say the world's reefs are being harmed by a complex combination of factors; including pollution, agricultural runoff, coastal development, and overfishing. It turns out fish are essential to the health of a reef...The reason this reef's doing so well, Fabian Pina believes, is that it's far from the mainland and well-protected...Maybe it’s because this ecosystem is being protected, it’s got a leg up on other ecosystems around the world that are being heavily fished and heavily impacted by pollution. So that makes it more resilient. That’s one of the theories that if we do what we can locally that these reefs have a better chance of being resilient to what’s happening globally."
"There is a very important message from this news report. The risks to coral reefs are dominated by local interference by humans on its ecosystem function. Such effects include local pollution (e.g. runoff from rivers and shorelines and from shipping; overfishing including the major predator species such as sharks)...Despite this short reference to global warming in the CBS report, the report is quite an important addition to the broadening out of environmental issues beyond the myopic focus on global warming. The contrast between reef health near Veracruz, Mexico and the Cuba Preserve should convincingly show objective readers that coral bleaching from global warming is clearly not the largest threat to the health of tropical coral reefs."
Now, if only the MSM print media would also start informing their readers about the truth of climate change - that would be the truly real climate fix.
Read here. What makes a hurricane? Wind speed, plain and simple. If a storm has wind speeds below 74 MPH then it is a tropical storm not a hurricane. Irene never came close to the '74' threshold. The national media never reported the true conditions of Irene.
Gee, what a surprise that the left/liberal anti-science "journalists" would misreport the weather facts.
"So, despite looking at Irene before, during, and after both landfalls, there is no hint of a hurricane anywhere. By the time it got to New York the eye of the storm had dissipated, what was left were huge bands of rain clouds. Is there a moral in this story? Well, I can understand people taking extra precautions, better safe than sorry is a good rule. And I certainly imagine that when the Weather Service re-examines the records, the error will be corrected. But that doesn’t help in making the decisions. As soon as Irene hit land, it should have been downgraded immediately to a tropical storm. That’s what it was, not a hurricane making landfall but a tropical storm. As far as I can tell, we still haven’t had a hurricane make landfall during Obama’s presidency, a historical oddity."
Read here. Is it any wonder that the liberal/left/progressive/Democrat political spectrum is falling out of favor with the public when there are clowns like Nye, Masters, McKibben, Gore and others pushing their anti-science and anti-prosperity agendas.
Dr. Ryan Maue does an excellent fisking of Bill Nye's TV performance/science regarding Hurricane Irene. It's not pretty.
"But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business...and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television!...The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) The green left/liberal/progressive bias of the mainstream press is certainly amazing, blatant and astoundingly bad. The MSM, led by the Times, will stoop sooo low that they even will praise dictatorial tyrants because a family member says the politically correct words about global warming.
Honestly, is it any wonder that your typical Democrat responds in such nonsensical ways when they dedicate themsleves to the daily, holy ritual of reading garbage reporting of the NY Times like this:
"“Climate change is a global problem, but global solutions start with local solutions,” he said in faintly accented English. Societies, he said, should be built in a way that allowed them to reduce greenhouse gases. “The day will come when oil will run out, and if we wait for that it will be too late,” he said. The man — part scholar, part monk, part model, part policy wonk — was Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the powerful 33-year-old son of Libya’s extroverted and impulsive president, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.""
Read here. The news media this past week made a huge to-do of a new study claiming that species across the world were fleeing geographical locations due global warming. While immediately trumpeting this story as new and significant, the actual truth indicates this study is just warmed-up, leftover garbage from a previous study by the same "scientist."
If the press wasn't so adverse to doing even an internet investigation before publishing 'press release' research, they would have found the following about the previous study by this researcher:
"What no one seems to realize or remember is that things turned out rather badly the last time [Chris D.] Thomas’ work was similarly fêted by journalists...Nature published three separate critiques of the 2004 Thomas paper six months afterward. These were followed by challenges in other publications – including a 6,000-word evisceration by a conservation biologist at Oxford University...Daniel Botkin, who is described as “one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century” similarly lambasted the 2004 Thomas paper – both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as on his own blog. He’s called that study “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”
As the story indicates, again it's the blogger community that is doing the investigative reporting because the mainstream press is either to lazy and/or stupid - in essence, the MSM continues to publish climate change "science" garbage without any fact checking.
Read here and here. (h/t Tom Nelson) The climate alarmist science fiasco continues. Turns out the empirical evidence backing the peer-reviewed claim that polar bars are drowning because of lack of ice turns out to be non-existent. Now that the truth about polar bears is coming to the forefront, the mainstream press is not too interested in the story.
Although the mainstream press is not the least interested in the actual scientific merits of any climate issue, they are certainly quick to push on the public the unsubstantiated disaster hyperbole that is fabricated by needy climate scientists. The meme of the "polar bears are drowning" is a classic example of worthless journalism and shoddy, climate alarmist science.
Money quote from the Nature science journal web site:
"Drowned polar bears have not been reported by other scientists, but the hypothesis that a long search for sea ice makes it more likely that bears will get caught in stormy weather and drown is regarded as plausible."
Unfortunately, for the public, this science journal and the mainstream press now almost exclusively rely on "plausible" and pure speculations by scientists who are seeking new funding for their research. For these "elites," opinions, not facts, are the new coin of the scientific realm. Hey, why bother with the expense of empirical evidence when one can fabricate "science" and get it published by the media hystericals?
Note: Do you read Nature or Science? Don't bother to waste your time unless you think there is value from "press release science." Because of green/left/liberal political agendas, truth and objectivity often gets smothered by these publications.
Read here and here. The anti-democratic forces unleashed by the green/left/liberal/progressive collaboration has been well documented by their own unequivocal and unprecedented statements. It appears, though, the talking is done, and the time for legally and physically suppressing catastrophic- climate skeptics is the now preferred means being implemented by the ruling class and "elites."
"The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone, and it isn’t the only extracurricular means the global warmists use in attempts to shut up dissenters. The BBC recently announced that in an effort to be more attuned to the scientific “consensus,” it would no longer strive to provide balanced coverage of climate issues."
As the "consensus" science that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming has utterly failed (as the skeptics predicted), the green/left climate alarmist community is now turning to techniques honed by Stalin himself.
The hate, terrorization and censorship techniques utilized by Stalin against his critics and opponents started small, but ultimately grew to the point of complete control of all information and thinking - literally, skeptics of the communists and Stalin were stifled, shot or thrown in the Gulag.
A fascinating series of videos describing the machinations of Stalin can be found here: part1, part2, part3, part4, part5 and part6. Once viewed, one can understand why the Michael Manns of the world, the BBC and major science lobbying associations are so enamored with many of the Stalin-esque tactics.
Read here. As the actual, empirical climate evidence has monstrously failed to support even the most minor of global warming predictions, let alone the ludicrous, catastrophic-cult hysteria pushed by fringe green elements, the AGW activists now plan to unequivocally fabricate their climate misinformation in order to frighten the public and policymakers.
Despite the avalanche of continuous global warming lies and anti-CO2 propaganda that green radicals got published by their "science" reporter puppets in the mainstream press, the public has roundly rejected the crisis and catastrophic scenarios. It is clear that this strategy of fear has not worked, yet the green PR flaks have decided to double-down by utilizing a 100% climate-lie campaign to scare the gullible and weak-minded (hmmm...that would be your typical liberal/progressive/Democrat watching CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, BBC and etc.).
The new PR plan by the crazy greens is to blame every single weather event on climate change. It does not matter any longer if it is a pure 100% lie; what matters is that it scares people by constant repetition.
"Named the ‘Stonehouse Standing Circle Summit’, it was a gathering of “some of North America’s leading communications professionals and academics”, the report put it. Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz were listed, as were chiefs from a host of public relations and lobbying firms and activist organizations...What one can gather from the document is quite interesting. Initially it starts with the blasé interpretation of environmentalism which is in vogue currently: ‘environmentalism is a failure’. How and why has environmentalism ‘failed’?""
"The main solution proposed by the delegates, we learn, is the exploitation of crises to ratchet up public mindfulness of climate change...The only solution, the report concludes is to have a “SWAT team” of public relations personnel who will “ready to go into action immediately” as a disaster occurs, and immediately link the disaster to ‘climate change’ across a wide variety of media platforms."
"The methods advocated are clear—emulate advertisers and marketers in ‘taking advantage of current events’, don’t be caught by surprise by disaster but instead meet and plan ahead, develop a ‘coordinated crisis response strategy internally’, and ‘get out of the gate quickly to set the tone of the coverage’. Making people afraid is alright..."
Unfortunately for the greens, who are now submerging themselves into the ash heap of history by embracing and advocating Orwellian propaganda techniques, the public will still desire credible sources of information about weather and climate science sans the hysteria and faux-crisis window dressing. For example, putting current weather incidents into the context of the past will still be widely demanded by the public, as will the documentation of the massive number of failed AGW predictions over the recent past, that the usual big green PR types are paid to cover up.
The market for accurate climate science and weather facts is huge, which an ever growing number of alternative sources provide, thus making the lives of the Orwellian PR-based climate liars a constant career of failure and misery.
Read here. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have seen their daily reporting essentially become shrill propaganda pieces, pushing the latest left/liberal/Democrat partisan agenda, no matter how unprofessional and idiotic. Unfortunately for the public, this same mindset, plus a dose of significant anti-science attitudes, has invaded their science reporting also. Latest example is Justin Gillis' ("I-hate-real-data") article on global warming and food production.
Either because of extreme stupidity, or the typical left/liberal anti-science approach, Justin contends that food production has slowed and can't keep up with demand, which "scientists believe" is a result of global warming. Like most "journalists" of the left, real facts and data are irrelevant for Justin:
"Today's New York Times has an article by Justin Gillis on global food production that strains itself to the breaking point to make a story fit a narrative. The narrative, of course, is that climate change "is helping to destabilize the food system." The problem with the article is that the data that it presents don't support this narrative...But this claim of slowing output is shown to be completely false...Far from slowing, farm output has increased dramatically over the past half-century and on a per capita basis in 2009 was higher than at any point since the early 1980s...Completely unmentioned are the many (most?) scientists who believe that evidence is lacking to connect recent floods and heat waves to "human-induced global warming." In fact, the balance of evidence with respect to floods is decidedly contrary to the assertion in the article, and recent heat wave attribution is at best contested. More importantly, even in the face of periodic weather extremes, food prices -- which link supply and demand -- exhibit a long-term downward trend, despite recent spikes...Even the experts that Gillis cites don't really support the central thesis of the article."
In conclusion, this NYT's article is another example of fraudulent science reporting by the Times, which is entirely indicative of their partisan, left/liberal propaganda approach to modern "journalism" (honestly, is it a surprise to anyone that their readership has cratered over the past 10 years?). In addition, most scientists now believe that Justin Gillis is incapable of accurate science reporting and is too dumb to be connecting the dots of the "evil global warming" scare-mongering.
Update: Another NYT's anti-science column re: global warming.
The Washington Post seems to think Republican candidates need to be quizzed about global warming and climate change. Not a bad idea, but maybe its the Washington Post that should first be quizzed about its beliefs and its knowledge of actual climate science and facts. (click on image to enlarge)
As a large, left/liberal, anti-science, dying MSM purveyor of global warming hysteria ("...that is probably the most important set of facts we face as a nation, and as human beings on planet earth."), it's high time that Republicans start stuffing the scientific facts down the Post's gaping throat and feel good about it.
For example, it's highly unlikely that the WAPO editors, reporters, pundits, cartoonists (yes, go ahead, roll your eyes) and readers are even aware of all the reality-based studies and research done on the actual sea level facts. Why are they unaware of the facts? Well...it's because the anti-science Post does not publish actual scientific facts, it only publishes hysterical, speculative predictions (often referred to as "wild ass guesses") that they know their mentally challenged, liberal/left readers will accept as "science."
The real climate science facts regarding sea levels are shown in the accompanying chart (which, btw, one will never see published in the Post - hey, the empirical science facts hurt, ya know).
Look carefully at that chart. After all that really, really, really terrible global warming that we have read of (ad nauseum) and suffered from over the last 40 years, and that the Post's editors and cartoonists are sooo hysterical about, the latest scientific facts (tide gauges and satellites) have sea levels rising from 1 to 3mm/year, which translates into a measly 3.5 to 11 inches by the year 2100. This is what causes their editors and cartoonists to pee in their panties, and why they believe 50 million climate refugees are roaming the Earth.
Yup, those are the unadulterated, scientific facts - a measly 11 inches by century-end, maybe; and, better yet, the actual sea level rises are just a fraction of what the Post's preeminent "science experts'" predictions are. Amazingly, the Washington Post believes "expert" predictions are facts, just like that 50 million climate refugee prediction "fact" thingy.
That's right, the actual sea level facts are are just a fraction of the ludicrous expert predictions the Washington Post normally publishes without any reservation (see the red-bar predictions in the chart). They literally mislead their readers on a daily basis (okay, granted that's not terribly difficult to do) by portraying 100% pure guesstimates as 100% actual science facts.
So, here's some advice to Republicans. The climate facts are literally unknown to leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrats of the mainstream media. Simply just jam the actual facts down their throats any chance they give you. You should truly welcome this opportunity since almost every global warming speculative fiction that the WAPO has published has been proven wrong, and they're still wrong after all these hysterical years.
Finally, Mr/Ms Republican, why not ask your favorite Post editor or reporter why they don't actually publish the sea level facts for their readers to see - get a citizen journalist to record it and gleefully put them on the spot and YouTube - embrace showing their factual stupidity and prediction hysteria.
Read here. "Consensus" climate scientists, the IPCC, fanatical environmental groups, and the MSM have all predicted the demise of coral reefs due to the twin evils of human-induced global warming and ocean acidification. Were the predictions just alarmist hype and fabricated lies to easily fool the anti-science liberals/progressives/leftists?
Researchers, Helmle et al., analyzed coral reefs from the Florida Keys to determine if they were degraded during the 20th century from the twin "evils" predicted. Hmmm....turns out the predictions were wrong. Instead, it would seem that coral reefs prospered under warmer and CO2-enhanced water conditions.
"The authors note that ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is claimed by many to be a threat to calcifying marine organisms; and they state that when ocean acidification is combined with physiological stress caused by concomitantly rising sea surface temperatures, "shifts in community structure and accelerating degradation of coral reef ecosystems may result."...Coral cores were collected in May of 1997 and June of 1998 from seven Montastraea faveolata colonies located in the upper Florida Keys...for these cores, annual extension, density and calcification rates were obtained and analyzed, to see how they varied over this period of intensifying warming and acidification of the global ocean...they demonstrate that "the measured corals have historically been able to maintain rates of extension and calcification over the 60-year period from 1937 to 1996 under the combination of local environmental and climatic changes." They also note that calcification rates were positively related to sea surface temperature, "similar to results for Porites corals from Tahiti (Bessat and Buigues, 2001) and the Great Barrier Reef (Lough and Barnes, 1997),"" [Kevin P. Helmle, Richard E. Dodge, Peter K. Swart, Dwight K. Gledhill, C. Mark Eakin 2011: Nature Communications]
Read here, here, and here. The vast majority of catastrophic global warming skeptic blogs, including 'C3', are not funded, nor supported, by some nefarious group that is "the best-funded, best-organized smear campaign" only known to the infamous, legend-in-his-own-mind, widely discredited, hockey-stick clown.
Unfortunately, the Mother Jones' reporter obviously chose to repeat Mann's own smear campaign against his critics and skeptics without the least effort investigating the veracity and accuracy of his smear. Combine this major shortcoming with other major errors in her article and one can easily surmise she's been snookered into repeating non-factual claims.
"For example, the standard line about the NAS panel's review of paleoclimate is repeated. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any self respect can continue to pretend that the other paleo studies are not undermined by their use of bristlecones (plus Yamal et al). This is such a simple issue that it does rather shred a journalist's credibility if they feign ignorance of it. The author Kate Sheppard blagged a copy of HSI from the publisher, so she knows it's a problem. I wonder why she didn't mention it?"
Read here and here. IPCC-friendly green activists got into the Climategate spirit by predicting that 40% of world's coral reefs would disappear by 2010. Like so many before it, this green activist hysterical prediction was totally fabricated out of thin air, having little relationship to reality.
"In 1997 the area of the world's coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2. Reference. If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world's coral reefs should be around 153,000km2. Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2. Reference.This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010."
As is apparently true for all climate science AGW-related predictions, any made by green activists or tax-payer funded scientists is very suspect, especially if it is reported by the mainstream media.
Read here. Despite Obama's complete lack of management and executive experience (sorry, being a community "organizer" doesn't count), it's hard to believe he and his administration are this incredibly incompetent - here's a list of no-brainer to-do items that Obama should execute on, now. (Frankly, the numerous management failures of the Obama Gulf cleanup project makes Bush look like a management consultant guru for his actions regarding Katrina.)
So, what then is Obama's problem in the Gulf? It's looking more like Obama and his team are willing to sacrifice the coastal environment and people's livelihoods as a means to enhance the Democrat's position on the cap and trade, energy, global warming legislation, known as the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act. At the end of the day, Obama always puts partisan politics ahead of what's best for America.Ahem....worst president ever?
"Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act. Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act. To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle."
Read here. A classic leftist approach to influencing public opinion is to publish a survey by a biased organization, designed carefully to elicit a certain response. Green activists and global warming alarmists specialize in this propaganda technique. These type of surveys are strictly carte blanche bogus compared to professional polling organization techniques.
"Its worth noting that the public opinion poll being cited was written, paid for, and analyzed not by a disinterested polling firm that routinely monitors public attitudes on a variety of topics. Rather, the four principle investigators are associated with the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Quick translation: these folks have agendas the size of the Sahara. The Yale outfit tells us its "mission" isn't to study climate change attitudes in a dispassionate manner but to: Catalyze action by the general public and leaders of government, business, academia, and the media... [bold added]
Furthermore, we're told the Yale project was established after a 2005 conference that "came together to develop an action plan to engage American society on climate change."
All of this makes it clear their purpose is not primarily scholarly. Instead, the Yale Project on Climate Change communication is an activist organization.
The same is true for George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication. It says its mission is to "conduct unbiased public engagement research" - which sounds great until one reads the end of that sentence: ..so that collectively, we can stabilize our planet's life sustaining climate.""
Video's here. As only Glenn Beck could, he chalkboards the incredible entanglement of people and organizations of the Left (Progressives/Socialists/Unions/Marxists/Democrats) behind the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Literally, the entire CCX endeavor collapses if 'cap & trade' legislation isn't passed and the potential lost profit opportunities exceed trillions per year for the Left's patrons.
There are a total 7 parts to the two videos and well worth the time invested to view as an aid to clarifying what actually is being attempted. It is truly mind-boggling that the mainstream media has been virtually silent on the machinations, on the groups and on the people behind the CCX. Just more proof that old media is dying because it continually fails to serve the public's interest.
Read here. If it isn't obvious by now, scientists in recent years have become totally enamored with claiming some type of causal relationship with global warming, knowing full well that the mainstream media "science reporters" will gleefully repeat the claims. The reporters will accept any scientist's press release without doing any legwork or critical thinking to determine if the "global warming" assertion pasts the smell test. Science reporters from Reuters, AP, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time and the NY Times are infamous for this type of lamebrain journalism. (click on image to enlarge)
The latest example of reporting bogus global warming claims is the spread of a killer fungus disease from Canada to the U.S. during a supposed period of global warming. The claim was made and repeated by the MSM press despite temperature records showing that the U.S. states where the fungus disease was spreading were actually cooling, not warming.
From about 1999 to 2003, the outbreak was primarily confined to Canada’s Vancouver Island, but during 2004 to 2009, instances of the disease spread to the mainland coast of British Columbia, and then southward to coastal Washington and Oregon—all locations with a relatively similar climate of wet, mild winters....If global warming were to blame, the disease ought to be moving northward into regions where it would have otherwise been too cold in years past. Moving southward because of climate change doesn’t make any sense, as the conditions for the occurrence of the disease would have already been well-established to the south.
Read here. This lamebrain temperature graph was published in the 2007 IPCC report and the linked article explains its creation. The IPCC needed to convince the MSM that global temperatures were "accelerating" -- not a very difficult objective considering the low science IQ that MSM reporters and pundits represent. Needless to say, unprofessional behavior and a non-scientific, political agenda by IPCC representatives was the genesis. Surprised?
(Note: green arrow lines added by C3 to show how easy it is to cherry-pick a time period and then draw a trend line indicating a desired result.)
Read here. Often climate alarmists will point to warming ocean temperatures, or sea ice melting, and actually conclude that these conditions are caused by human CO2. Although there is no scientific evidence that even remotely suggests CO2 causes ice to melt or oceans to warm, that does not dissuade alarmists from spreading the bogus claims to the gullible MSM.
Real scientists are actually investigating the observed ocean temperature cycles across the world, and in the Arctic areas at least, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as the culprit. (click image to enlarge)
"We present area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m
depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006. This record is
dominated by multidecadal variability on the order of 4C which is
correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index."...."The hint in the conclusion (which the authors stop short of defining)
is that the pattern of data, seen below, might be linked to the recent
pattern of Arctic sea ice melt and some partial recovery seen in the
last two years."
Read here and here. Recently, two "weird" articles by prominent mainstream journalists/pundits, who are global warming advocates, were published by their employers that are also institutional global warming advocates. These articles are perfect examples of the mainstream press "weirding" that now occurs. Instead of presenting their readers with objective information about major science issues, they've chosen to side with left-wing political advocacy that has become journalism "weirding" - a very weird combination of journo-propaganda, indeed.
What is the job of weirding journalist? In the case of climate change, their job is to push the limp noodle of global warming propaganda that is being delivered to their desktops from various leftist political organizations. You know, political organizations funded by leftists that place New York Time ads like this. That ad came from a left-wing hate group funded by George Soros. And surprise, surprise, the New York Times's Tom Friedman's go-to "expert" on climate science is a non-climate scientist in the the employ of the Center for American Progress, which is also a Soros funded organization. And what about Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post? Gee, her husband works for the same Center of American Progress. Weird, huh?
And why would George Soros be so interested in the global warming issue? Do you really think it's because he's an environmentalist? I don'tthink so.
While international journalists are daily breaking stories about the Climategatefraud and the faulty global warming science, the U.S. Soros press toadies keep presenting their journalismweirding. In the realm of climate science, journalism weirding is to mis-report or totally ignore any stories that would hurt the likes of wealthy benefactors, such as Soros and Gore, who badly need 'cap & trade' legislation for their investments to pay-off.
One additional note about the leftist climate "expert" who Tom "The Palace" Friedman relies on, and apparently is beholden to: the man-bear-pig expert is an irrational, hateful, political hack that the NYTimes would be wise to distance themselves from.
Read here and here. Global warming research has become a literal travesty. Mainstream reporting on the science is even worse. The research and reporting on the California "fog issue" is the classic flip-flop hilarity we've come to expect, as noted in the two linked postings.
Anything, and all, is attributed to human-caused global warming by pro-warming scientists and their lapdogs in the mainstream press. The best advice to the public is to remain totally skeptical of all research studies that make a prediction or claim resulting from a supposed climate change, and to read daily sites like this and this. Why?
There is a high probability that any "warming" or "change" study is wrong, and is only a result of government and/or environmental activist groups funding (paying off) scientists to make bogus global warming claims - it's as simple as that. And, one won't get the truth from the likes of the NY Times, the AP, CBS and etc.
Special Note: Liberal/Leftists believing the global warming scam must have their heads doing a perpetual Exorcist-spin.
Read here. More here. Why has American journalism become a laughingstock? Why are traditional U.S. media outlets now a failing business proposition? Are individuals who pursue journalism careers just inherently dumber? Or, does it have anything to do with the political agenda the MSM is devoted to pushing, despite how stupid it sounds and how scientifically wrong it is? Let one of the world's top physicists articulate:
"When you look at his article carefully, you will see that there are no
valid arguments, and those that are presented as arguments are
completely wrong. So the proposition about "warming causing stronger
snowing" is as wrong as you should have expected from the beginning.
Warming obviously means less snow precipitation. I have estimated that
a 1.5 °C warming in Prague would reduce snow roughly by 20 percent: such a change could occur in 100 years.
At the end, he realizes that no sane person is going to believe him, so he concedes that he had written just a pile of crap:
"Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm —
or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to
prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in
Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this
month, to global warming).""
Read here and here. Check out these links showing contents of NASA emails that were recently released under a 'Freedom of Information Act' request, which speak to zero or little AGW warming in the U.S. Yet at the same time as these insider emails are getting scrutinized, the MSM is trumpeting the PR releases from U.S. climate agencies screaming that the 2000's were the warmest global decade evaaaar! Of course, the climate agencies and press are not about to ballyhoo the significantly cooler temps over the last few years in the U.S., as the below chart indicates (click to enlarge):
But the "warmest" decade makes the press go on a tear! Definitely a disconnect, which begs even more scrutiny.
Now, what would really be both 'hot' and 'cool' at the same time is if some reporter had just a teensy-weensy bit of intellectual curiosity about the discrepancy between U.S. and global temperatures and asked the simple, "WTF"? Here's a story that an enterprising reporter can own and run with for a long time, especially since the skeptic blogs have done so much of the grunt work. Let's see if we can provide the enterprising reporter with some starting points and answers to her basic questions....
1.) "Why is global warming not affecting the U.S.?"
Maybe because the rest of the world doesn't have the brains to at least maintain a decent set of thermometers to record temperatures accurately? Or, is it because the U.S. climate agencies let the climate reporting network slip into disrepair and then into oblivion, despite $70+ billion spent on climate research?
2.) "What's that got to do with U.S. temperatures?"
Well, Ms. Reporter....see the U.S. has a bunch of thermometers recording temperatures (see the red and blue dots on map) but most other countries have a few, or even none. Take Bolivia for example. This high, cool mountainous country has no thermometers it seems, thus NASA and the NCDC have to fabricate (makeup) temperatures for Bolivia. They do this by using temperatures from the Amazon jungles and beaches of Chili. Guess what, Ms. Reporter, Bolivia now has a serious warming problem they didn't even know existed.
3.) "Don't they have computerized adjustments to take care of all that?"
Eureka! That's the point isn't it? They do a lot adjustments and manipulations to literally manufacture temperatures instead of relying on a first-class global network of thermometers. By the time they get done with all the different types of questionable adjustments, the global warming is created out of thin air. Ms. Reporter, you do realize that what you and others are reporting as the "warmest" decade ever is in fact mostly computer generated warming, not real warming. You do understand that, correct? Right?
4.) "But is there a story here?"
You've got to be kidding. Despite the outright lies about the faux-warming, the entire global warming and climate catastrophe is column inches of fraud, international and national government waste, corruption and who knows what else - it's a Pulitzer waiting to be picked up off the ground!
5.) "But the weatherman on Good Morning, America says we need to stop the warming so the seas don't rise 240 feet! What should we do?"
Read here. It's just not intuitive to think that a period of global cooling would result in a time of greater ice melt but that's exactly what happened during the 'cooling' 1950's, as peer research has now discovered. More recently, the global warming alarmists keep bemoaning the large 2007 ice melt, and predicting the warming will soon bring us ice-free Arctic waters. Interestingly, the recent greater ice melt has happened whilst the Earth cools. Why does cooling seem to cause Arctic melting? Future science research will hopefully explain.
And, we should note that there's a science truism that every politician, Hollywood celebrity, and mainstream press reporter/pundits should be forced to repeat 3 times prior to opening their mouths while their brain is disengaged: "The science is NEVER settled." Yes, a good dose of critical skepticism would save so many of these left/liberal types from the constant humiliation of moronism.
Read here. As the mainstream press has popularized, Earth's polar regions are supposed to warm and the sea ice area is supposed to shrink. Why? Because climate models predicted it, and reporters and pundits just accept 100% all climate model predictions, without a sliver of reservation. As with most other climate predictions though, over the last several decades the CO2-based climate models have been spectacularly wrong regarding the South Pole. Actual peer-reviewed research based on empirical evidence confirms this.