Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Our betters at the so-called “Scientific” American magazine have decided to lecture us unscientific Americans on what is real science. The occasion was a retweet by Representative Lamar Smith of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of a link to an article entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists” by my mad mate James Delingpole. The article opens by saying:
Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.
The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.
Now, for me that’s pretty weak tea. It’s made up of those ugly things called “facts”, not much to dispute. But boy, it got the members of the Committee into a royal snit. Fortunately, we have our betters at “Scientific” American to jump into the breach and save us from foolishness. They have published the “9 Best Reactions” to Delingpole’s article.
Now, in general “Scientific” American articles go unread and unnoticed by me. They gave up on science years ago. But this one has a surprise in it. Among the “9 Best Reactions” is this one:
Peter Gleick
This is fake news, bad science, and basically, crap, from the House Science committee.
![gleickpic[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/gleickpic1.jpg?resize=184%2C184&quality=83)
For those who have forgotten, Peter Gleick committed wire fraud and circulated forged documents in order to push his radical brand of climate alarmism, and was caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow. It was so bad he was forced to quit his job in disgrace. For more of the ugly story, see here. And the best part? Among his other positions, at the time he was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Needless to say, he had to quit that position as well) …
However, he never did say one word of contrition for his actions. And why should he? The rest of the craven see-no-evil section of the climate science establishment certainly did not do one thing to punish him for his shocking scientific malfeasance. He still gets invited to the conferences. And now, Scientific American is quoting him as though he were either an honest man or an honest scientist.
Peter Gleick is neither.
I do love that his wonderful scientific tweet, carefully selected by “Scientific” American, contains in it nothing scientific of any kind. No facts. No pointing out of errors. No claims of scientific inaccuracy. It is nothing but a rant about “fake news” … man, if there were ever someone you’d think could recognize fake news from across the street it would be the Prince of Scientific Forgers, Mister Peter “It’s real, honest it is” Gleick himself. But noooo … the news he thinks is fake is actually real, and vice versa. Shocking, I know …
What do we have to do to rid the climate science field of these crooks? Does it take an oak stake through the heart at the crossroads at midnight to keep people like Peter Gleick from springing to life again? In any other field, committing scientific forgery and mail fraud to advance your bogus scientific claims would get you laughed out of town, if not ridden out on a rail … but in climate “science” it gets you an honorable mention in “Scientific” American and an invite to chair an AGU session. Go figure.
Finally, if Peter Gleick’s meaningless rant is one of the 9 best responses to James Delingpole’s article, I’d say James won that battle hands down.
Anyhow, go Lamar! Their heads are exploding, keep up the tweeting!
And Peter Gleick … some of us haven’t forgotten what you did. You can run, but you can’t hide from your own past. Whenever you next choose to crawl out from under your rock, you can expect the spotlight of your past actions to shine on you once again.
Best to all,
w.
AS ALWAYS, I request that if you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH, so we can all be clear on the exact nature of your objection.
UPDATE by Anthony. Willis put this photo of Dr. Peter Gleick, posing as a windmill in his office, as “featured image” but it was cropped by the system. Here it is in full:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant.
Thanks.
“Fake News”; the Left’s favorite slur, since it’s epic fail in November. Yes, the script has gone out far and wide – call everything you don’t like “fake news”.
Yes, the Left can call everything they don’t like “fake news”, and we get to return the favor by pointing out that it is *they* who propagate the fake news.
The entire MSM (with a few exceptions) is fake news. The difference now, is that this has become obvious to a lot more people.
I saw a clip of Dick Cheney this morning giving a speech to some group and he was laughing about how Trump was using Twitter to completely go around the MSM and speak directly to the People, and he chuckled and said of the MSM: “We don’t need you anymore.” I think that is one very serious concern for the MSM, and it should be. Their credibility is in the tank.
i really wish people would stop referring to these clowns as the left. they are pseudo left/liberal virtue signalling morons. nothing more, nothing less.
It’s like the Protestant Reformation. No need for priests to work magic any more, to mumble in Latin and to keep the people from reading scripture for themselves and make up their own minds about what to believe or not to.
Delingpole wrote in Breitbart:
“Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.”
This seems to be true – but only for land only temp graphs. This seems to me a bit cherry picked. Even I was not aware to which graph David Rose and Delingpole were referring to, until Antony pointed out which. Okay, it was the satellite graph RSS land only.
– It somehow suggests a temperature drop down to a deep LA Nina, which is not yet the case.
– As global temperature are commonly discussed by using combined land and ocean graphs, at least some of them should be used for comparison.
– It also suggests that land temperatures are dropping first and then ocean temperatures are following. This is not the case; on a monthly base, land temperatures are just reacting more nervous than ocean temperatures.
– Similar temperature drops on land only curves have been happened quite regularly.
Here the RSS global and land only temps for the last 10 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/last:120/plot/rss/last:120
Many skeptics were singing hallelujah without checking the facts which are:
The temperatures from the EL Nino spike went down by 0.4°C (UAH6 global) or 0.6°C (RSS global), having not yet reached the 2014 level before El Nino. Here is the UAH comparision:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/last:120/plot/uah6-land/last:120
Interestingly, the same appears to HADCRUT4 and GISSTEMP:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/last:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120
Not much difference here. So it seems that Rose and Delingpole made a not so objective and possibly misleading statement, and the alarmist side didn’t check their own record, showing that the temperature went already down considerably, not far away from the before El Nino times. In fact, all their comments were totally fact-free, insulting and name-calling.
Even I believe that in thr long run temperatures will drop further, prolonging the pause. But for a “told you so!” it is just too premature.
“This is not the case; on a monthly base, land temperatures are just reacting more nervous than ocean temperatures.”
What?
You DO realize that of all data sets, GISS happens to be the one most tampered with? Did you ever see Gavin Schmidt’s tampering at all?
Land temps can be affected by UHEs, and in other cases they are cooked up because there aren’t thermometers on most parts of the Earth’s surface. Let the satellites decide – or have YOU cherry picked? GISS is Gavin’s realm. He cools the past and warms the present. Therefore, without all the data sets, it’s essentially useless.
What about the substance of the claim, that the drop in temperature is an inaccurate claim?
The article states global land temperatures dropped. They showed which dataset they were referring to. So what’s wrong with that How is it factually incorrect or misleading?
“They showed which dataset they were referring to.”
Really? Which dataset was it?
It’s not misleading. That’s why people afflicted with AS are spending so much time trying to deconstruct it….
We do after all live on land rather than the ocean and a fall of that magnitude if it extended to the ocean as well would be sensational. Provided this was made clear in the text that would be ok in the context of a MSM story.
Tonyb
This is a point I also use when I’ve seen complaints about using the land data. Never mind that when I point to satellite data the very same people say “No one lives there, we live on the surface” to allow themselves to cherry pick surface data. Now, it is time to hoist them …
I simply must agree with Scientific American…
Those people who rely on a troposphere over land index (RSS TLT 3.3 land) which…
-should be used with caution due to unchecked drifts, according to RSS
-has an incomplete coverage compared to other satellite products, missing Antarctica and Tibetan plateau, that were unusually warm in October
…yes, those people that use this cherrypicked flawed data to make extraordinary claims, they are certainly not among the sharpest knives in the drawer…
If a man who tweets such nonsense can become chairman of “the Science, Space, and Technology Committee” in the Congress, it certainly demontrates that the US is the land of opportunity.
The last ice age was mostly over NH land as well. The climate extremist response to the application of their tactics of claiming every weather event is actually climate is quite entertaining
Depends on your definition.
During glacial phases, ice sheets spread over the NH and wane during the briefer interglacials. The SH grows more extensive mountain glaciers, but doesn’t form new ice sheets. However the SH is permanently (ie, for tens of millions of years) covered with ice sheets on Antarctica, which grow during the glacial epochs.
This situation leads to nomenclature problems. It’s common to say that the Pleistocene glaciations, ie the current “ice age”, began about 2.6 million years ago, with the advent of NH ice sheets. However the world entered an “ice house” era some 34 Ma, when continental ice sheets began to grow on Antarctica.
Both events are associated with plate tectonics. Over 30 Ma, deep oceanic channels formed between Antarctica and South America and Australia, creating the Southern Ocean and isolating the polar landmass. After three Ma, the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking tropical oceanic circulation and directing warm water into the North Atlantic, bringing moisture to now colder continents, leading to ice sheets on Greenland, Eurasia and North America.
Land has very poor coverage and many interpolated values, yet you’re fine with that, right?
O R December 5, 2016 at 3:08 am
I have shown TWICE that the CRUTEM land station surface temperatures show the same drop, and now you claim it is just RSS. After making such a foolish mistake, you proceed to lecture us on who should sit on a House Committee … man, sometimes you guys’ arrogance is absolutely, breathtakingly hilarious.
w.
Willis, why do you not discuss the most comparable record, UAH TLT over land, which shows no drop since mid-year? Particularly when RSS authors note there are diurnal cycle adjustment problems with RSS TLT V3.3, and that UAH covers Antarctica while RSS does not? Looking at UAH since mid-year, would you still support the claims:
“Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists”
or
“Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year”
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
http://www.remss.com/node/5166
Mat, there are thousands of things which Willis does not do. I suspect that he has only two hands. Maybe you have them, too. If you see an important work to be done, and you sound like you know how to do it, please don’t wait for Willis to do it.
[snip . . try it again without the childish language . . mod]
I think Mr Gleick may be amongst us.
I gotta give that poster a bit of credit, “thermobilly” made me LOL!
AGW = thermophobe
Ferd,
You may have coined a new term with “thermofobe” or some variant thereof. I like it and will use it in the future!
I know from where I live in Australia we were freezing up until the start of summer but all the time we were being told warmest Evah , the sceance didn’t match the reality.
If someone states that the temperatures have dropped by 1.2°C, he should state explicit:
-This is from a selected graph, a bit differently than the rest, and state which graph it is
-This is a land only graph, having a much higher swing than the normally used global graphs
-It’s just one point in time and not for a longer period
One can state something corrrectly, but in the context it may be still not correct.
To make it more objektive one should compare it to normal graphs or use an average of some known graphs, as
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/last:120
This is an average of RSS, UAH, Hadcrut and Gisstemp. It shows the fact that cannot be denied:
After a big spike in 2015/16 the global temperatures went down considerably, but have not yet reached the 2014 level.
As Judith Curry at Climate et. al. pointet out, it my take two up to five years to get a real “pause trend” again.
Yes.
In other words Delinpole et al seized on a cherry pick to advance their unjustified point
As do the warmists. You’re angry that Delingpole is doing what warmists do?
Sort of like whinning over and over again that since arctic sea ice has been a bit lower than the previous record for the last 2 months, this proves that global warming is real?
I’m sure Griff was also very vocal complaining on alarmist sites when they were using the El Nino warming to claim “warmest on record” while simultaneously ignoring satellite data which, more often than not, showed no record.
Your comparison is right on, MarkW.
Griff is complaining that Delingpole is trying to advance an unjustified point: That recent months have cooled, so therefore, it will continue cooling. While at the same time, Griff is trying to advance an unjustified point: That it got real hot in 2016, and it will continue to be real hot going forward.
“As do the warmists. You’re angry that Delingpole is doing what warmists do?”
No, any “spin” that may be put on things by the science side comes directly from peer-reviewed papers.
Whether you consider them legitimate or not I give not a jot.
That’s the way the world works.
Experts study stuff and if reasonable, judged by other people able to assess that, they get published.
If they turn out to be wrong then others will find the flaw later.
How science progresses.
What Delingpole, Rose, Monckton and Booker just to mention the U.K. ones is to take data gathered by others and put their own (as non-experts) interpretation on it.
In this case from a product that the producers of specifically say not to use, and that will eventually be discontinued.
That there is a product that RSS do support but that shows nothing of the kind is rather the give away.
“Delingpole doing what alarmists do.
And Since when has Delingpole been a climate scientist pray?
His bio ….
“He is executive editor for the London branch of the Breitbart News Network.[1][2] He has published several novels and four political books. He describes himself as being a libertarian conservative,[3] and has been described as a “prominent voice of the right”.[4]”
Breitbart eh.
That you don’t get these points is really the whole point my friend.
Toneb.
And the Natsi impersonator Cook of the SS site is a cartoonist. So what?
Says the biggest cherry-picker of them all, who must have posted at least ten references to an unimportant weather event in the Arctic…
Toneb: “And Since when has Delingpole been a climate scientist pray?”
Since when has he ever claimed to be?
Do you insist that every political correspondent has to be a politician? Or that every restaurant reviewer has to be a restauranteur?
You’ve been called out for making a tit of yourself (not an uncommon occurrence IMO), now your nose out of joint, is it?
The response of the climatocracy to Delingpole is informative. They can’t dismiss the data, but instead of pointing out that 6 months, a year, even several years of temperature, rain, drought, storm is just weather, they have to pretend that an unworthy person made heretical claims about the data. The trap the climatocracy has set for itself is rather interesting.
They have pointed out in detail why the claims are wrong and misleading… i.e. that Delingpole deliberately picked a set of data to point to an incorrect conclusion.
And Delingpole has repeatedly been caught making errors, mistakes and misleading claims…
His error is that the climate kooks don’t like it. His data is correct. It offends your religion. Too bad.
This from the guy who keeps touting two months or Arctic Ice data as showing something it doesn’t show.
“His error is that the climate kooks don’t like it. His data is correct. It offends your religion. Too bad.”
It’s not b****y correct.
RSS say so themselves……
“The lower tropospheric (TLT) temperatures have not yet been updated at this time and remain V3.3. The V3.3 TLT data suffer from the same problems with the adjustment for drifting measurement times that led us to update the TMT dataset. V3.3 TLT data should be used with caution.””
That’s why they no longer support it and instead now have V4.0 TTT.
(see my posted graph upthread).
Look, saying it’s correct, I know, is the MO of the post-truth age.
After all I read it on a Blog.
But saying it is and it actually being so are NOT the same.
Sorry about that.
Toneb says: …the MO of the post-truth age…
Projection.
The “fake news” narrative is Left’s new talking point. But as usual, it’s based on psychological ‘projection’: imputing their own faults onto those they disagree with.
So maybe Toneb can answer a few questions for us plebes:
• Who, specifically, will be designated to judge what news is fake? Peter Gleick?
• ‘News’ implies current information (‘fast breaking’, ‘this just in…’, etc). Since that info is often found to be inaccurate later, as new information comes in, should news sources now have to wait until they are certain of every fact?
• News is broadcast through the lens of the writer, the producer, the editor, the corporation, etc. Who draws the line between ‘fake’ vs ‘real’ news? Who gets the enormous power to censor what the public sees? Post the name(s) here, please… unless they’re censored, too.
The ‘fake news’ narrative is nothing more than camoflage for what the Left always craves: being the exclusive CENSORS of what the public will, and will not, be allowed to see.
Free speech is the only answer. When all points of view are on the table for discussion, the wheat is quickly sifted from the chaff.
So… how about posting those names, Tone? Who, specifically, will be the final arbiter of what is ‘fake’ vs real news? And who will select your ‘news censors’? Griff?
Your complaints here are actually with Planet Earth. She’s just not doing what you’ve endlessly predicted, and what you’ve based your credibility on. Yet you keep digging…
The only way to rescue any remaining credibility is to stop prevaricating, and admit that the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare turned out to be a complete false alarm.
That’s the real world’s verdict. Deal with it… if you can.
I don’t doubt that Delingpole purposely touted a factual short term weather phenomenon that he knew was sure to set off the greens for the express purpose of further exposing the green’s true colors about trying to link weather to CAGW. Mark W has pointed that out nicely in reply.
“I don’t doubt that Delingpole purposely touted a factual short term weather phenomenon that he knew was sure to set off the greens”
Didn’t he just!
And here they all are, scuttling out from under their slimy, noisome bridges, screeching, gibbering and hooting, impotently waving their little arms and stamping their tiny feet!
Observing them is a Christmas present come early!
Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
Actually it was global land temperature anomaly which has dropped which is not the same thing, also the ‘global land’ doesn’t include antarctica in this case. In any case the temperature metric quoted ‘plummeted’ to a rather warm value for November. In the case of the comparable UAH product which, unlike the RSS one quoted has had its orbital drift problems corrected, shows a much less steep drop. Looks like a classic case of ‘cherry picking’ and alarmist reporting.
Why is everyone getting so excited about one month? It’s not the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning; it’s not anything… yet.
“Why is everyone getting so excited ”
Because of the last sentence: “The cause of the fall is a La Nina event following in the wake of an unusual strong El Nino.”
Which is the climate equivalent of the child saying that the emperor has no cloth. Delingpole doesn’t say that temp are down, which would be so easy to disprove. He shows that it is quite easy to use a short term event (in this case, ENSO ; could be anything, though, provided it goes in the desired way) and make believe it to be the distinct signature of a far-reaching, global, scary event.
Debunking Delingpole means debunking CAGW at the same time. Delingpole wants the debunking done, he even debunked himself. Warmunists are quite uncomfortable and get excited because they have to find a way to debunk Delingpole without debunking themself, which simply cannot be done. the other side is quite excited to tease them into trying
The temperature pause is back! Nineteen year, nine months and counting! A Limerick. (Updated)
La Niña came in with the cold.
Alarmists predictions on hold.
So the eighteen year pause
is now nineteen, because
no sunspots, a sight to behold. https://lenbilen.com/2016/11/28/the-nineteen-year-temperature-pause-is-back-a-limerick/
lenbilen,
just show me a graph with a sober calculated OLS trend graph of the pause.
Even RSS global or land only still having the upward trend.
Just wait some years…
Here is the graph with both trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/from:1997/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Here’s a response to Delingpole’s nonsense, clearly explaining why it was misleading/wrong/cherry picked.
When you’ve finished complaining it is in the Guardian, please do tell me where the criticism is wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/05/fake-news-tries-to-blame-human-caused-global-warming-on-el-nino
Did you notice the first sentence of this article that claims to discuss fake news?
“Human carbon pollution is heating the Earth incredibly fast.”
I think what they mean is “Anthropogenic sources of CO2 are thought to be warming the planet but there is much dispute about how much warming is happening and if it is of concern”… though I must admit, their fake news rolls much better.
Griff,
The guardian makes the same mistake that they are claiming skepcics have made: Selecting a certain special graph which is supporting their opinion. They used one that adds 0.5°C to normal temperatures – the glorious satistically corrected NASA Gisstemp. Just compare it with “normal graphs like RSS or Hadcrut.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979
They made some points in the article, but in overall a much worse than the one from David Rose.
Possibly a freudian mis-take: statistical + satirical = satistical
The Guardian has been the proud home of Fake News for decades now.
The guardian. How sad.
Human carbon pollution is heating the Earth incredibly fast.
=====================
FALSE.
1. carbon is not carbon dioxide any more than chlorine gas is table salt.
2. Human carbon dioxide pollution MAY BE heating the Earth.
3. current warming is not statistically different than pre-industrial warming
4. cause of pre-industrial warming is unknown
5. if you cannot explain the past you cannot forecast the future.
Human carbon pollution .. I like the term. Does it describe a religious alarmist?
Griff whining about ‘fake news’ and quoting the Guardian!
Too funny!
or even sadistical..
Mt St Helens. Does that ring a bell? Of course it’s just local. It is the site of the youngest glacier in the world. Formed in 1988 and is now 650 feet thick and 1 1/4 miles long. Does this sound like global warming. Read the book by john Kehr (an inconvenient skeptic) and be enlightened.
The amusing thing about this whole kerfluffle is that Sci-Am and all the outlets like them have become totally irrelevant since Nov 9. For the last 8 years, they have had only one purpose – to try and provide cultural cover for an expansionary EPA regulatory agenda. They have not published anything with any actual scientific value for years now, because that is not their point – they have become 100% political in their goals and efforts.
And with a new administration in power – what is the point of their existence? To sit around in left coast faculty lounges and commiserate with the old fogies who still control them?
The war is over, they’ve lost, and they haven’t even come to grips with it yet.
The core is another one: The claim was: The warming due to ElNino was unprecendet and sign of steady warming. In all Land-records ( take the NH where them most of ocean-uninfluenced land is located) we saw big jumps and after it big declines which points to the naturally behavior of this uptick. See GISS land NH: between March and June a decline of more than one degrees. It dosen’t matter much IOM if this dip was in September or in June… The main point is: the dip happend!
When the Alarmists/Climate Liars get clubbed by their own weapons, their howls of pain and cries of “NO FAIR”! are indeed amusing to we skeptics/climate realists. Their hypocrisy is plain for anyone to see.
An even better refutation of Rose:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/how-stupid-does-david-rose-think-you-are/
Statistics expert Grant Foster has explained Rose selected only the satellite data taken over land, and only satellite data that inferred temperatures for the lower part of the troposphere (where nobody lives).
Also, a chart displayed on the Rose story focused only on temperatures since the late 90s, despite data being available since the late 70s.
The chart did not show any trends for the data which, if it did, Foster explained would show continued warming – even in the narrow dataset Rose chose to focus on.
This is what’s called cherry picking and Rose had to pick several juicy ones just to make his argument appear vaguely plausible.
The so-called “record drop” claimed by Rose also takes temperatures plummeting down to… well above the long term average.
Remembering too, that Rose wants people to consider a drop in temperatures over the course of a couple of months, during a year that will likely be declared the hottest on record.
So it’s ok when you Alarmists/Climate Liars do it, but not Skeptics/Climate Realists. Got it.
Which was the whole point of JD’s piece. Something that seems lost on poor ‘Griff’.
Grant Foster? A source even less reliable than the Granuid.
“Statistics expert Grant Foster”
Fool…
I live on land Griff , where do you live ?
“I live on land Griff , where do you live ?”
Cloud cuckoo land, where else?
I also posted this in the Stephen Hawking thread, but it applies equally well here. In his farewell speech, President Eisenhower gave his famous warning against the “military-industrial complex”. What many people forget, is that he also warned against the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”. This starts approximately 10m 30s into the video. I’ve tried to set the Youtube URL to start at that point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on climate change, although renowned theoretical physicists may be especially persuasive. The linked post compares quotes from 3 of the most distinguished: Stephen Hawking (much in the news lately since Trump’s election), Freeman Dyson and Richard Feynman. Hawking is an alarmist, Dyson a skeptic and Feynman concerned about scientific integrity.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/three-wise-men-talking-climate/
“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
Freeman Dyson
Okay, that bit of news just sealed the deal for me. Un-Scientific American is now fully on my radar screen as an item and source to avoid and warn others about.
The un-science fake news site