PBS to turn NOVA science into climate propaganda machine

Sigh, the usual suspects get another mouthpiece media outlet to blame severe weather on, complete with scary videos of weather, musical score, and wild claims. video trailer follows. h/t to Russ Steele

NOVA: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE

Two-Hour Special Premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM/7C on PBS

(check local listings)

BOSTON, MA – Disastrous hurricanes. Widespread droughts and wildfires. Pervasive heat. Extreme rainfall. Something is up with the weather, and scientists agree the trend is not just a coincidence. It’s the result of the weather machine itself—our climate—which is changing, becoming hotter and more erratic. But some people are skeptical of global warming, and one-third of Americans doubt humans are changing the climate. NOVA, a production of WGBH Boston, cuts through the confusion and helps define the way forward in a special two-hour documentary: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE. Why do scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, and that human activity is causing it? How will it affect us through the weather we experience, and when? And what will it take to bend the trajectory of planetary warming toward more benign outcomes? Join scientists around the globe as they explore the dynamics of the air, land, sea, and ice—the major components of Earth’s weather and climate machine—and follow the innovators developing new ways to be resilient, and even thrive, in the face of enormous change.

NOVA DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE, a two-hour special presentation, premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM ET/7C on PBS (check local listings).

“Climate change is one of the defining public issues of our times, yet public uncertainty about the science still abounds,” said Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of NOVA. “DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE takes viewers on one of the greatest scientific adventures of all time to understand the workings of our planet, what to expect in the future, and what we can do about it.”

NOVA’s investigation of our changing climate starts with how it affects us most directly: our weather. Are we actually noticing a change in the weather due to climate change? Charismatic career meteorologist Paul Douglas, of Minnesota, thinks so. Once skeptical, he started to detect a pattern over the years that was undeniable: bigger storms in his home state. But how are climate and weather related? And haven’t both always been changing? What is the evidence that our climate is actually changing and influencing our weather? These are the big questions that launch NOVA’s grand exploration of how the weather and climate machine actually works—and why scientists are convinced the planet is warming.

DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE examines why this latest trend is different from other cycles in Earth’s history and shows the evidence that we are the culprit. The film traces the pioneering explorations to understand our changing climate, which began more than 200 years ago, and reveals how scientists established carbon dioxide levels in the air as a major driver of climate and a key factor in regulating Earth’s thermostat. By burning fossil fuels, we humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere, which is now trapping more heat. The documentary then analyzes how the other key parts of the climate system-–the land, sea, ice—will respond, which will determine how much our climate will change, and the impacts. NOVA takes viewers “under the hood” of Earth’s climate machine, following geologists, ecologists, polar scientists, marine biologists, and other researchers around the globe who are delving deep into our natural world at a scale never before possible. Leading climate scientists and experts also offer candid insights throughout—including John Holdren, of Harvard University (and former White House science advisor), Katharine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech University, and Princeton’s Stephen Pacala. Ultimately, the film explores what humanity can do to avoid the suffering that climate change might bring—both by adapting to the changes already underway, and by using technology to mitigate the worst outcomes.

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “PBS to turn NOVA science into climate propaganda machine

    • From my tag lines and smart remarks file:

      The odds are that what we can expect as a result of global warming is to see more
      of this pattern of extreme cold. – – – Dr. John Holdren, The White House – 1/8/2014

    • These people should goosestep wherever they go and all clap wildly in unison at every utterance each one of them makes just so it is plain as day they are ideological loons of the first order.

    • HEY!!!
      Am I the only one that cannot tell when the poster is quoting someone or speaking on their own?
      This thread is extremely puzzling because of that.
      Seems to me that a “quote” box option would help, or basic quote characters or some seperation lines or…..
      +++++++++++++++++++++++
      Just listen to the U.S. NPR and whoever other radio net calls their show “Science Friday”. Climate catastrophe all due to we humans, and little mention of the extreme changes in sea level, temperature, rainfall, drought, and such that has been documented for the last 10,000 or 12,000 years. All without a single barrel of oil being burned or refined for other uses. Least we saved the whales when those folks found a good source of oil to burn in lanterns, then refine to kerosene, then to gasoline, then to….
      Gums sends…

      • Gums:
        -you can generally use most html tags in a comment. To quote something, use:
        <blockquote> at the start of the text you’re quoting, and </blockquote> at the end which will give
        this effect:

        This is quoted text. using the above tags …

        Some commenters do use their own quote delineations, so whichever route you take is up to you.
        Whatever you do, do not do as I have done and forget the closing tag! Be careful.
        One way to avoid this eyesore is to create the two tags as a pair together, then put the text they affect between them.
        If you don’t know HTML markup, there are heaps of helpful pages out there, Most people on this site are well mannered and tolerate the odd stuff-ups remarkably well.
        Go for it.

    • hey Nova it is partiality funded by the Koch boys soi maybe thet are finally coming around to the truth…

  1. “the film explores what humanity can do to avoid the suffering that climate change might bring—both”…..
    Might bring???…..weather science has become a sick propaganda tool

  2. Propanda on climate change has been the staple of Nova. I rarely can watch it because if they can tie anything to climate change, they do (Nature does the same thing.). The problem is our people are so poorly educated that they believe the lies. You can only stop PBS if you stop the schools and universities. Otherwise, it’s lost.

    • That is at the root of the problem. Government has been playing the long game. since the early fifties they set up HEW to study and organize a propaganda campaign to dumb down the populous so they could bend us over on command. It took them about 20 years to hone their craft and around the Carter administration they had perfected their technique polishing it along the way in league with the Propaganda Ministry known as the Mainstream Media. Fast forward to the 21st century and they are churning out bots from public schools that are so volatile that they needed to construct safe zones to store them in. Unfortunately in the private schools they are educating propagandists to control the bots. Half the population salivates at the ringing of the CAGW bell. That population grows with every baby boomer funeral. Soon it will be too late to save mankind. Forget about the climate.

      • You reminded me of a premonition in Ben Franklin’s purported writings to Adams which goes-
        “Sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its faults if they are such, because I think a general government is necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

      • Pop Piasa – April 15, 2018 at 3:29 pm

        You reminded me of a premonition in Ben Franklin’s purported writings to Adams which goes-

        …… and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

        Flavius Josephus predicted the same …… like 2,000 years ago, to wit:

        Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.” (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

    • Sheri,
      “The problem is our people are so poorly educated that they believe the lies. You can only stop PBS if you stop the schools and universities. ”
      I am afraid that conservatives will say this so often it will discourage their kids from attending college, and there will be an increasing disparity in education rates between conservatives and liberals (among whites, anyway). It’s very important for conservatives to go into academia for the good of the country – their views are desperately needed, discussion between young conservative and liberal students essential. Divided we accomplish little. Large ideological changes from election to election are socially disruptive, expensive when they lead to large turnover, reversal of directives, abandoned programs that are just restarted in 4 or 8 years. We as a nation must try to cooperate, and that starts with ending the hate and blame and endless complaints about the Other. It’s hard to understand the Other, but it’s not impossible if one can accept that the Other has a cohesive set of values that is different, yes, but not immoral or without reason.
      My best friend is a staunch Trumpist conservative, and I admire him tremendously for his morality and the way he strives for goodness, honor and integrity. We still fight over politics, and being able to do so is something we value.
      Is that off-topic? No, I don’t think so. Young people need to be able to discuss these things without it leading to animosity. Older people should be better role models. The media have a lot to answer for (it doesn’t take a degree to be conditioned), but that’s part of a free market economy – wealth means power, and the pursuit of wealth means supplying the demand. Alarmism pays, and so does the battle against AGW. Look at all the blogs devoted to CAGW skepticism! Breitbart pays a guy to specialize in AGW denial. (“Denial” has nothing to do with the Holocaust.) …Now I am off-topic.

      • Krisit, you assume that people come out of liberal arts colleges more educated than when they went in.

      • MarkW, I was about to post a similar comment in response to Kristi’s miseducated opinion.
        A researcher being interviewed on TV several days ago stated that ….. “present day college students only spend an average two (2) hours per day on their academic studies”.
        And he followed up by saying ….. “
        now that is an expensive 4-year vacation those students are enjoying”.

      • “Krisit, you assume that people come out of liberal arts colleges more educated than when they went in.”
        Whether they do or don’t is not part of my argument. My argument is that young people need to see different sides of the issues. They need to discuss them directly with people who believe them, and learn how to do so in a structured setting like one offered in a classroom amenable to it, or it devolves into insults and misunderstanding. There need to be more conservative professors.
        But in any case, yes, America needs people who are highly educated in their fields, and in many cases that means going to college first. I fully appreciate the value of experience, but without the fundamental knowledge, experience can only go so far. Modern science can rarely be done well without an appropriate, rigorous, structured education. Would you want your doctor to have learned his trade through experience and self-teaching, skipping post-secondary education? Why should we believe that laymen can practice science as well as those who’ve earned a PhD? There have been so many dramatic advancements, the amount of learning necessary to be adept in one’s field is phenomenal.
        College is not for everyone, though, and I believe it’s too highly stressed, when other forms of education (tech schools, etc.) would be more appropriate for many people. Academia has some problems to deal with. However, I also believe that a liberal arts education can offer much to people who are of a mind to take advantage of it. The good schools can help people learn to reason better, especially if they stress a classical education, including philosophy and rhetoric. I value my liberal arts education more now than when I got it decades ago, and wish I’d taken greater advantage of what was offered.

      • Kristi Silber – April 16, 2018 at 5:46 pm

        Why should we believe that laymen can practice science as well as those who’ve earned a PhD? There have been so many dramatic advancements, the amount of learning necessary to be adept in one’s field is phenomenal.

        Kristi, GETTA CLUE, regardless of whether one “earns” or ”purchases” their AB, BS, MS or PhD Degree, ….. it does not come with a money back ”guarantee” that the recipient of said Degree is capable of performing “useful” work associated with said Degree status. There are literally thousands of PhD holding college professors and climate scientists that are testimony to that fact.
        Kristi Silber

        Would you want your doctor to have learned his trade through ……

        Give us a break, Kristi, …. Medical Doctors must satisfactorily complete an “internship” before they are awarded their License to practice medicine.
        So tell us, Kristi, just how many of your beloved PhDs have to “satisfactorily complete an internship” before their PhD Degree is officially recognized by the consumer popula?

    • Sheri – April 15, 2018 at 10:15 am

      because if they (NOVA) can tie anything to climate change, they do (Nature does the same thing.).

      Don’t forget National Geographic, they have also morphed into a purveyor of Politically Correct “junk science” ……. because that is where a large portion of the advertising dollars are being expended …… as well as “tax free” private donation$, endowment$ and trust fund expenditures.

    • No Science Fiction. Next season they will be exploring the origins of the endoparasitoid extraterrestial species “xenomorph” a.k.a. “Alien” they have already signed on Sigourney Weaver To narrate the series.

      • Bill Powers said:

        No Science Fiction

        I beg to differ, Bill, the prospects for the finest Science Fiction money can buy are looking pretty good, with all fiction and no science, at least little science. Holdren and Hayhoe are involved after all.
        But let’s be generous and give it three issues before tossing it into the Internet composter. shall we?

    • NOVA became boring and irrelevant about a year before my TV burned itself out. I quit watching and and watched the military channel instead, and DVDs I’ve had for a while.
      NOVA = no real relevance. Now, they’re worse than ever, huh? Well, good. They’ll become increasingly irrelevant and at some point PBS will decide that audience is gone and then zappo! No NOVA.

    • Right?! Vic. Don’t you miss the good old days of plain old Global Warming and droughts when dolts like us were admonished for pushing back by pointing out that last winter was colder and snowier than usual or last summer was milder and wetter than it had been in years. The alarmist reaction was “IDIOT! we are talking about climate. Everybody knows you can’t conflate weather and climate. You don’t know nuthin bout science. Or when a physicist pushed back and was told to shut up because they weren’t CLIMATE scientists they were only lowly physicists. .Yeah I miss the days of ALGORE and the oxymoron that was his inconvenient fictional documentary.

  3. Edmonton Alberta, Canada has just had a severely cold start to April. There is still lots of snow on the ground. Here are the rankings of the average highs for the first 14 days of April. The data goes back to 1880.
    Year Mean Max
    1 1948 -4.7
    2 1920 -1.9
    3 1935 -1.3
    4 2018 -0.5
    But then this is only weather, not climate.

    • ” premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM ET”
      “Pervasive heat. …………our climate which is changing, becoming hotter ”
      ….and most of their target audience will be sitting inside with the heat on
      look at the weather forecast

    • It will be nice to see the total reduction in anual insolation absorption, due to the extra albedo of this late snow-cover.
      R

    • I’m confused. I watched this well-done documentary supporting anthropogenic contribution to global warming funded by one of the two most notorious funders of global warming denial propaganda. What’s up?

  4. What is the evidence that our climate is actually changing and influencing our weather?

    I thought, weather history of 30 years is climate, not vice versa ?!

  5. Has this pseudoscience program been pal reviewed yet by El Gordo and Lenny DeCrapio? Looks about their style.

    • You mean they don’t have them featured (along with Nye) as commenters during this Hollywood-style extravaganza of circular group-think? I’m quite surprised! Maybe Will Smith got the job.

  6. “Join scientists around the globe as they explore the dynamics of the air, land, sea, and ice; the major components of Earth’s weather and climate machine.”
    What? No sun? No surprise.

    • Here’s one that I just pulled out of “The bit bucket.” with an internet search. Apparently there’s a war on over who gets to waste how much money on PBS programming.
      “https://pando.com/2014/03/03/more-pbs-conflict-woes-as-activists-move-to-eject-david-koch-from-board-of-nova-station/”

      • I noticed that as of the 3/15/2018 broadcast, Nova still receives funding from the “David H. Koch fund for science”.

  7. We to remember that during most of history, everywhere was
    ….”..a hellhole of filth, stench, cultural chaos and casual cruelty.
    …..Most people were crammed into rickety tenements that were
    ….. breeding grounds for disease…”
    except for the “big bosses” in the “mansions” using slave labor.
    We now have the “Great Oz” folk in concrete condos,
    ….especially the “grasshoppers” singing and dancing in HaveyWood and California,
    who “know how to spend” $$$.

  8. I would naturally trust what a “charismatic career climate meteorologist” says. The very fact that he’s charismatic would be the proof.

  9. One more show I can’t watch now. It’s getting whittled down to very very few. Damn these fools infuriate me.

  10. If Nova doesn’t acknowledge that CO2 levels during the ice ages the last 2.6 million years is near plant life extinction levels at a low of 180 ppmv in deep icehouse conditions for the majority of the time, then it is disingenuous with the truth at best, or incredibly and deliberately misinformed at worst. The failure of scientists everywhere to ignore this basic truth is telling that not only do they ignore simple facts, but that they conspire to mislead billions of people and the scientific community down a dangerous path of deliberate deception.

    • What does that have to do with anything?. It’s like saying, this show is lying because it doesn’t tell me why my dog has a rash on his paw.
      “CO2 levels during the ice ages the last 2.6 million years is near plant life extinction levels at a low of 180 ppmv ” Yes, the CO2 levels have oscillated up and down many times over millions of years, but that doesn’t mean 180 ppm was “near” extinction levels; either there would be ample fossil record of it or “near” is meaningless. Is there fossil evidence for such regular plant extinctions? There could be a shift in ranges, of course, but altitude changes could also be due to temperature. Plant adaptation can’t be ruled out. This is different from sudden events, like asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions that block out the sun and shower the earth with dust, or the rapid colonization of a continent by humans, or climate change due to land use change and the intentional burning of fossil fuels. There are many reasons ecosystems may not be as able to adapt now as they have been in the past, mostly due to human interference.
      Humans have had a phenomenal effect on the land. Even the sea has been at our mercy – over fishing, toxic algal blooms, drifts of trash miles wide. It’s not surprising to me at all that we could affect our climate as well. Heck, look at the ozone hole: we made it, then we consciously reversed the process. Humans can do amazing things when they cooperate.

      • ” Heck, look at the ozone hole, we made it, then we consciously reversed the process.”
        Is that true? What proof do you have? I read that the “hole” is really a lesser level of ozone, which happens naturally in winter, and there is no trend. It looks like a false alarm and we wasted our money. The science was not even established when we panicked.

      • Sailboarder,
        Funny you should say that. My uncle, an atmospheric physicist with NOAA, recommended a movie to me a couple days ago that was about the ozone hole and how the world cooperated to fix it. I thought I might use it as an analogy for AGW sometimes, but added that there were those who didn’t even believe in the O3 hole – and lo and behold, here’s one now! I’m sorry, but in spite of what you read, the “hole” was real and anthropogenic. The Montreal Protocol stopped it’s expansion, and now it is starting to shrink.

      • “What does that have to do with anything? It’s like saying, this show is lying because it doesn’t tell me why my dog has a rash on his paw.”
        I notice you don’t have any real counter to my main point of my comment of historic CO2 depravation, and deflect to your dog having a rash on its paw. And then some lame excuse about asteroid impacts, volcanoes and dust. Or maybe altitude changes, shifts in ranges or ‘plant adaptation can’t be ruled out’. Really?
        If your comment had any actual credibility at all, you confuse pollution with total planetary CO2 deprivation for the majority of the time the last 2.6 million years and confuse CO2 now at 407 ppmv with the effect that humans have had on fishing, toxic algae blooms, “or drifts of trash miles wide.” I didn’t say that humans have not had a significant impact on the planet and ecosystem for dozen’s of other reasons, only that the norm now in planet Earth’s history is CO2 at near plant life extinction levels during long cyclic periods of ice ages. And if I have to explain that to you, then you are way out of your league commenting on anything here. But you do know that C3, C4 and CAM plants are severely stunted at 180 ppmv, especially C3 plant life that humans mainly eat, and literally can’t survive below 150 ppmv. This is a scientific fact, which you seem to try avoid admitting.
        When the world was on average 4-5 degrees colder in a full blown ice age for tens of thousands of years, the good Earth was definitely not what we see today. Where it wasn’t covered in multi Km thick ice sheets, it was pure desert or tundra, and marginal stunted Savannah grasslands closer to the equatorial regions. Indeed, many Megafauna species did go extinct the last 20,000 years, although there is rigorous debate whether they were killed by human hunters, or a food chain collapse due to inclement ice age weather and CO2 starvation with competition for scarce food resources by all animals. It appears to be a mix of both, since there is some evidence for megafauna being extremely stressed but going extinct while humans were advancing through north east Asia, through Beringia to North America.
        Grow up Kristi, you are now acting like a SJW concern troll, parroting your lame groupthink education, thinking you have some moral high ground to preach at us all here now. You confuse CO2 with pollution. I thought a few months ago you might have some promise with intelligent discourse here and I even encouraged you to write more but I see that has morphed into more of a SJW indignant rant than actual intelligent scientific discourse.

      • Kristi, the ozone hole is shrinking because the sun just went through a solar maxima, now that it’s entering a minima, it will grow again.
        It’s been 40 years since the world stupidly banned the most efficient refrigerant out there. If things haven’t improved long before now, CFCs were never the problem.

      • Earthling2, she’s got a degree in environment and ecology, which makes her an expert in anything to do with climate and the environment.
        She doesn’t seem to know that plants need CO2, but what the heck, an expert can’t know everything.

      • Kristi Silber – April 15, 2018 at 2:42 pm

        Yes, the CO2 levels have oscillated up and down many times over millions of years, but that doesn’t mean 180 ppm was “near” extinction levels; either there would be ample fossil record of it or “near” is meaningless.

        Kristi, there is more than ample fossil record for said “CO2 caused extinction(s)” … and dinosaur fossils are a prime example of said. The “age of dinosaurs” was about 252 million years ago to about 66 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 ppm ranged between 1,800 to 2,500 ppm before it started its steady decline at 140 MY ago and ending up at about 180 ppm which caused a slow starvation of the dinosaurs because there was not sufficient green-growing biomass to feed them. To wit:
        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
        Kristi, there is no way in ell one can “blame” the extinction of the dinosaurs on an asteroid striking the earth simply because their demise occurred over a 50+- million year time period. When atmospheric CO2 started decreasing (see above graph) the food supply also started decreasing and the larges herbivores and carnivores (all dinosaurs) died off first …. and the rest followed suite.

        Is there fossil evidence for such regular plant extinctions?

        Kristi, plant fossils far, far, far outnumber animal fossils. There are not very many “missing links” in plant taxonomy.

        Heck, look at the ozone hole: we made it, then we consciously reversed the process.

        Kristi, ignorance can be fixed but stupidity is permanent.
        The per se “ozone hole” has been a “standard feature” of the Antarctic atmosphere ever since plant biomass outgassed sufficient amounts of O2 into the atmosphere for the ultraviolet (UV) radiation in sunlight to create large quantities of ozone in earth’s atmosphere. GETTA clue, Kristi, the per se “ozone hole” in the Antarctica atmosphere is the result of “6 moths of darkness”, whereby, no UV radiation for 6 months = 6 months of no ozone production.

      • Earthling2
        “I notice you don’t have any real counter to my main point of my comment of historic CO2 depravation”
        That’s because it’s a moot point when it comes to current climate change. That was my point – there’s no reason Nova should discuss it.
        The reference to human-caused problems was actually a response to another comment, I should have made that clear.
        “Or maybe altitude changes, shifts in ranges or ‘plant adaptation can’t be ruled out’.”
        This is about the changes in CO2 levels in the past, and plant response in terms of range and evolution.
        “I didn’t say that humans have not had a significant impact on the planet and ecosystem for dozen’s of other reasons, only that the norm now in planet Earth’s history is CO2 at near plant life extinction levels during long cyclic periods of ice ages.”
        I don’t understand your point. CO2 has been low in the past. I agree. In the past 800,000 years it has dipped to low levels several times, on a cyclic basis. There may have been extinctions, but not mass extinctions each time.
        “But you do know that C3, C4 and CAM plants are severely stunted at 180 ppmv, especially C3 plant life that humans mainly eat, and literally can’t survive below 150 ppmv. This is a scientific fact, which you seem to try avoid admitting.”
        I know this, and I also know that plants can evolve and that there are plenty of taxa that survived, both of plants and the organisms that ate them. It’s not that I’m not admitting anything, I just don’t see your point.
        You want to argue that the dinosaurs went extinct because of plant CO2 deprivation? 1000 ppm wasn’t enough?
        Oh, I just saw this: ”Kristi, ignorance can be fixed but stupidity is permanent.” I assume that was meant for me. End of conversation. It’s no loss, that’s for sure.

      • Oops, that statement about ignorance and stupidity came from a different comment, not from Earthling2. However, “Grow up Kristi, you are now acting like a SJW concern troll, parroting your lame groupthink education, thinking you have some moral high ground to preach at us all here now” is just a bad.
        Parroting my lame groupthink education! That’s rich. What a dumb comment, full of baseless assumption.

      • One can only offer the Kristi Silber et els the opportunity to drink from the cool waters of the “Spring of Factual Science”, …… but they will, more often than not, reject all offers because of their nurtured desire and fondness of the “AGW Kool Aide” that they have been “drinking” all during their formal education years.
        Religious beliefs of all “flavors” that are/were forcibly nurtured during one’s adolescent “formative” years, ….. pretty much dictates many aspects of the child’s personality for the remainder of their life. That is the reason for the ole saying of …… “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.

    • 180ppm is near extinction level for plants, because they start dying at that level.
      It’s a scientific fact.
      As to the ozone hole, that was never our fault in the first place, it’s existed forever and is as big today as it was during the heights of the manufactured ozone scares.

    • Well RAH, I hate to tell you this but I just watched an episode of “One Strange Rock” not an hour ago, I even recorded it, where they talked about how humans had created the Ozone hole and how humans had fixed the Ozone hole and now humans need to fix the CO2 problem, and talked about how how the CO2 coming out of a volcano was extremely hot (presumably from CO2’s inherent nature), and then moved on to why Venus was so much hotter than Earth: because of CO2, naturally.
      It was hard to listen to. Especially having to listen to a couple of retired astronauts parroting this CO2 propaganda.
      It’s not a surprise millions of people believe this BS. They are bombarded by it from every direction. The Left has full control of society’s means of communications. Which means we are in trouble.

      • Crap! And I had high hopes for it being an honest attempt at presenting the natural history of this earth based on the three episodes I had watched.

    • Hear hear! 15″ on the ground here and all the recently arrived song-birds are generally silent. Sucks.

      • Nova has been a really good science program and many of the programs I watched last year were underwritten by the David H Koch (yes that Koch brother) Foundation, leading to apoplectic meltdown with outraged Climateers demanding that PBS renounce their support.
        Apparently the idea of Koch sponsorship of a respected science program was at odds with the anti-science denier smearing campaign and conferred legitimacy.

  11. I’m willing to bet there will be no mention of the Adiabatic L:apse Rate – the single most influential factor in atmospheric temperature distribution and the driver of the convection process that is universally OMITTED from global atmospheric circulation models.

    • Probably no mention of the supposed positive feedback from water vapor (a weak link in their chain of evidence) and no mention of the associated upper tropical tropospheric hot spot.

      • Probably no mention of the rate of decomposition of deciduous tree leaves and its effect on the CO2 budget. Probably no discussion of the amount of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere from the burning of Amazonian rainforest, or the diversity of definitions of “sustainable development.” There are probably quite a few things they aren’t including in the 2 hours. Naturally, they are proceeding under the assumption that AGW is true and a threat. That doesn’t mean all the science is “settled,” it means that it’s adequate to draw some useful conclusions and influence policy.

      • Kristi Silber says:

        Probably no mention of the rate of decomposition of deciduous tree leaves and its effect on the CO2 budget. … There are probably quite a few things they aren’t including in the 2 hours.”

        But, as I said above, “the supposed positive feedback from water vapor [is] a weak link in their chain of evidence ….” IOW, it’s the key to the whole climate controversy:

        2/20/13, David Evans 12 minute video: “The skeptics’ case”— 484,000 views.
        https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc
        “Every serious skeptical climate scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. … The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of tt CO2, but rarely tell us that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
        …………….
        “The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks.”
        Bill Gray argues similarly:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/18/flaws-in-applying-greenhouse-warming-to-climate-variability-a-post-mortem-paper-by-dr-bill-gray/
        As does Willis Eschenbach:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/05/a-hard-rains-gonna-chill/

        Kristi Silber says:

        Probably no discussion of the amount of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere from the burning of Amazonian rainforest, …

        OTC, that’s just the sort of alarmist sideshow that they might well include.
        Kristi Silber says:

        Naturally, they are proceeding under the assumption that AGW is true and a threat.

        Of course, but they’re pretending they aren’t—they are pretending that they’re objectively, without presuppositions, examining the mechanics of the “weather machine.”

      • There’s a big difference between not covering minor sources of CO2, vs not covering the big kahuna in GWG’s.

    • Can you give the Cliff Notes version or a link that explains this?; not the details of how the Adiabatic Lapse Rate works, but how effect of the ALR makes CAGW “proofs” irrelevant.

  12. It has very little to do with climate concerns and much to do with raising money and obtaining power. Scare the poor critters into giving their money so they can be saved from the warming bogeyman.

    • “Scare the poor critters into giving their money so they can be saved from the warming capitalist bogeyman.”
      A little more accurate I think.

  13. Let me guess: we have thrown a monkey wrench into the weather/climate “machine” with all our nasty, dirty CO2, and that is why we have “weird” and “extreme” and “unprecedented” weather. They do love to ascribe magical powers to CO2, but the only real “magic” it does is green the earth.

  14. The propagandists strike back! It is after all about the message and not the reality or even science. It’s about “communications” and since they lack the political power to force their agenda right now, they must rely primarily on other means. They are selling but how many are really buying?

  15. Many years ago, NOVA broadcast a show on Global Warming where they panned the science and the scientists promoting it. It was a real keeper but I didn’t tape it. Surely someone must have.
    You will die of shock when you see how harsh they were on the promoters of CAGW. It showed a graphic of “The Three Pillars” of the theory and showed each one being toppled.

    • Do you happen to know the name of that program? It would be interesting to google it to see if there is any information available for the program.

      • The best I can tell from looking thru a listing of all NOVA programs is this one:

        Season 10, Episode 19 Fire or Ice: The Climate Crisis
        First Aired: December 20, 1983
        How years of burning fossil fuels have contributed to a gradual warming of the earth known as the greenhouse effect. An increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps the sun’s warming infrared rays near the earth.

        I does not sound promising about being anti-CAGW, but maybe I should withhold judgement without seeing it first.

  16. I love how it takes so much fossil fuels to do all this in order to tell us to stop using fossil fuels, sort of self defeating in a poetic sense. Do they yet realize that no one cares any more? The BIGGEST difference nowadays is the faster growth rates due to 400 ppm.

  17. Didn’t Trump talk about not funding or seriously limiting PBS funding? Was it another piece of pork in the budget that Congress allowed/wanted?

  18. lt does not need extreme weather to change climate. it just needs a consistent change in the weather which can lead to change over the long term. One extreme winter does not lead to climate cooling, but a slow increasing trend towards winter extending into the spring most certainly can. What’s happening to the NH spring snow extent is a important bell weather to what’s going on in the climate as awhole. So rather then waste my time on looking at changes in CO2 levels. lts better to look for weather change that could cause changes in the spring snow extent over the longer term.

    • Be careful, Taxed. While northern hemispheric fall and winter snowfall have been showing an upward trend, the spring snow that you want to hang your hat on is showing a downward trend. Not due to the amount of snow cover, mind, you, but because the method for measuring spring snow cover was changed back around 2000. Rather than have a human scrutinize surface and satellite data, the measurement/guestimate is now done by albedo alone, which gets false negative (no snow) readings from a dimming of the snowpack due to dust and soot. In addition, any vegetation that manages to shed its white winter cloak of snow and ice reads as “no snow cover”…this would include low shrubs, which could easily still have snow cover underneath their canopies, however small they might be.

  19. Bread and Circuses…
    A phrase originating from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (circa A.D. 100).
    In context, the Latin ‘panem et circenses’ (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement.
    And today in the USA?
    No longer cares for its historical birthright of scientific integrity, or political involvement?

  20. It’s on Wednesday April 18, at 8PM you say? Darn! I’m busy then. Shoot. Somebody needs to watch it though, and report how idiotic it was. Draw straws or something. But, as I say, I’m busy then.

  21. Hayhoe, according to the faith she claims to have, will receive a very harsh judgement.
    NOVA, like PBS are state run organs, dedicated to the consensus/swamp/ bureaucratic state that funds them so generously.

  22. For a population that found Whitewater, or any number of scandals since too complex to comprehend, climate change must be mind boggling. This is why they treat it superstitiously and just listen to the high priests.

  23. In MN,Paul Douglas is known as the goof on the roof for his forecasts on top of the building. He is an original weather terrorist.
    My question for alarmist is why has CO2 had no impact on hurricane numbers or strength? NOAA evens states it’s too early to tell and when you look at the data that goes back well over a 100 years…you can’t see a change.

  24. Okay… who is he creepy guy at 1:55 saying “It’s a planetary crisis!” with a truly maniacal smile on his face. He looks like the ‘Joker’ from a bad batman movie!
    At 1:36 we have the classical shot of what appears to be steam (H2O) emissions, while the pseudo-scientists proclaims that we are “…poking at the climate system with a long, sharp carbon-tipped spear.”! The analogy here is that the climate is a powerful, living entity that has been slumbering up until now. When we antagonize it with our CO2 emissions, the slumbering god will wake up and kill us all! This isn’t science. This is a mythological tale similar to the ones weaved by ancient priests and cultures. There is just one difference: the ancient myths were founded on real world observations with the attempt to explain those observations. The new myth is founded on a human idea, with the attempt to obfuscate what is really happening in the world.
    Here is a mythological story that actually adheres to the observations:
    For millions of years, the great climate god blessed this planet with warmth and relative stability. The god of life responded by spreading life in magnificent forms across the face of the Earth. The oceans were teaming with creatures great and small. The land was fecund, and diversity had a meaning far greater than we humans can now imagine. But all that carbon based life took a toll on the atmosphere, taking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it deep in the crust of the Earth. Around 5 million years ago, the climate god finally realized that he was beginning to suffer from the lack of CO2, and that ‘life’ was to blame for his suffering. He had no choice but to send a bitter cold that would greatly reduce life on the planet. He would also send chaotic and destructive weather to make it more difficult for the remaining life to grow larger again.
    The god of life was devastated and severely wounded by this cold. In order to not die completely, the god of life promised the climate god that he would return the CO2 to the atmosphere, but he would need warm weather in order to do it. Reluctantly, the god of climate agreed to give life a chance, but when he did, life would jab at the god of climate with a long, sharp, carbon-tipped spear, and sequester even more CO2. In his righteous anger, the climate god would send the cold again, covering large parts of the world in ice, and raking the remain parts with ferocious storms. Over and over again, life would plead with climate, and climate would reluctantly give in, granting a brief respite from the cold, only to be disappointed, and be forced to return the planet to the deep freeze.
    Finally, life created a wonderful creature that had the ability and desire to liberate CO2 back to the atmosphere. Slowly, the climate god was appeased. The more ‘life’ returned the CO2 it had stolen from the atmosphere, the more the climate god’s wrath eased on the planet. The cold and ice retreated, and the greening of life began to spread. The god of climate was looking forward a long and well-deserved bit of slumber.
    But then a funny, and most irrational thing happened on the way to paradise…

  25. “including John Holdren, of Harvard University (and former White House science advisor”
    Probably the last guy you would want to have advising you. A real screwball.

  26. And to think, the Koch Bros are the main backers of this program!
    Still one of my favorite programs of the last 30 years, when they avoid politics.

    • I agree, its about the only thing I consistently watch on PBS these days. Its true that for about the last ten years, any Nova program that remotely touches on Weather or Climate pushes the Warmist agenda, but I just filter that out as most of the rest of the programs are very good.

  27. Edmonton Alberta has set a record of 167 consecutive days without temps breaking above freezing. Weather forecasts indicate there are more to come….

    • You got ahead of me! It’s difficult to believe that the name of this week’s agitprop dump isn’t an uncited echo of that earlier work.
      I actually am the one who remembered seeing this as a child, and dug it up and set that along to Pierre. You can find the two halves here:
      https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart1
      https://archive.org/details/theweathermachinepart2
      It’s basically two one-hour parts, with each hour split into two reels (the old days of movie projectors); note that on the right there is a download area where you can also download the four “reels” as separate files (e.g., mp4) to watch at your convenience. Given that this classic is also two hours in length, I’d suggest watching this instead of the agitprop fest on Wednesday evening – makes better use of the time.
      It is indeed interesting to note the scientific humility on this topic back in 1975 – scientists actually discussing what they did know and what they did not know (as compared to the proof-by-lack-of-social-skills of today’s so-called “climate scientists”).
      It’s also interesting that the main line of interest is the threat of a new ice age, and perhaps soon (this also demonstrates if needed that the “ice age scare” of the 1970s really did happen, if such proof is necessary). Many things make appearances, including possible warming due to CO2 and possible human-inducement of a new ice age via human-created particles dimming solar insolation (“the human volcano”). But returning to the ice age scare, whereas most of the discussion of a new ice age comports with the idea of a very slow slide into it (and thus of no real worry to anyone alive then or now), at the end the idea of an ice age starting very quickly via a “snow blitz” is discussed – and the closing credits roll with an image of the globe being covered up with falling snow.
      (Anthony, if you never happened across this old classic, it’s VERY much worth a couple hours of your time.)

      • Isn’t the Internet time machine great…and networked together by an avid web of WUWT folk that can dig up this old ‘film’. Definitely worth watching this epic work from the mid 1970’s. I remember watching it now 40+ years ago, and was one of those TV films that got me really interested in weather and climate. It was in part responsible for those magazine headlines about the coming ice age and had no preconceived bias like we have today with CO2 the cause of everything bad, but goes where the data goes, and back in 1975 and by the mid to late 70’s it had been a cooling trend for 30 years since the late 1940’s. As compared to the warming trend we have had since 1979 and the beginning of the satellite era. I remember growing up in that cooling trend in the heart of the Siberian prairies, and it was brutally cold in winters and a return to the ice ages was completely believable. But it was only a 30 year cycle, as has been the last warming trend for the last 30 years. Maybe you have to be 60+ years old to have actually experienced this so it is in your DNA, but I can truthfully say that this winter definitely reminds me of a winter like the mid 1970’s. I sure hope the warming continues, because a reversal to a cooling planet would really suck the life out of civilization. Definitely worth watching, and would be good to see this put back on TV again to remind our youthful commenters that things go in cycles and while 30-60 years seems like a long time to us, it is merely a drop in geological time.

  28. Seems to be full of lies and misconceptions. Right off the bat, scientists never registered and voted on this matter so scientists overwhelming agreeing is a fabrication. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. All the great photography, the music, and the graphics are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events as well as sea level rise are both part of our current climate and would continue unabated. Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change the climate. Climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes sophisticated networks of sensors, decades to even detect it. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as hence must be the AGW conjecture. The show in question should be labeled what it really is, science fiction.

    • “Seems to be full of lies and misconceptions. Right off the bat, scientists never registered and voted on this matter so scientists overwhelming agreeing is a fabrication.”
      This is not a logical statement, since there are other ways of determining consensus.
      Your arguments about the science don’t hold water. For example: Venus has a CO2-rich atmosphere that accounts for its surface temperature; there is no evidence that the change we are experiencing is due primarily to the sun and oceans; and CO2 has long been known to have the characteristics that would make it a GHG. If you can’t accept such fundamental concepts as the fact that CO2 functions as a GHG, of course you will think reality is fiction, and education is propaganda.

      • “There are other ways of determining consensus.” And consensus still has nothing to do with science.

      • JL,
        Consensus has nothing to do with the practice or results of science, but it can be a sign of a hypothesis becoming a theory, thereby becoming the equivalent of “fact” in layman’s terms. The old argument about age-old scientific consensus being disproved by the likes of Galileo is not relevant, since in this case the consensus has developed over the course of decades: it is the new paradigm replacing the old, just as Galileo’s theory eventually did.

      • It is a logical statement. In order to determine if a majority of scientists believe that the AGW conjecture is correct we have to first determine who all the scientists are by registering them. We then have to have all the scientists actual vote on the matter so that the actual number of scientists that believe that the AGW conjecture is correct, can be counted. It is a mater of direct measurement. All else is speculation. Of’ course science is not done this way. Science is not a democracy, The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process. This consensus business is not science but rather politics.
        The high temperature of the surface of Venus has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of CO2. Not only is Venus closer to the sun than the Earth but the surface pressure is more than 90 times what it is on Earth. If a radiant greenhouse effect existed on Venus, it would be an H of a lot hotter than it actually is.

      • The so called consensus was created by first discarding the view of any scientist who disagreed with those who were doing the polling.

      • Kristi:
        In my left hand, I have 10,000 molecules of our atmosphere. In my right hand, I have all of the molecules of CO2 contained in the sample after I adroitly removed them…there are 4 of them. In order to enhance my magic trick and extract 5 molecules of CO2 from the same sized sample, I will have to wait 20-25 years. Is this the odorless, colorless gas upon which you are basing your apocalyptic screed?

      • RGisvacuous: “Is this the odorless, colorless gas upon which you are basing your apocalyptic screed?”
        What apocalyptic screed? See, you have no bloody clue what you are talking about, it’s just the same old assumptions. Why try to reason with that?

      • Willhaas:
        “It is a logical statement. In order to determine if a majority of scientists believe that the AGW conjecture is correct we have to first determine who all the scientists are by registering them. We then have to have all the scientists actual vote on the matter so that the actual number of scientists that believe that the AGW conjecture is correct, can be counted. It is a mater of direct measurement. All else is speculation. Of’ course science is not done this way.”
        You are right, science is not done that way. It’s done by sampling. You don’t need to know what every scientist thinks to get a good estimate of the proportion that think a certain way.
        Science can use different ways of sampling, but it’s usually directed toward a specific group. One group is comprised of those who have published research about climate. Within that group is one whose publication abstracts mention AGW. So, what proportion of them supports AGW? Unless the results are close, that should be able to tell you if there’s a majority pro or anti.
        There are problems with this approach. If scientists on either “side” are more likely to mention in their abstracts that their results support their beliefs, that would bias the data. So would biases in publication practices. I don’t give the “97%” any credence myself, and it’s a shame the way it was hyped. There have been enough studies done, though, to support the “vast majority” idea, IMO.
        The problem with a mass poll is choosing the group to “register” and getting them to comply. You would need a cut-off level of expertise. You would need to ensure that those who register and vote are representative of the whole, and how could you do so? There’s no way to use compulsion, especially internationally.
        Vocal skeptic scientists say they are silenced and ostracized by the majority for their beliefs. That itself suggests a large majority consensus, if true.
        None of this is a decisive factor for my beliefs, though. I don’t just go with authority.
        I think you might want to look into Venus, its atmosphere and energy balance a little more.

    • Like most things Kristi was taught while earning her expensive college degree this little factoid is also completely untrue.
      Venus’s atmosphere is hot, not because of CO2, but because Venus never cooled down enough for water to condense out of it’s atmosphere to form oceans, and the reason for that is because it’s closer to the sun.

      • MarkW,
        So the 200 ppm of water vapor in Venus’s atmosphere is the real GHS? Is that what you’re saying? And that’s more important than the fact that the atm is 96.5% CO2? It’s closer to the sun, but without the atmosphere the dark side would be extremely cold.
        “Like most things Kristi was taught while earning her expensive college degree this little factoid is also completely untrue.”
        Mark, I graduated in 1994, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t learn squat about Venus’s atmosphere while I was there. Like anyone else, I’m capable of learning outside school. I graduated magna cum laud from one of the 3 top private colleges in the nation, and I’m proud of my education; I feel it was a good one. I went on to get 3 graduate fellowships, including a Fulbright. You bring up my education again and again, so don’t accuse me of bragging. I still know the limitations to my expertise far better than a schmuck like you who has never even met me. You can make all the idiotic assumptions you want about me, it only shows me how narrow your thinking is, how liable to error based on your foolish premises. Time for me to start ignoring all your insulting, erroneous, juvenile comments. Find someone else to bully.

  29. Ah, such a shame they didn’t ask Jo Nova to front ‘Decoding the Weather Machine’. That would have been a neat fit. But then, of course, it would have been a presentation about how modern weather is not remotely exceptional in historical terms and that humans aren’t the primary cause of it. I’d pay to watch that!

  30. Paul Douglas comes across on TV as being a decent person however there are other TV Meteorologists in MN who take the opposite tack. Looks like for balance they weren’t invited even though they risked their careers to make their statements. Even this weekend with us having received a huge snow dump that closed the airport yesterday Mr. Douglas continued with his warmist biased commentary in his forecast. I find him hard to read as a result.
    Area lakes are still iced over to a large extent and that’s because we’ve had a long cold winter that just won’t go away this year. Lake Minnetonka near to Paul’s house still has two foot thick ice still in some of it’s bays. But I don’t claim that to be a sign of anything except natural variation, unlike Mr Douglas who would be trumpeting global warming if the ice was out earlier than the norm. it’s only weather Mr. Douglas whether it agrees with your bias or not, it’s only weather.

    • Over 24″ reported in Richfield, though I’m not sure I believe it. The rest of the Twin Cities seem to max at about 15.5″
      Could be more on the way in a few days, they say.
      Could be natural variation, but I don’t rule out other factors. It’s not just a snow storm in April – that’s not so odd in itself – it’s the fact that the ground and lakes are still frozen and the winter’s snow hasn’t yet fully melted. That really is quite unusual for mid-April. The scientific explanations make sense to me. A cold, snowy winter was predicted last fall, and they got it right this time.
      “- The frequency and intensity of severe storms has increased. This trend will likely continue as the effects of climate change become more pronounced.
      – The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1% of storms increased by 37% in the Midwest and 71% in the Northeast from 1958 to 2012.
      – Heavier storms are projected to increase in frequency at a faster rate than storms that are less intense.
      – The amount of precipitation falling during intense multi-day events has increased dramatically.”
      http://glisa.umich.edu/climate/extreme-precipitation

      • It really is fascinating how little historical knowledge the precious darlings coming out of college these days have.
        She actually believes that she has proven that we are in a crisis because the weather has changed over the last 30 years.
        Sweetheart, the weather has been changing for hundreds of years, there are well documented 20, 30, 60 and 100 year patterns in the weather.

      • Kristi, I predicted that back around 2013/14. That this winter would be the first shift of NH winters to prolonged cold spells holding into the spring. Wait and see what the next 2 winters bring in. The times have changed in this regard.

      • Kristi: Tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, cold waves, heat waves…you name it…there is NO data, as far back as reliable records extend, to support the fantasy that these events are becoming more numerous or intense. Believe the data, not the agenda…

    • Tracking the weather daily, I get photos of snowfalls when they are late in the spring season. Started this morning with sleet, then gropple ice, and then snow starting at 8AM,.and it’s now 8:45PM my time, and still snowing. Blizzard to the north of me, more snow expected, time line to run through to Monday PM.
      Results: no bugs emerging for birds to eat, so I feed them; no leaves out of buds on trees to date; grass in lawn is trying to grow, but stunted by the cold weather.
      C’est la vie!

      • And it sucks to no end. I have no prob with darkness in winter as far as S.A.D goes, but do this to me in mid April? I’m in a baaaaaad mood.

  31. Is Marc Moreno alerted to this? Sceptics need to crank out more good movies. We tend to let the other side have most of the propaganda ground. I feel a little guilty at employing weather worrier’s tactics but I guess this is the reason fighting fire with fire got invented.
    In the cold snowy April that continues here in Ottawa, Canada, when people chat about the late spring, I quietly offer that “apparently” more and more scientists are starting to have doubts about the earlier projections of a planet in peril, that the early forecasts have turned out to be 2/3 or more too warm, despite even greater amounts of CO2 emissions than forecast. I mention that they were taken by surprise by NASA’s discovery of 15% expansion of greening of the planet and the doubling of harvests largely due to higher CO2.

    • Good for you on “quietly offering” the truth. My experience is that folks like to hear facts, when “quietly offered”. The most frequent concern is over Polar bears, and they are surprised that the population has grown, not shrunk. The CBC sure does a good job of misleading Canadians on that subject.

      • Here’s a more recent report.
        ” To identify DoD installations with vulnerabilities, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment [OASD(EI&E)], initiated a preliminary Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) of DoD sites worldwide.
        “…Analysis, Trends and Conclusions. The SLVAS responses yielded a wide range of qualitative information. The highest number of reported effects resulted from drought (782) followed closely by wind (763) and non-storm surge related flooding (706). About 10% of sites indicated being affected by extreme temperatures (351), while flooding due to storm surge (225) and wildfire (210) affected about 6% of the sites reporting. Nearly 50% of sites (1,684) reported they had no effects to any assets from the effects.
        “…The survey questions focused on observed effects from past severe weather events (which may be indicative of more frequent and/or more severe future conditions)”
        https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
        The DoD is clearly looking ahead at infrastructure planning and risk prevention in the expectation of climate change.

      • The military looks into those things that the politicians order it to look into.
        At 5 to 6 inches per century, those bases will be dust long before the sea reaches them.

  32. ‘Climate change is one of the defining public issues of our times’
    No, climate change is UNDEFINED.
    Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.

  33. Is no one watching the high level propaganda on the Discovery channels, Smithsonian Channel, PBS, NPR, etc. I can rarely watch a documentary on any subject that does not have a PSA embedded in the video creating angst, fear, etc as to how this Park, Scenery, Culture, ad infinitum will be destroyed by Climate change. I have noticed these “PSA spots” have been there since at least 2001. Look for them, some are very suttle.

  34. Kristi
    See this 2011 story in Nature about how the Consensus about the Ozone Hole and Man’s Role (with CFCs) May Be Falling Apart. The size of the hole hardly changed since 1990.
    “As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
    “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
    Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”

  35. Practically anything associated w/PBS (or most any station anymore) is propaganda/indoctrination. End any taxpayer funding for them NOW.

  36. However much taxpayer money PBS extorts from us, it is TOO MUCH. It all needs to be ended – it’s part of draining the swamp.
    I might feel different if they even tried to be objective, but they don’t, so I don’t. I’d like my money back, please…

  37. Was watching “Billions” (from Showtime) the other night at my girlfriends house and episode 4 was pretty heavy into climate change ‘opportunities’…
    These leftists aren’t going to stop hammering us from every direction than can until they get their global socialist utopia…

  38. I could only stand it for the first half of the two hour advertorial. No caveats, no criticisms, no skepticism, no examination of the integrity of the data, no contrary evidence, no alternative explanations.
    Just pure, unadulterated Goreball Kool-Aid— it’s a planetary emergency.

  39. I’d like to change the discussion to a new tack. Does anyone else notice how the global warming media science “guru’s” have changed?
    Back in the last decade, it was the Father of Gaia, James Lovelock – and the father of AGW alarmism, James Hansen, who started it all in 1988. Today – as shown above, Nova touts Holdren and Hayhoe…WHO? What happened?
    What happened is that the former “guru’s” Hansen and Lovelock developed some science realism and both decided that their alarms were premature – the actual scientific evidence didn’t support the immediate cause for alarm. Or even soon alarm.
    Thus, for the political powers that feed their masters like PBS, new scientific gurus had to be annointed – and viola? Holdren and Hayhoe!
    You really gotta disappear the old guru’s if you’re going to keep that old-time Alarmist Religion going! AND THIS, BOYS AND GIRLS, IS PRECISELY HOW PROPAGANDA IN POLITICS WORKS – not real science.

  40. Right guys, and what else have you told us is propaganda over the years? Water and air pollution? Cancer caused by cigarette smoke?
    [WE haven’t said any of those things, ever. Think before you post. -mod]

Comments are closed.