WHY “CLIMATE CHANGE” SEEMS TO HAVE FADED FROM THE NEWS

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you.

In a post a few days ago, I noted that “the whole climate issue seems to have mostly disappeared from the news lately.”  Commenter niceguyeddie responded by giving me a link to the Washington Post (eddie called it “the ‘other’ Pravda”), and an article of July 5 by a guy named Jason Samenow headlined “Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week.”   In the intervening week since this article, a few people on the internet have been busy making mincemeat of Samenow’s rather pitiful effort.  For MC readers who don’t go out searching the internet regularly for real information on climate to combat the propaganda from the various Pravdas out there, I thought I would do the public service of presenting some of this real information here.

First, some basic background is needed to develop appropriate bullshit radar on this subject.  If you follow climate or weather information even a little, you will already know that on any given day, somewhere in the world, some weather station, or more likely multiple stations, is recording an “all time high” temperature for the particular day in question, while some other weather station, or maybe multiple stations, is recording an “all time low.”  It follows that the fact that multiple “all time high” records were set during the course of a week tells you nothing about climate change.  There could have been even more all time lows, and the overall average could have gone down, no matter how many “all time highs” were recorded.  Any reader of any intelligence whatsoever will immediately be asking, don’t just tell me about “all time highs,” but tell me what is the overall picture?  How many all time lows were there?  What is happening with the “average” temperature?  You will not be surprised to learn that Samenow does not provide the answers to those questions.  In other words, his article is not intended to provide useful information to the intelligent reader, but rather to propagandize those lacking in either basic background information or critical thinking ability or both.

There is an obvious source for the answer to the last question as to what is happening with the “average,” and that is the easily-available UAH global lower troposphere record, derived from satellite sensors.  That record exists from 1979 to present.  Here is the latest chart from UAH going through the end of June 2018:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

So with that simple first step, we know that the “average” world temperature for June 2018 was +0.21 deg C above the 1981 – 2010 mean.  That represented a decline of about 0.65 deg C from the all time high of this 39-year record, which was reached in early 2016.  The 0.65 deg C decline represented more than 75% of the amount by which the average temperature had exceeded the 1981 – 2010 mean at the highest point.  Suddenly the fact that some large number of “all time highs” was being set at the end of June does not seem very significant.

But it’s still fun to look at what Samenow claims for his “all time highs,” to see how real they are, or whether we are dealing with more of the usual “fake news.”  This gets pretty bad. […]

As you can see, the failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you.  They are reduced to cherry-picking some unrepresentative data points and leaving out all of the relevant context.  It’s no wonder the reporting on this is becoming increasingly scarce.  For you, the moral of the story is, if you want some real information as to whether the world is warming or cooling, and by how much, skip the propaganda at the various Pravdas, and go for the UAH lower troposphere satellite record.  It is available in the form at the top of this post, at drroyspencer.com, updated monthly.

Full post

0 0 votes
Article Rating
149 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trebla
July 13, 2018 4:52 am

Eyeballing the graph,it looks like a rise of about 1 Celsius degree per century. Wake me up when something alarming happens.

Richard M
Reply to  Trebla
July 13, 2018 6:01 am

It’s actually much less that that. The satellite data trend looks worse due to volcanic cooling in the early part of the trend combined with the super El Nino at the end.

That’s why I did a little exercise to remove as much of this noise as possible to see what the real trend looks like. April-August represent the time of the year with the least ENSO noise.

The average global temperature for April-August in 1980-81 was -.06 C in UAH and +.03 C in RSS. So far in 2018 it is .20 in UAH and .27 in RSS.

Both of these periods are reasonably absent of climate noise (ENSO and volcanoes). They are comparable in non climate factors. Hence, we get a total warming of .24 C (RSS) and .26 C (UAH). That’s it, it only shows a warming of .25 C in 38 years. That is only .066 C / decade.

But it gets worse. There was cooling previous to this warm-up all the way back to 1950 when we have good ENSO data to try and remove the noise. So, when you factor this in you get .2 C of warming in 66 years. That is about .3 C /century.

richard verney
Reply to  Richard M
July 13, 2018 8:07 am

I consider that there is a very strong chance that the temperatures today are no warmer than that of the late 1930s/early 1940s.

Unfortunately, our data sets are not fit for scientific purpose, and we require a complete reassessment from the bottom up.

Phoenix44
Reply to  richard verney
July 13, 2018 8:39 am

When you consider that the parts of the globe with the best records (such as the Us and the UK) show that you are right, you have to wonder about the rest. An awful lot of warming seems to occur where homogenization and other adjustments have to be used.

I would not accept that in the science/economics areas i work in. If the reliable data showed one thing, and the manipulated data showed something else. I would at the very least need a very convincing explanation. Algorithms wouldn’t be that explanation.

Reply to  richard verney
July 14, 2018 3:55 am

Richard V wrote:
“I consider that there is a very strong chance that the temperatures today are no warmer than that of the late 1930s/early 1940s.”

I agree with you Richard.

It was almost certainly warmer-than-today in North America in the 1930’s and this may also be true globally.

Best, Allan

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  richard verney
July 15, 2018 7:48 am
Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  richard verney
July 15, 2018 8:21 am


Some more facts

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Richard M
July 13, 2018 8:43 pm

There is only 1 temperature set that both sides trust and that is UAH. RSS was caught fudging as well so we dont care what RSS says.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 14, 2018 3:58 am

I agree Alan – I ONLY use UAH – thank you.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Trebla
July 13, 2018 6:41 am

Unfortunately, snoozing is not allowed when certain political parties are on a treasure hunt to seize your savings and tax contributions. Such lust tends to displace science, statistical significance, and common sense.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Trebla
July 13, 2018 6:47 am

I’m not fully on board with the assumption that temp will continuously rise or rise a t a steady rate or that it will move in lock step up or down with CO2.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 13, 2018 8:30 am

I concur. It appears as though a smoothed curve would show several frequency oscillations superimposed upon an underlying oscillation. Pick any short enough snippet and you can erroneously extrapolate a “hockey stick” based solely upon the slope of the superimposed “noise”.

Reply to  Coach Springer
July 14, 2018 12:05 pm

Coach Springer:
we’ve had
a frequently changing
CO2 – average temperature
correlation since 1940:

1940 to 1975
CO2 level UP trend.
Average temperature DOWN trend.
Negative correlation.

1975 to 2003
CO2 level UP trend.
Average temperature UP trend.
Positive correlation.

2003 to mid-2015
CO2 level UP trend.
Average temperature FLAT trend.
No correlation.

James Bryant
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 14, 2018 3:56 pm

As I read it CO2 rise comes after warming

July 13, 2018 4:53 am

It’s nothing to do with what climate numbers are doing. It was not warming 9 years ago either at the start of Obama’s world saving mission. Climate change faded from the news because Trump won the election and US agencies no longer have the same mandate from PotUS to propagandize it. What would be the point, when you no longer think CO2 is a pollutant, nor PM 2.5 an instant killer?

zazove
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
July 13, 2018 5:02 am

Ever been outside the US?

steve case
Reply to  zazove
July 13, 2018 6:40 am

The United States has the best temperature records including precipitation and Min Max temperatures. World-wide that is hard to come by. Besides that, the US has a variety of climates and geography making it a good sampling of temperate areas. And the records go back to the early 20th century. Claiming that the US is an outlier with more cooling trends than the rest of the world – if that’s what you’re implying – really doesn’t fly.

i2choose
Reply to  steve case
July 13, 2018 11:54 am

What is the short term trend using the new US ‘gold’ reference sites data? How does this compare to the non-reference sites temperature sites used to calculate US temperature? Are they divergent in any way? Just interested as I never see the reference data shown anywhere.

MarkW
Reply to  zazove
July 13, 2018 6:55 am

Physics is different depending on where you live?

steve case
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2018 7:15 am

No, but it’s a bit more difficult to rewrite the historical data from all 1200 US weather stations.

Phoenix44
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2018 8:40 am

Yes, if you manipulate the data. Physics and biology (not to mention economics) were different in the USSR for many decades. Because they were allowed to produce any number they wanted and those who said “niet” were kept very quiet.

Reply to  Phoenix44
July 14, 2018 4:11 am

Like global warming alarmism, Lysenkoism was another scientific scam that caused the deaths of tens of millions – in the Former Soviet Union and China.

Russian geneticists who spoke out against Lysenko’s falsehoods were imprisoned and some were executed.

Note the political similarities to the global warming scam.

Lysenkoism (lĭ-sĕngˈkō-ĭzˌəm)►
n. A biological doctrine developed by Trofim Lysenko that maintains the possibility of inheriting environmentally acquired characteristics.

Derg
July 13, 2018 4:55 am

All I know is that in the Midwest we had a terrible winter and awful spring and I really am enjoying this summer.

honest liberty
Reply to  Derg
July 13, 2018 7:19 am

likewise. it was coooooold in Colorado.
However, I’m confused about this headline because I continue to get blasted with global warming propaganda every day. Heck, almost every other post on here is about some MSM nonsense touting GW/CC… so I don’t get it?
It may not be the most mainstream of mainstream but there are plenty of wannabee’s throwing out this garbage non-stop.
I should take screen shots. Oh, and also the alien nonsense is flooding my feed on my Motorola Droid Turbo 2 through Verizon. And no, I don’t look up aliens. ever. It is not something I’m interested in. Honestly, there is some operant conditioning in effect regarding aliens and this supposed saturation ever since the “disclosure” through the NYT with that elizondo nonsense crap. I think people found out that Harry Reids buddy essentially was handed 20 million and they had to create a cover story- housing alien goods, to trick the unthinking public to think about aliens rather than the 20 million dollar good ol boy handout. Anyway, what is the goal here with all this alien propaganda? I don’t get it.

I cannot for the life of me understand why they put that in there unless it is because the PIC wrote algorithms to combat the investigation into the false narrative, i.e., I frequent WUWT 85% of my web search on my phone so the googles or whoever automatically trended opposing viewpoints to combat my curiosity and keep up the mind control.

could be far fetched, I have no idea. but they are in there, 2-3 per day, and usually those same articles get blasted to pieces on here so I just wait a day or two to read the rebuttals here.

Reply to  honest liberty
July 13, 2018 8:27 am

The moonbeams from California are moving to Colorado because the green policies worked so well there. /sarc…..
Somebody has to pay for all those windmills out there on the eastern plains. Notably, the guy with California licence plates with his head hanging out the window, holding up traffic driving at 40 mph… looking at the windmills. Aren’t they wonderful? Did I vote for that? No.
I wonder, who’s going to take down and pay for all that trash?

Sommer
Reply to  rishrac
July 13, 2018 10:01 am

“I wonder, who’s going to take down and pay for all that trash?”
Just a few minutes ago I was reading about the mob moving in on green energy:
https://www.occrp.org/en/projects?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=43

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Sommer
July 13, 2018 10:49 am

Yep, another area becoming dominated by the one really strong union, Il Unionne Siciliano. 😉

Pop Piasa
Reply to  honest liberty
July 14, 2018 9:43 pm

I say it this way: “Verizon Wireless – We’re lies ‘n’ virus”
(Can you hear me now?)

wws
July 13, 2018 4:55 am

I believe that most everyone has now accepted that this issue is primarily a political fight now, not a scientific one. No one except a few die-hards are even trying to argue the issue anymore, and for those who are focused on the political fighting, Brexit, the DOJ, and the FBI are providing far more fertile grounds for battle these days. “Climate Change” has fallen into the bin of “ideas we thought would work for us but which really didn’t” , and as such it’s no longer useful.

“Climate Change” is the Stormy Daniels of the science world.

Tom S.
Reply to  wws
July 13, 2018 5:40 am

In other words, use to be hot, but now not so much?

Greg61
Reply to  Tom S.
July 13, 2018 7:26 am

And needed a lot of ‘adjusting’ even back in the day to be considered hot

Sylvia
Reply to  Tom S.
July 13, 2018 10:20 pm

Not according to the Guardian. We are experiencing the hottest La Nina ever!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/13/heatwave-sees-record-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sylvia
July 14, 2018 2:29 pm

Here’s how it has influenced the global temps so far per the good Dr Spencer at UAH.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are many days following each solstice that set both heat and cold records, depending on which hemisphere you choose to observe and note. Weather events are not guaranteed indicators of the prevailing climate paradigm ( for anyone who might actually swallow the Grauniad gruel).

Sylvia
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 14, 2018 6:40 pm

Never eat the Grauniad gruel!! It will only make you very sick. I had to laugh at an article published yesterday by Michiko Kakutani about how postmodernism and post-truth was turning the world into an Orwellian nightmare. I agree with her central premise, however she then used as an example ‘climate deniers’ undermining science. The very use of that dismissive term by somebody who is arguing for more ‘facts’ and rationality, made me gnash my teeth. Who ‘denies’ climate? Yet the author clearly believes she is the paragon of impartial truth seeking!

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/the-death-of-truth-how-we-gave-up-on-facts-and-ended-up-with-trump

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sylvia
July 14, 2018 9:57 pm

From what she wrote I would assume she is a progressive who is busy projecting the traits of her comrades onto the current administration (as if no one noticed these same tactics being used by the previous administration to promote a global socialist agenda through climate change panic). I believe the old “glass house” adage applies here.
I personally find the progressives and their tactics significantly more resonant of Orwell’s futurist fiction.

Sylvia
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 15, 2018 5:01 am

It starts to play tricks with your mind when both ‘sides’ are accusing the other of being Orwellian. I figure that conservatives and old school scientists (ie. actual scientists) are too, well, conservative to want to drift too far away from the idea of logic, objective facts and truth. Relativistic mayhem, moral or otherwise is too frightening a prospect for your average conservative! I don”t think the left has a leg to stand on because the very nature of ‘progressivism’ is constantly challenging the status quo, and the way to do that is to undermine the concept of immutable realities or truths. Of course right wing people lie and fabricate too; but postmodernism came from the left. Queer theory, transgenderism and AGW did not arise on the right. Social construction and ‘post normal science’ came from the left. She didn’t do her research very well…a very post-truth article indeed.

Nik
Reply to  wws
July 13, 2018 6:12 am

It always was, still is, and always will be a political fight. There is simply too much power & money at stake, and the public and (especially) politicians are too severely science-challenged to be immune to any/all mountebanks.

R. Shearer
Reply to  wws
July 13, 2018 6:54 am

With the boobies lopsided to the left.

Sylvia
Reply to  wws
July 13, 2018 10:17 pm

“I believe that most everyone has now accepted that this issue is primarily a political fight now, not a scientific one”

I don’t believe that is so; most people I know ‘believe’ in CAGW and think the science is there to back it up. Most people, despite believing in it, nevertheless don’t change their behaviour. It’s for da Guvment to do, ain’t it? Brian Cox, who is a very popular UK scientist (in Australia and the UK at least) was on a panel show (Q & A) on our national broadcaster, and he mocked a climate skeptic, to great cheering from the audience. I was pretty shocked that somebody who promotes and defends science, who really seems like a decent person with a good mind, could be so ignorant. I do hope one day he will actually take the time to look into the science, and have the decency and the backbone to recant his position and apologise. He has enormous popular support, so if he ever changed his mind and explained why he had changed his mind, he could go a long way towards changing public perceptions.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Sylvia
July 14, 2018 11:18 am

I don’t know where you live, but most of the people around me don’t believe that CAGW is anything but a tool of the left for destroying our freedoms. It’s not even the reason we voted for Trump, but we cheer him on in dismantling the EPA and directing NASA back to its charter mission. We are all naturally skeptical of anything the U.S. government has a hand in. We also don’t accept the idea that every paper and article that claims to have a scientific bases really has a scientific basis. A vast number of climate papers published have no reproducible experiment involved.

The level of incivility in behavior in the leftists in the U.S. knows no bounds. Soon the worst of them will be blowing up buildings again. No visitor with scientific or political views opposing those on most university campuses feels all that safe being there. I’m glad things are so civil where you live. It probably won’t last.

Sylvia
Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 14, 2018 7:10 pm

I’m in Australia; I think we’re a pretty apathetic lot. Certainly all my circle ‘believe’ in AGW, even CAGW, but they don’t seem too concerned about it, going by their consumption patterns! A few have put solar panels on their roofs, so I guess they feel they have done their bit. Our national broadcaster is heavily left-biased, so they only present one view. The trouble is the issue is so embedded in left/right politics; I am trying to get people to drop the partisanship and look at the data (and the evidence of politicisation of the science) with a clear head.

I was wondering why there hasn’t been more TV exposure about the fraud, or is that simply the leftist domination of the MSM? Most of the information, which is excellent, seems to be relegated to the internet, so if people are not actively researching the subject, of course people are unaware that they are being misinformed. Is it naïve to ask why Trump doesn’t call a press conference and openly disavow CAGW; with a short presentation by a scientist outlining a few key facts, the problems with the theory, and quotes from Climategate etc. This might end the scam and clear up the conflation in people’s minds of increasing CO2 emissions, warming and climate change? Or would that crash the world economy?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sylvia
July 15, 2018 6:09 am

“I was wondering why there hasn’t been more TV exposure about the fraud, or is that simply the leftist domination of the MSM?”

Yes, that’s the reason.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Sylvia
July 15, 2018 9:30 am

@Sylvia – The only network that would carry an unbiased live feed would be Fox News. The MSM is anywhere from far Left to rabidly Left and lies daily about everything Trump does. The Left hates Trump passionately, and hates the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Both stand between then and the destruction of the American way of life.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere. The real determinant of climate is the oceans, which contain 99+ percent of the energy needed to drive climate. Water Vapor, which comes from the oceans, is the biggest atmospheric nfluence on weather and climate.

Most of my friends, young and old, also feel that a civil war is inevitable in the United States. The Left is unable to accept this and continues in its delusion.

Sylvia
Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 15, 2018 6:16 pm

Ernest, I really hope it doesn’t come to a civil war. Have you heard of the #walk away movement? There may be more people leaving the left than you think. I think more and more people are waking up to the fact that whatever the left touches, it destroys.

Alain
July 13, 2018 5:10 am

Except in France, where the Constitution’s first article will now say that “Republique act (…) against the climatic changes “. Yes, changeS, because, apparently there are may of them. So we’ll have to fight also againt the natural change…

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Alain
July 13, 2018 6:59 am

Bonne chance. You will not only have to fight the climates, but the tides, and the very Sun itself. (The celestial orb NOT Louis XIV) Très galant, très stupide.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
July 13, 2018 7:11 am

Of course, the French Government as so many times before, can bring out the drapeau blanc. “Le Climat, we surrender!”

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
July 13, 2018 8:57 pm

And in Canada Trudeau has turned us into a la la land with his proposed carbon taxes which he will enforce by the Supreme Court if he has to.

July 13, 2018 5:38 am

An important number to consider is that over the almost 40 years of the satellite record that atmospheric CO2 has increased by around 72 ppm. So from a starting point of 1850 where CO2 was around 280 ppm we have an overall change of 130 ppm of CO2 since 1850 to the current numbers of 410 ppm. Over half of the increase has occurred in the last 40 years yet we see only an 0.54 C temp increase globally using UAH, or with RSS 0.6 C. At least half of that temp increase is natural as most agree, and likely the natural portion is even greater than 50%.

So the best that can be said about the warming effect of increased levels of CO is that the additional 72 ppm over the last 40 years has only caused approximately an 0.3 C temp increase in global temps at the most. No wonder why the media feels the need to talk about some momentary hot spot or large weather event as being of some significance.

Latitude
Reply to  goldminor
July 13, 2018 8:04 am

So from a starting point of 1850………….

comment image

Honest liberty
Reply to  Latitude
July 13, 2018 8:10 am

How do you make those graphs and upload into this comment format?

JBNL1972
Reply to  Latitude
July 13, 2018 9:23 am

I’m saving that image for future reference!

Gary Ashe
Reply to  goldminor
July 13, 2018 4:02 pm

Its all been ”natural”, prove me wrong.

Reply to  Gary Ashe
July 16, 2018 12:58 pm

I feel pretty much the same. My upper comment is a very conservative position. I would otherwise be more inclined to state that 90% or more is natural warming.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  goldminor
July 13, 2018 9:00 pm

The whole global warming hoax has been a farce on so many levels.

Earl Rodd
July 13, 2018 5:40 am

While not in the news as much, the idea that CO2 is a toxic pollutant which must be minimized embedded in popular thinking to the extent that it is just assumed in countless ways and places. Hopefully, this too will change as the alarmist views get less attention for the reasons the posts cites.

Reply to  Earl Rodd
July 13, 2018 8:48 am

And often “CO2” is omitted and the word “carbon” is substituted in “news” articles – that is insane, because one who actually uses his mind knows that CO2 is not carbon. Doublethink is an effective weapon for alarmists.

The Royal Society of Chemistry describes carbon here: http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/6/carbon

However the 10th paragraph in the RSC description includes some juicy propaganda on CO2, of course with no evidence cited to back up the claim. Why was I not surprised to find this conjecture on a scientific website?

Jake J
Reply to  Cascadian
July 13, 2018 11:30 am

I didn’t study chemistry, so this is an honest question: How can CO2 not be carbon when it has a carbon atom?

Ari Okkonen
Reply to  Jake J
July 13, 2018 12:22 pm

CO2 is not carbon in the same way than water is not hydrogen, even if its molecule has two hydrogen atoms.

Marty
Reply to  Jake J
July 13, 2018 12:47 pm

Jake, that is kind of like asking how can water not be oxygen when it contains an oxygen atom. You can breath oxygen but you can drown in water. The chemical elements can be combined together into practically an infinite number of combinations. The molecules formed from the elements have different properties than the elements. Although carbon dioxide contains carbon it is as different from carbon as water is different from oxygen. That’s from a guy who slept through two years of college chemistry.

jim leek
Reply to  Marty
July 13, 2018 7:18 pm

CO2 is the ash of carbon. It got burned; a different material with different behavior. Similar to striking a burned match. It’s not the same as before.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Marty
July 13, 2018 9:03 pm

I will never be able to wrap my head around the way that different elements combine to make completely different substances. The wonder of nature.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 14, 2018 5:06 am

My favorite combination is salt. Either component by it self will hurt life but combined it gives life.

Reply to  Matthew Bergin
July 14, 2018 8:02 am

Hey, let us talk chemistry :). Chemically, water is also a salt. The acid is the hydrogen ion, or a proton. The base is the hydroxide ion OH-. Acid + base -> salt. Now keep in mind, chemically speaking, that there are several kinds of acids and bases.

Sylvia
Reply to  Cascadian
July 14, 2018 7:26 pm

The problem is three different concepts are muddled up in the layperson’s mind. Increasing CO2 emissions, global warming, and climate change. They don’t understand that those three things are not necessarily linked to each other, yet they are used interchangeably as evidence of the CAGW theory.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sylvia
July 15, 2018 6:11 am

Jumbling up the language is one of the tricks of the Alarmist trade.

Cephus0
Reply to  Earl Rodd
July 13, 2018 1:52 pm

The trouble with that is that teaching of this climate pseudoscience is now a fully embedded and integral part of school and University science teaching. Every bit as much as Newton’s laws of motion. Given that all education in the West has been completely overtaken by bulging-eyed left wing extremists -who are currently engaged in destroying the notion of gender amongst other things – it isn’t at all clear how they are to be stopped.

Snowleopard
Reply to  Cephus0
July 14, 2018 2:32 pm

They to not teach science, which is a set of logical rules used to discern truth. They teach a religious orthodoxy they call science which is to be worshiped and defended, not investigated for future discovery

MarkG
Reply to  Cephus0
July 14, 2018 10:39 pm

It’s trivial to stop. Just defund them all.

Prussian schools and universities are an insane anachronism in the 21st century. And with so many parents refusing to send their kids to them, support is going to collapse over the next few years in any case.

commieBob
July 13, 2018 5:47 am

There is an ongoing Gallup poll that asks Americans what they think is the nation’s most important problem. There is no mention of climate change. Environment/pollution comes in at 2%.

If you don’t prime people by asking them specifically about climate change, it’s simply not on their radar.

As for media coverage, I have no idea. We can try to gauge folks’ interest in climate change based on google searches. When we go to trends.google.com and search climate change since 2004 we see that interest has been going up over time. link To my mind that means the drumbeat of propaganda hasn’t abated. Bear in mind, however, although some people seem more curious about climate change, the vast majority of people don’t think it’s an important problem.

tty
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2018 6:22 am

It is interesting to compare with “global warming”. It has essentially gone off the chart:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=global%20warming

markopanama
Reply to  tty
July 13, 2018 7:15 am

These charts are quite interesting. Three things pop out:
1) Look by metro areas – places you would expect to be hotbeds are not. SF, Bend Oregon, LA, etc. are all below 50% of maximum interest. Today all seem to show about 5% of peak interest in 2007.
2) The interest levels (also check out related searches) seem to follow a yearly pattern, rising and falling from around 5 to 25% (of maximum interest). Even greater swings with other search terms.
3) Look at the chart by areas of the world – Of big countries, the US (22), Australia (22), India (32) and the UK (16) jump out. Canada (19) is less. In Europe, all are in the single digits, with uber-concious Norway coming in at (8), Sweden (4) and Germany (2).

For calibration, the highest interest is in the Philippines (44).

Marty
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2018 12:57 pm

Perhaps what it means is that more people are starting to become skeptical of climate change and they are starting to look it up on google searches to check it for themselves. Typically you don’t do a google search when you already know the answer. Typically you do a google search when you don’t know the answer or when you are doubtful about something.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Marty
July 13, 2018 5:45 pm

The Climate Alarmists have been crying Wolf for a long time.

None of these alarming predictions ever come to pass, so people stop paying attention.

James Francisco
July 13, 2018 5:57 am

I’m setting new all time records everyday for my age. I’m getting worried.

MarkW
Reply to  James Francisco
July 13, 2018 8:55 am

If you find a way to reverse the trend, please let me know.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2018 10:12 pm

For most of my life I was above my average height.
Now I am below that.
Girth does seem to want to expand to compensate.
This is almost as complicated at the atmosphere.

Peta of Newark
July 13, 2018 6:02 am

“Climate News Has Faded”
??
simples
=
nice weather recently

Inspires hope eh not – alarmists are maybe not COMPLETELY paranoid & seemingly stoopid.

Lets further hope, while they are out-and-about, they notice the differences between huge fields of verdant maize/potatoes/carrot/spring barley (dark green annual plants put there by humans) and the perennial grasses that give the impression of having totally died (a delicate shade of beige) and contemplate the implications that that simple observation might have on ‘Climate’

Walt D.
July 13, 2018 6:12 am

Washington Post (eddie called it “the ‘other’ Pravda”), – Вранье would be better? (Pravda means truth!)

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Walt D.
July 13, 2018 7:06 am

An old Russian proverb, “There’s no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.” Or is it the other way ’round?

Jtom
Reply to  Walt D.
July 13, 2018 2:12 pm

It’s not what the actual word means in the language, but what it really represents. For example, one Socialist party in the US are called Democrats.

Mike Macray
Reply to  Walt D.
July 14, 2018 4:02 pm

Waly D.
“(Pravda means truth!)”
And Izvetia means news… and as the Russians used to say..” There’s no truth in Izvestia and no news in Pravda!”

July 13, 2018 6:13 am

I posted some thoughts on the decline in CA maximum temperatures here: https://sierrafoothillcommentary.com/2018/07/11/if-planet-is-warming-why-are-ca-max-temperatures-declining/

Roger Knights
Reply to  Russ
July 13, 2018 3:28 pm

Hooray, the boldfacing is now full-size!

Walt D.
July 13, 2018 6:18 am

If you follow climate or weather information even a little, you will already know that on any given day, somewhere in the world, some weather station, or more likely multiple stations, is recording an “all time high” temperature for the particular day in question,
Behind an ice cream van with the engine running?

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Walt D.
July 13, 2018 8:10 am

If you follow baseball, the unique statistic statement is pretty common, and not so surprising – like how many times a lefty pitcher allows a lefty batter to have a triple when a guy was already on second, that ends a game. At the top of the 9th.

Wow – who da thunk that had never happened before?

Steven Fraser
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 13, 2018 8:27 am

That would not end the game.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Steven Fraser
July 13, 2018 11:06 am

Okay, try this one: In the next to the last game of the little league season last year, the Elks are playing the Cops at Pioneer Park. Elks up 6-4, Cops batting in the bottom of the sixth (little league games are six innings), two on, two out. The Cops’ left fielder hits one to deep center. The Elks center fielder (my grandson, incidentally) climbs the fence and takes a home run away from his best friend in school to win the game for the Elks.

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Steven Fraser
July 13, 2018 11:46 am

Bingo! I think he meant to say, “bottom of the ninth.”

I remember hearing that two grand slams by the same batter in a game is rarer than a perfect game.

Stats are fun.

Martin457
July 13, 2018 6:20 am

The way I see things, average weather is an anomaly. It just doesn’t happen very often so any current departure from the average is automatically attributed to CAGW.

Sheri
July 13, 2018 6:32 am

I would disagree that “average” tells us anything. Temperatures have too much variability and range for the average to mean anything.

Derg
Reply to  Sheri
July 13, 2018 7:29 am

I agree, but the IPCC sure seems to know how to predict them 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sheri
July 13, 2018 7:35 am

Furthermore, there could be an increase in both high and low temperatures and not have a change in the arithmetic mean. To better understand what is happening, the variance needs to be reported along with that one ‘magic’ number, the average. Unfortunately, the confidence interval is rarely reported along with the ‘new record high’ or “new record average,’ despite claims of 0.01 or even 0.001 (NASA) degrees C precision. It is a shell game where one can never be sure where the pea is being hidden.

StefanL
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2018 4:55 pm

If the data values do not follow a normal distribution then the variance may not be the best measure of dispersion; a better measure might be the Median Absolute Deviation.

Jtom
Reply to  Sheri
July 13, 2018 2:25 pm

My go-to statistic when talking about the real-world value of some averages: the average person in the US has 1.997 legs.

Snowleopard
Reply to  Sheri
July 14, 2018 2:42 pm

You are correct. It is quite possible (but currently unusual) to have a “normal” average temperature but be unable to grow crops due to temperature volatility.

ResourceGuy
July 13, 2018 6:37 am

It does make you wonder what the debate world would look like if the satellite had been launched in say 2002 instead of the late 70s.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 13, 2018 8:33 am

Or conversely, if the observations from all sources were put together without homogenizing them. For example, the first 2 IPCC reports showed arctic sea ice extent using 10% concentration as the threshold, and (as is well-known) not many years before 1979 the avg extent anomaly was almost 2 million sq km lower than 1979 was.

Also, it might be nice if these reports would stop saying that the ‘satellite era’ began with 1979. Satellite imagery was gridded and used in the early ’70s to create those early reports.

marque2
July 13, 2018 6:55 am

The reporting is scarce, at least in the USA, due to Trump derangement syndrome. The press is so busy being hysterical about Trump, it drowns out everything else.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  marque2
July 13, 2018 12:33 pm

The media has Trump Derangement Syndrome in the UK. Most of the media seems to have become hysterical since the Donald arrived on our shores.

Cephus0
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
July 13, 2018 2:06 pm

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world. Like a Colossus, and we petty men. Walk under his huge legs and peep about. To find ourselves dishonorable graves.

MarkW
July 13, 2018 6:56 am

This past winter/spring, when record lows were being set right and left, the warmistas assured us that records were just weather and had nothing to do with climate.

Coach Springer
July 13, 2018 6:56 am

This isn’t all good. I see politicians interfering in energy production as if it is settled science. Despite what the Trump administration is doing, alleged CO2 reduction is treated as if it is the top decision making priority. The wind farms are still being built, although there are a few municipalities trying to fight them with ordinances. But they do take grants and subsidies then distribute part of it back to the municipality/township/ county that would be against it.

As long as policy makers can treat it like settled science, no news is good news.

Edwin
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 13, 2018 8:42 am

Coach, I agree I do not take the decrease in headlines and news about global warming as a good thing. Leftist policy makers and technocrats are still working on eliminating fossil fuels from the West’s energy portfolio. In other words they are quietly working behind the scenes doing their worse.

Ralph Knapp
July 13, 2018 7:13 am

Is it just me? Am I missing something? .65C was considered by some to be a global warming warning?? OMG! I guess I’d better double up my a/c output.

Mike Bromley
July 13, 2018 7:19 am

Yes, but David Suzuki calls UAH “some denier from Huntsville”.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Mike Bromley
July 14, 2018 6:13 am

I call David Suzuki that A**ole from Canada. 🙂

John Harmsworth
July 13, 2018 7:25 am

This guy ran the climate change site for the EPA. How is a preacher supposed to make a living without scaring the flock with B.S.?

Greg Woods
July 13, 2018 7:29 am

Lessons I have learned in this long life:

Three things are inevitable: Taxes, Death, and Climate Change…

Tom Halla
July 13, 2018 7:52 am

And everyone should remember the satellite record starts at the low point of a cooling trend (the “ice age is coming!” era). In the US, which has most of the long-term land records, the 1930’s were warmer than the late 1990’s.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2018 8:38 am

Tom,

It depends on what you include in the ‘satellite record’. Satellites were flying and taking pix of polar ice for gridding and extent analysis/reporting from 1973, as described and charted in the first 2 IPCC reports. Interestingly, those reports used a 10% sea ice concentration as the threshold for inclusion.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Steven Fraser
July 13, 2018 9:09 am

Steven, I was going off UAH. There are earlier satellite records, but not really organized until 1979.

TheLastDemocrat
July 13, 2018 8:16 am

This was all a scam, and they just needed a gullible public to go ahead and support a couple things:
commitment to steady government funding, such as governments committing to putting all pensions in green investments, and most nations committing to having very large green programs, including commitment to carbon emission goals via a Kyoto type cap-n-trade deal.

Then, it would have been baked-in. They were steady on the way, but the apple cart got upset. First, by legitimate counter voices – WUWT as a prominent one. Next, by Trump election – this broke up the hegemony across nations. Before Trump, no one really cared that China’s commitment was fake – because it was about baking in the gravy train, not reducing carbon emissions. China would have played along with a carbon market, and everyone would have been happy.

whiten
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 13, 2018 10:30 am

please do not jump the gun, LastDdmocrat.
Just for fun…

DJT the USA Presidend,, (as it happens to be in reality) then the condition “leads” to – “LastDemocrat”.
Otherwise, if Hillary would have won, the condition may have being that of leading to the – “LastAmerican”… 🙂 (towards)

cheers

July 13, 2018 8:48 am

For the Party faithful, they don’t let facts get in the way of belief. ” a few eggs must be broken to make an omelet, wink, wink” The agenda isn’t to ” save the world from climate change”, it’s to establish a communist people’s dictatorship. As if any place that has had a communist/socialist government things got better. “Red Hot Planet ” Indeed ! All Red .

EastTexasRed
July 13, 2018 9:02 am

The Guardian goes on about climate change incessantly. An otherwise excellent newspaper, which has been in the vanguard of exposing corruption, misgovernance, institutional racism, governmental and corporate chauvinism and violence, has to keep banging on about climate change ad nauseum. Fortunately, for a short period, with the Dotard-in-Chief’s official visit, we might be spared some of the drivel.

David Murray
Reply to  EastTexasRed
July 13, 2018 9:37 am

An otherwise excellent newspaper?? It’s a disgraceful rag read only by Left liberals for its consistent anti Semitism , pathetic defence of Islam and tedious virtue signalling. I long for its demise.

EastTexasRed
Reply to  David Murray
July 14, 2018 2:13 am

It’s anti-Semitism? That is completely unfounded and shows the level of miserable bigotism displayed by most of the right-wing chauvinists on this site, with whom I unfortunately agree on the issue of AGW

Gary Ashe
Reply to  EastTexasRed
July 13, 2018 4:29 pm

It has a readership of 600,000, worldwide.
Real class if you are a hammer and sickle, which ye evidently are, strange to find a lefty denier, you are the first one i have come across, the guardian climate page is the print arm of skeptical science.

EastTexasRed
Reply to  Gary Ashe
July 14, 2018 2:15 am

So what if it has a readership of 600,000? Is that how you judge quality, by quantity? And don’t ever call me a communist again. I’m an anarchist.

Joel Snider
July 13, 2018 9:52 am

Well, at least part of it is the hysterical ‘hate Trump’ messaging. They can’t really concentrate on anything else until they get him.

whiten
July 13, 2018 9:56 am

Australia’s BOM… any body!?
Do these guys there still arbitrary, for not saying fraudulently still do limit the temp low ranges there???
Anybody at all…..Nick perhaps!!!

cheers

Pop Piasa
July 13, 2018 10:09 am

Where is the line between journalism and propagandist activism?
I was taught that good reporter sticks to who, what, where and when and leaves why up to the reader. that’s the difference between good reporting and just ‘spinning stories’.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 13, 2018 10:54 am

I was taught the same thing – that’s why modern ‘spin-and-suppress’ media is so frickin’ obvious.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 13, 2018 11:27 am

Yes, I forgot to include the ‘suppress’ part, thanks. These days it’s what the media chooses NOT to include in reporting that forms most public opinion. Journalism was never meant to form public opinion, just to inform public awareness.

If only they still taught critical thought in colleges…

Joel Snider
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 13, 2018 12:08 pm

I’ve always said people show the most by what they try to hide – it’s like a shadow puppet on the wall.

knr
July 13, 2018 10:44 am

You can answer this question by reflected in over the last two years there have been a number of elections across the world including France , USA , UK and Germany and within all those elections AGW was a ‘none-issue’. Given that the first rule of politics is get elected and the second stay elected this is only possible because the voters simply do not give it much interest.
It was never goign to end with a bang , but with a very long drawn out whimper , if for no other reason than there is far to many professional careers built on it .

July 13, 2018 10:49 am

I don’t know where you get your news…. I only use a car once or – at most – twice a week, and that’s for less than 20 minutes each time. I have the radio set to my local NPR station and I’ve never – once, ever – had a drive that didn’t include a climate change story. Even when it was their bi-quarterly begging for money week. Just this week I heard the claim that “heat kills more people than any other climate event”. Then they go on to tell stories about people dying of heat stroke whilst hiking around Phoenix during summer. I seriously think this whole “climate change” thing is NPR’s “more cowbell” moment.

July 13, 2018 10:49 am

Anthropogenic Climate change isn’t dead.

It just smells that way.

StefanL
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 14, 2018 5:48 pm

The parrot of Anthropogenic Global Warming isn’t dead, it’s just resting.
(apologies to Monty Python -:)

Margaret Smith
July 13, 2018 11:05 am

“zazove
Ever been outside the US?”

I live in the UK and what happens in the US affects everything so keep it up over there…please.

Peter Plail
July 13, 2018 12:34 pm

The water melons have found another “just cause” now. One that is more visible and therefore easier to demonstrate to the public. It is plastic waste and especially plastics in the ocean. The new polar bears are turtles, tangled in plastic detritus and starving. The evidence is plain for all to see, on the beaches, in the rivers, and increasingly on tv, as it gives presenters the opportunity to take trips to exotic parts of the world to show us all how bad we are for discarding single use plastic products.
There are plenty of opportunities for funded research, involving boat trips and walks along the shoreline (oh, an academic’s life can be so hard!).
There is also the opportunity to lambaste big business for creating all these demon products that do pointless things like improving hygiene and reducing food waste, and demand action now. Suddenly the products that we have been wrapping our food in and drinking our drinks from has become toxic waste, just like CO2 became a pollutant.
I am afraid I think the only thing that pollutes this planet are virtue signalers and environmental activists.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Peter Plail
July 13, 2018 9:23 pm

There are 5 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean. We all have plastic in our stomachs. THIS IS A REAL ISSUE UNLIKE THE CO2 scam.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 14, 2018 6:24 am

And the overall majority of that plastic is doing absolutely nothing as it is inert. Goes in one end and out the other. Exposing the plastic to the ultraviolet rays from the sun is the best way to recycle these elements. Show me a picture of a giant floating island of plastic in the Pacific Ocean. Haven’t seen one yet but everyone tells me it is there. So why no pics?

Michael Carter
July 13, 2018 1:00 pm

I suggest a survey asking a cross-section of city dwellers to point to the direction of north (without their smart phone). Why the heck would they care about climate change?

Regards

M

Rick Anderson
July 13, 2018 1:31 pm

I wish someone could explain what contributes to the differences between the 1979-present satellite-based time series and the NOAA Global Land and Ocean time series that appears at noaa.gov. They measure global anomalies based on the 20th century average. But the average is just a constant. Should not the features of the two graphs be similar? They sure do not look similar.

Frank
July 13, 2018 3:42 pm

Andy wrote: “As you can see, the failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you. They are reduced to cherry-picking some unrepresentative data points and leaving out all of the relevant context. It’s no wonder the reporting on this is becoming increasingly scarce. For you, the moral of the story is, if you want some real information as to whether the world is warming or cooling, and by how much, skip the propaganda at the various Pravdas, and go for the UAH lower troposphere satellite record. ”

Andy: Respectfully, the full UAH record shows warming of 0.13 +/- 0.04 degC/decade. Is that inconsistent with alarmist projections? Over the same period, most global surface records show roughly 0.17 +/- 0.02 degC/decade. (El Ninos produce less variation in the surface records.) And most land records show 0.2-0.3 degC/decade.) Are they also inconsistent?

In truth, you have cherry-picked the record that shows the least warming. (I’m not saying it isn’t the best record, but it is a record that requires significant reprocessing to deal with satellite drift. UAH has chosen to make their adjustments agree with radiosonde data, which has been reprocessed by numerous groups to get different answers.)

The crucial question is: What warming trend did the alarmists predict or hindcast for this forcing change? It would be appropriate to cite some value.

One thing we can be sure of is that the warming trend has not be zero. The observed trends are inconsistent with the hypothesis that an enhanced GHE from rising GHGs doesn’t exist.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Frank
July 13, 2018 9:36 pm

Since the UAH data started in 1979, which happened to be at the bottom end of a long slight cooling period, it is the best accidental start date for the alarmists. Since all the other dats sets have been tampered with so much, UAH is about the only one that everyone trusts even though it isnt perfect for the reasons you mention. However I dont see how AGW can be a problem for anyone. If anyone ends up damaged by AGW then I would put that into CAGW category. In other words only CAGW should be legislated or taxed against; not AGW. Living in Canada I wouldnt mind a couple of degrees warmer even in the summer. So the present warming trend is certainly in the AGW realm. Unless/until it starts to accelerate, I contend that the whole thing is a scam. Everyone would be scared of CAGW but there is no evidence of it. Yes 1.3C per century is inconsistent with CAGW.

Frank
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 14, 2018 2:55 am

Alan: You are correct about the long cooling period. If you started in 1949, the record would be 30 years longer and the global trend would 0.12 degC/decade. From 1959-1979, the increase in CO2 averaged slightly less than 1 ppm/yr. From 1979 until today, the average increase has been almost 2 ppm/yr. So when you go back further in time, you do expect the average warming trend to diminish – and natural variability (the cooling period) to make it more difficult to see whatever GHG-mediated warming wasn’t suppressed by rising aerosols.

The total tampering in the global land record allegedly amounts to only 0.2 degC and most of that occurred before 1979, so I can’t dismiss the warming land record as mere “tampering”> And BEST asserts that UHI is not to blame. And poorly sited stations with a constant warm bias doesn’t produce an artificial warming trend; only a GROWING warm bias can bias trends. Many of the problems with the SST record were resolved before 1979. The change from ERSST3 to ERSST4 increased warming during the Pause, but only by slowing earlier warming. Overall SST warming since 1979 didn’t increase.

I’m happy to agree that AGW doesn’t imply CAGW. For Canadians, AGW is likely to be beneficial. If CO2 kept growing at 2 ppm/yr and the 40-year global trend continued until 2100, CO2 would be 570 ppm and it would be 1.4 degC warmer than today and 2.0 degC warmer than 1980. With more warming to come as heat gradual stops flowing into the deep ocean. (ARGO says about 30% of total forcing is currently flowing into the deep ocean.)

John Chism
July 13, 2018 4:15 pm

I must complain that I cannot post any graphs or link’s that have graphs, that I want to make comments on to prove a point. What’s up wattsup?

bit chilly
July 13, 2018 5:48 pm

not in the uk. the bbc are again repeating the claim extreme weather is on the increase. no point contacting them to point out they are flat out lying,you get a load of waffle in response. when it comes to denying science there is no other single msm outlet on the planet that does it as blatantly as the bbc.

Mr GrimNasty
Reply to  Sylvia
July 14, 2018 12:24 am

Nor the BBC, obligatory climate change reinforcement messages infect all their output, especially news, weather, gardening, natural world, farming. Relentless and not watchable much of the time. Countryfile (evolved from a farming community program remember) is now often a succession of ‘anti-farming’, ‘anti-chem’, ‘anti-meat’, ‘bemoaning lack of diversity in farming/using the countryside’ and ‘climate change’ articles.

J.H.
July 14, 2018 12:52 am

It may have faded from the News…. But it hasn’t faded from the permanent Bureaucracy, their taxes, levies and regulations.

jimB
July 14, 2018 8:04 am

And…are we not in an interglacial period? During which the earth warms and warms and…until it doesn’t, then back into another ice age. Right?

Pop Piasa
July 14, 2018 2:41 pm

Anthony, a song to relax you by Michael Franks (if you haven’t already heard it).
It sounds like he wrote it about the current situation in science.

Amber
July 14, 2018 11:12 pm

Yes climate change fear mongering has diminished . Thirteen years of chicken little will do that .
I wondered what eco porn was going to be served up next and didn’t have to wait too long to find
out . Heard a politician on the radio sounding very self righteous announcing plastics are ending up in our oceans like it’s the town dump . Well some do but I prefer to bury them in my neighbors yard .

So there you go this years eco fear rebrand is PLASTICS . Can a new tax be far off . How about a plastics trading exchange ? Stay tuned it’s coming folks .
MSM media are eye balls driven and the earth having a fever fear mongering has just run it’s course .
They did have a good run though . Too bad tens of thousands of people died prematurely from fuel poverty as a result of the overblown scam but hey as long as the clean energy crime syndicate made billions and the media flogged their stuff … well that’s the way it goes .

Expect plastic hyperventilation to take over . Maybe a Polar Bear with its head stuck in plastic sand bucket .or another round of exploding kids if they use a straw .

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Amber
July 15, 2018 6:23 am

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/

Stemming the Plastic Tide: 10 Rivers Contribute Most of the Plastic in the Oceans

“Our seas are choking on plastic. A staggering eight million metric tons wind up in oceans every year, and unraveling exactly how it gets there is critical. A recent study estimates that more than a quarter of all that waste could be pouring in from just 10 rivers, eight of them in Asia. . .

The 10 rivers that carry 93 percent of that trash are the Yangtze, Yellow, Hai, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus and Ganges Delta in Asia, and the Niger and Nile in Africa. The Yangtze alone dumps up to an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of plastic waste into the Yellow Sea.”

end excerpts

Activists should be focusing on the sources of the problem.

pseudo-intellectual
July 15, 2018 11:16 pm

An article on this subject recently appeared on the Discover Magazine blog, with the curious theory that viewers are turning to other sources than the tv networks because they’re not getting enough climate change malarkey every night

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/07/13/major-tv-networks-derelict-in-duty-to-providevital-climate-change-context-on-heat-waves/#.W0w3q9VKjIU

%d bloggers like this: