See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda

From The Fabius Maximus website

Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change, Science & Nature 18 August 2019

Summary: Our elites believe they can shape our minds through propaganda. This is most obvious in the barrage of exaggerations and misrepresentations of climate science, designed to panic us into approving the Green New Deal. Here is an example of how this happens, the news equivalent of turning gold into straw.

Earth melting - Dreamstime-33491903
ID 33491903 © Rolffimages | Dreamstime.

Large-scale propaganda works, unless fought. It can mold the opinions of a people – irrespective of its truth. The 20th Century provided enough evidence to put that up with F=MA on the list of proven theories. The current climate alarmist propaganda barrage is on a scale seldom seen in US history. Since there is no longer effective opposition, they can make even the wildest claims. Their preferred method is to take climate science papers, exaggerate their claims (in either scope or certainty). Then journalists use these to manufacture clickbait stories (the 21st C version of “if it bleeds, it leads”).

For example, see this from alarmist Eric Holthaus (a writer at Grist). It has 8k retweets and 16 likes, and was featured in Naked Capitalism’s daily links. Holthaus re-tweets climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf’s exaggeration of the study’s results, and further exaggerates them into fiction. The new study says none of the things Holthaus describes. Fifty years to melt Antarctica?

Unlike Holthaus, the mainstream media published stories that merely exaggerated the paper’s findings from science into revelation. “West Antarctica is melting and it’s our fault” by Alejandra Borunda at the once-great National Geographic – “The fingerprints of human-caused climate change have made it to Antarctica, a new study shows.” “New study definitively links western Antarctic ice melt to human-caused climate change” by Theresa Braine in the NY Daily News. “Human-induced global warming responsible for West Antarctic’s melting ice” by Brooks Hays at UPI.

Some publications produce clickbait headlines over more accurate stories, such as “The Reason Antarctica Is Melting: Shifting Winds, Driven by Global Warming” by Annie Sneed at Scientific America – “A new study helps solve the puzzle of why the continent’s western glaciers are melting so fast” (bold emphasis added).

How did this happen? The origin of propaganda.

The paper is a model of careful science, with careful mention of the many assumptions and uncertainties in their analysis.

West Antarctic ice loss influenced by internal climate variability and anthropogenic forcing
By Paul R. Holland, Thomas J. Bracegirdle, Pierre Dutrieux, Adrian Jenkins & Eric J. Steig – in Nature Geoscience, in press.
Gated. Open access copy here.

“Recent ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been caused by ocean melting of ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea. Eastward wind anomalies at the shelf break enhance the import of warm Circumpolar Deep Water onto the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, which creates transient melting anomalies with an approximately decadal period. No anthropogenic influence on this process has been established.

“Here, we combine observations and climate model simulations to suggest that increased greenhouse gas forcing caused shelf-break winds to transition from mean easterlies in the 1920s to the near-zero mean zonal winds of the present day. Strong internal climate variability, primarily linked to the tropical Pacific, is superimposed on this forced trend. We infer that the Amundsen Sea experienced decadal ocean variability throughout the twentieth century, with warm anomalies gradually becoming more prevalent, offering a credible explanation for the ongoing ice loss.

“Existing climate model projections show that strong future greenhouse gas forcing creates persistent mean westerly shelf-break winds by 2100, suggesting a further enhancement of warm ocean anomalies. These wind changes are weaker under a scenario in which greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized.”

The authors are to be commended for forthrightly stating in the paper their many assumptions – and the large uncertainties in their modeling. Co-author Eric Steig says this in the title of his RealScience article about this paper, and in the section at the end: “The Antarctic ice sheet is melting and, yeah, it’s probably our fault.

University press releases are often sensationalist, but not this by the University of Washington: “First evidence of human-caused climate change melting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.” In the usual contradictory style (the best we can hope for today), it boldly states the conclusions of the paper along with cautionary statements that this is a subject still under investigation.

“A new study reveals the first evidence of a direct link between human-induced global warming and melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. …’The impact of human induced climate change on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not simple,’ said lead author Paul Holland at the British Antarctic Survey. ‘This is the first evidence for a direct link between human activities and the loss of ice from West Antarctica. Our results imply that a combination of human activity and natural climate variations have caused ice loss in this region, accounting for around 4.5 centimeters [1.8 inches] of sea level rise per century.’”

About the future

The extreme scenario discussed in the paper is (quite rightly) RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Properly, they also show that the RCP4.5 scenario produces minimal impact.

“Of course, twenty-first century radiative forcing is not decided. Under RCP4.5, CMIP5 simulations project PITT wind trends that are not significantly different from zero …because ozone recovery fully compensates the weaker greenhouse gas forcing …”

In his RealClimate article, Steig describes RCP8.5 as “business as usual.” Which it is not, since RCP8.5 assumes large changes in long-standing trends of rapid (by historical standards) technological process and falling fertility. There is no evidence for the former, especially since a new industrial revolution appears to have begun – including, among other things, radical changes in energy tech (perhaps even fusion). There is no evidence that global fertility is stabilizing, nor have I seen any plausible case for that happening in the next decade or so.


I’m told by scientists I trust that this is a well-constructed but speculative paper (I agree, FWIW as an amateur). It “shows” and “given evidence” about anthropogenic causes of West Antartic melting. It does not prove anything, and other papers disagree (as Steig explains). It is science, and eventually a consensus will develop – to be reported by the IPCC and major climate agencies. But all this has become a sideshow in the public policy debate about climate change.

The belief that RCP8.5 is a “business as usual” scenario was for a decade the critical link between conventional climate science and activists’ doomsters’ screeds. Now alarmists have abandoned even that as too conservative, saying that “business as usual” means either collapse of civilization or even extinction of humanity.

Now we receive a daily propaganda barrage by climate activists combining the occasional extreme doomsterism (The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science) with a steady flow of exaggerations and misrepresentations of science. Climate scientists as a group are enablers for this propaganda, even complicit in it, by their silence. For more about this, see About the corruption of climate science. and the “noble cause” corruption of climate science.

We are a a nation lit only by propaganda. How dumb do they think we are? The obvious answer: very. The next few years will prove if they are correct. I do not know how this will play out in the next decade. My guess is “badly.” For US politics, for the US economy, and for the environment.

More examples of climate science exaggerated into propaganda

I have run dozens of these. Here are a few.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon.

For a briefing on the current knowledge about rising sea levels, see these by climate scientists Judith Curry.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about doomsters, about peak oil, about The keys to understanding climate change and especially these…

  1. Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
  2. Focusing on worst-case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
  3. The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
  4. “Climate’s Uncertainty Principle“ by Garth Paltridge.
  5. Listening to climate doomsters makes our situation worse.
  6. How fast is the world warming? Is it burning?
To help us better understand today’s weather

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., prof at U of CO – Boulder’s Center for Science and Policy Research (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change

Available at Amazon.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
August 19, 2019 2:31 pm

Mr Holthaus is simply what we used to call an ‘agent provocateur’.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 19, 2019 3:11 pm


That’s sorta true. IMO it more accurate to describe him as a political agent. In the past they called them “pamphleteers.”

Whatever the name, they have been a key part of British and American politics back to the 17th century. Jonathan Swift (Guilliver’s Travels) was one. The Founders used them to stoke the fires of the revolution, and for their intermural competition afterwards. They have played a big role in every election since that of John Adams.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Larry
August 21, 2019 1:13 pm

Larry, That’s sorta true. IMO it more accurate to describe him as a political agent. In the past they called them “pamphleteers.”

“The Founders used them to stoke the fires of the revolution, and for their intermural competition afterwards.”

From Waterloo to Peterloo:

Old England
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 19, 2019 3:51 pm

Where do they raise the effect of the 80 or more seabed volcanoes under the West Antarctic that other studies find to be the prime cause of melting ?

Reply to  Old England
August 19, 2019 4:21 pm

NPCs (Non-Playable Characters) can’t hear what you just said.

Reply to  icisil
August 19, 2019 5:43 pm


+1. That’s perfect.

I was thinking of writing about mainstream climate scientists’ refusal to even admit the many reasons RCP8.5 is not a “business as usual” scenario. You nailed it. They’re NPC’s, responding only to their programming.

Trying to have a conversation with a NPC is the very definition of futility.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 19, 2019 4:11 pm

Holthaus is a fantastic liar. I can’t tell if it’s purposeful, or if he’s simply incompetent and dishonest. A reporter quoted him as saying the few days of heavy Greenland ice melt would lower seaside property values everywhere in the world. And he tweeted that the ice sheet would never recover. It’s hard for me to fathom his phobic histrionics.

Reply to  icisil
August 19, 2019 6:28 pm


“Holthaus is a fantastic liar.”

Guys like that have been used by every political party in Britain and the US since the early 17thC. They are more common now that we have become a post-modern and post-truth society.

When we, the American people, change and value truth – these political engineers will change their methods accordingly. Until then we can not logically condemn them for using effective methods. See some ideas about how to do that here:

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Larry
August 20, 2019 2:34 am

Objection! Please change the word “engineers” to “manipulators”! Engineers generally do much good in the World, manipulators do very little good if any! Please don not fall for not use the old “oily rag” put down of the engineering profession! Thank you.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 20, 2019 12:39 pm


August 19, 2019 2:34 pm

97% of scientists say the world will end in 12 years.
5% of scientists say the world will end in less than five years.
2% say in less than three years.

Wait a minute !

That adds up to 104%

Hey, who voted twice ?

Raise your hands.

That’s not funny.

This was going to be a scientific paper.

No one talking ?

Okay, we’ll just make a few “time of day” adjustments.

I knew we should have taken the vote before the two drinks for the price of one Happy Hour at the bar.

Without “adjustments”, and three decimal places, there would be no climate science !

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 19, 2019 3:12 pm


I’m sure you’re kidding.** But just for the record, none of those statements about scientists are correct.

** But we’re in ClownWorld. Who can that for sure these days?

August 19, 2019 2:36 pm

Propaganda works, especially against weak minds, but we have the ability to counter it to some extent at least.

Reply to  Scissor
August 19, 2019 4:55 pm

Scissor, I have a question with respect to your comment, “Propaganda works, especially against weak minds, but we have the ability to counter it to some extent at least.”

How do we counter the propaganda, Scissor, when so few credible people are willing to even hint at what’s behind the nonsensical global warming/climate change scare?

I feel a blog post brewing. Maybe next week. So I’m looking for answers here from you and others willing to chime in.

And how do we frame it for those who have already been brainwashed?


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 5:48 pm


“How do we counter the propaganda,”

The key is to understand why it works. I”ve written quite a bit about it. See the posts here, with analysis and (more important) recommendations):

I suggest starting here, with an explanation (theory) of why we love propaganda:

HD Hoese
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 6:08 pm

Bob Tisdale— Have at it. I just searched the University of Texas library for the Title category “Simulation” and got 1201 hits, and those are just the ones with it as first word in the title. Journal titles are separate. I did this because today I was walking down the aisles of their Marine Science Institute library and kept seeing the word simulation in the title. I suspect that they are too easy, maybe not to do correctly. I might try Keyword when I have time.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 6:09 pm

Mr. Tisdale:

Why not at least include (if not start) with the IPCC’s own admission regarding their predictions? To my knowledge, the statement below has never been contradicted in a subsequent IPCC report.

From IPCC AR3, TAR-14 (, p. 774):

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

This statement appears to declare at least the following:
(1) We don’t know enough about the physics of earth’s climate to make any long-term predictions.
(2) The best we can do is make guesses based upon the combined results of software models that because of (1) cannot be trusted.
(3) Even if we had (1), we currently don’t have the hardware to do (2)
(4) Even if we had (1) and (2), we can’t diag the models properly.

You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the above. The first sentence really says it all.

Reply to  sycomputing
August 21, 2019 8:59 am

“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

That should have been the end of the statement right there. Instead they segue into using many climate models to make simulations that essentially are useless. But they will use them to make up statistics about what might happen in an imaginary universe and apply it to ours.

You really can’t make propaganda any better than that.

John in Oz
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 8:24 pm

The primary problem I have encountered when talking about this is that most people do not want to spend any time or effort to understand even the most basic aspects of the ‘science’ of CAGW. They only see and hear the doomsters so believe, for example, the 97% untruth, especially when the likes of Mr Obama trot it out.

Even the starting point of how temperatures are measured (many thanks to Anthony for his efforts in this regard) are of little interest when there is another Facepalmbook post to look at. People spend more time investigating the pros and cons of their next personal big purchase than the many billions being spent on their behalf.

Isn’t this how propaganda works. Tell a lie big enough and often enough and it will be accepted as the truth.

Perhaps, for most people, the problem is too large for them to affect it, so they prefer to leave it to the ‘experts’.

Reply to  John in Oz
August 20, 2019 2:17 am

same problem I have
they state something so ridiculous I laugh and ask whats the data from what theyre saying? have they read the actual report not the media spin?
so far NOT ONE has ever read a report OR thought to question the lamestream media reportage.
you could print n hand it to them and they wont read it.
so I then ask if you yourself havent done jackschitt reading why/how do you accept what youre told when its something “so important” to you
blank look walks away

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 20, 2019 9:04 am

People that are hearing and responding only at the level of emotion are unaffected and unreachable with facts and logic…it was and is never about that for them.
Those people have to be reached via emotional arguments.
To them, say this:
“Alarmism is killing people, scaring children into suicide and drug addiction and hopelessness, and the people doing it are not worried about climate, they want power over you and your life.
They want to take your freedoms, your car, your vacation/travel, your money by making everything expensive.
Your children will live in a dystopia, an impoverished throwback to medieval conditions, people fighting for food, struggling to survive another day, no medicine, no comforts, no clean water…IOW , a world in which people have dirty, brutal, and short lives.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 20, 2019 10:01 am

I think you just described 97% of the conversations I’ve had with people about climate.

Reply to  John in Oz
August 21, 2019 7:47 pm

The primary problem I have encountered when talking about this is that most people do not want to spend any time or effort to understand even the most basic aspects of the ‘science’ of CAGW.

And for these, there’s a workable alternative solution:

Jim Veenbaas
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 8:37 pm

What about taking a page from Boghossian and Lindsay and writing a bunch of garbage, ridiculous papers and submitting them for peer review and publication. B & L focussed on identity politics with their bogus papers, but something like 12 of 20 were accepted. The papers were so ridiculous that any rational reviewer would have rejected them. When they went public with the results, it exposed the science for the garbage it was and revealed the utter lack of rigour and the overwhelming bias of the reviewers. Climate science should be a fertile ground for similar tactics.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
August 20, 2019 2:39 am

It exposed the science for the garbage it was …to you. Also to me. Also to anyone interested. To the remaining 99.9 recurring% of humanity it never even blipped a corner of their radar screen and doing the same thing to climate science will have precisely the same effect.

As also, unfortunately, will using the IPCC’s “… we should recognise that we are dealing with …” as a ‘mantra’ because climate change activism is not about science and never was. It’s about politics, specifically about environmental politics as interpreted by the neo-Malthusians like Strong, Erhlich, and the Club of Rome, all enthusiastically aided and abetted by those that Delingpole describes as “watermelons — green on the outside; red on the inside”.

To understand the present fully one needs to dig into European politics and philosophy from Galton and Malthus in the 19th century through both Communism and Fascism (essentially the same philosophy with different wrapping paper) to the present manifestation of the same thing — control freaks who sincerely believe they are best placed to run people’s lives better than the people themselves.

“Climate” is just the current manifestation. As always, H L Mencken is the “go to” authority — “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Most of his other sayings are equally apposite!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 19, 2019 11:07 pm

To counter propaganda, I suggest a direct approach.
First, identify it for what it is, without hesitation and in no uncertain terms.
Say why it is, and give specifics.
And considering there is by now a mountain of propaganda already in circulation, we must resist the urge to nibble around the edges of it.
We have to name the big items.
Temperature adjustments.
Global SLR.
Ocean Acidification.
Sea Ice malarkey.
The lie that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and there is too much of it.
That bad weather events are increasing, and a warmer world will have more of them.

And underneath it all, the biggest lie: That warming is dangerous and unprecedented and will lead to global catastrophe.
This last one is taken as a given, with zero evidence or reason to believe it, even by people who are not alarmists or warmistas.
We have to hit directly and hard at the foundations of the edifice of global warming propaganda.
Where doomsday alarmism and panic mongering are pushed, we have to push back, and call it exactly what it is.
We have to use every means of communication we can access, in order to reach as many people as possible.

It is a tall order.
This is not a small task, but the importance of pushing back cannot be overstated.
It is critical that the rational voices win this fight.

carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 20, 2019 3:06 am

Bob—suggestion–in the age of gender identity we need to call it this propaganda appropriately–WOMAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. ITS NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE!!!!

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
August 20, 2019 12:42 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
And how do we frame it for those who have already been brainwashed?

Only effective way is same as for cult members — rather violent deprogramming. Anything else won’t work.

Reply to  Scissor
August 19, 2019 10:40 pm

Weak minds appear to be the main product of today’s government run schools.

Joel Snider
August 19, 2019 2:42 pm

The word is ‘exploitation’. It’s what happens when progressives get ahold of anything.

Nick Shroeder, BSME,
August 19, 2019 2:47 pm

Pre-construction meeting last Friday for our new build, a few miles north and across I-25 from AFA. Downsizing. New lot wouldn’t even fill up the back yard of this one. Put it on the market in a month or so. Lots of trips to Home Depot for fix up projects.

HD just had the parking lot seal coated and new white parking stripes. Black to the fourth power. Walking across the lot the convective heat (energy in motion) currents boil up and around my bod. Bet that pavement is 140 F. The sheet metal of that black F-350 maybe 160 F. Can’t touch that – M C Hammer. Car dash shows 90 F air temperature. Which way is energy flowing here? (Science – it’s everywhere!!)

The sun heats the surface – the surface heats the air.

Sun’s altitude: 50°, corrected solar constant ToA – Cos 50*1,368 = 879 W/m^2.
Emissivity = actual/all of it.
140 F, 60 C, 333 K, 697 W/m^2, emissivity = 79% LWIR & 21% conduction, convection.
150 F, 65.6 C, 338.6 K, 745 W/m^2, emissivity = 85% LWIR & 15% conduction, convection
160 F, 71.1 C, 344.1 K, 795 W/m^2, emissivity = 90% LWIR & 10% conduction, convection
For the black^4 pavement to absorb and radiate the entire 879 W/m^2 as a black body its surface would have to be 175.8 F.

The cooling effect of the conducting & convecting contiguous participating media, i.e. air molecules, prevents that. A nice latent energy rainstorm would really drop the LWIR & emissivity.

That’s why K-T’s 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR and 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” are 100% BOGUS!!!!!

Dan Cody
August 19, 2019 2:48 pm

These elitists are part of the ‘New World Order’ deep state establishment or the invisible government who’s goal is a one world government through covert means by brainwashing the public with their politically correct philosophy.The United Nations,Big corporations,the Bilderbergs, the Rockefellers,the Tri-lateral commission,the Club of Rome,and the CFS, are all examples.One of their tools towards their evil agenda is to use the fake news media and the left wing environmentalists as advocates for the so called ‘man-made’ global warming ,which John L.Casey,author and president of the Science& Space Research Center (SSRC) calls the biggest fraud in American history.

August 19, 2019 2:48 pm

Didn’t read-tired of Fabius Maximus BS.

Reply to  bsl
August 19, 2019 3:45 pm

I’m getting to where I can tell it’s a L. Kummer article just from the title. There’s a certain affectation going on there.

Reply to  bsl
August 20, 2019 12:10 pm

Yes! Finally! Kummer’s constant presence on WUWT is 99% of the reason I avoid this site these days.

Kummer is a stock sales-man. The rationale for his schtick here is unclear, but he surely has an ulterior motive.

He has nothing to add to the discussion. He blathers incessantly, with nothing to actually say.

Wouldn’t it be great if he were banished to his own blog?


Reply to  Kent Clizbe
August 20, 2019 6:34 pm


Reply to  bsl
August 20, 2019 6:32 pm

Larry launches harsh character attacks on comments that diasagee with him on his blog, but is more polite here. That makes him a hypocrite.

August 19, 2019 2:49 pm

Propaganda has limitations. link When it accords with what the people want anyway, it is effective. It provides a message they want to hear.

The thing that kills the power of propaganda is events. In WW2, German propaganda worked well as long as the Germans were winning. When they started losing, it was seen for what it was. My favorite remark was something like:

I knew we were losing when all our great victories kept getting closer to Berlin.

Among Republicans and right thinking people, it shouldn’t be too difficult to persuade them that CAGW is a false front for creeping Marxism. The GND people have supplied more than enough evidence out of their own mouths.

August 19, 2019 2:57 pm

“Our results imply that a combination of human activity and natural climate variations have caused ice loss in this region”

Without some weighting to define how much of the change results from “human activity” and how much is natural, it is really meaningless. Is it 80/20, what if it’s 99.99% natural?

They see a change in the decadal pattern and seem to assume that the change is due to “human activity”. What if it’s just a longer period variation of the natural pattern? Many assumptions. …a few too many for my liking.

Reply to  MarkH
August 19, 2019 3:14 pm


Did you read the paper? They answer those questions at some length.

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Larry
August 19, 2019 4:20 pm

Why would he need to read that nonsense? There is no iceloss on Antartica, the ice extent is growing and has been growing for quite some time now.

Localized ice melt next to a West-Antartican active volcano (which they, no doubt, forgot to mention) is not ice loss caused by global warming, making the entire discussion as scientific and pointless as theorizing how many angels can sit op the top of a needle.

Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
August 20, 2019 12:30 am

You and your facts.

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 20, 2019 3:19 am

Thomas, E. R., Wessem, J. M. V., Roberts, J., Isaksson, E., Schlosser, E., Fudge, T. J., … Ekaykin, A. A. (2017). Regional Antarctic snow accumulation over the past 1000 years. Climate of the Past, 13(11), 1491–1513. doi: 10.5194/cp-13-1491-2017

Abstract. Here we present Antarctic snow accumulation variability at the regional scale over the past 1000 years. A total of 79 ice core snow accumulation records were gathered and assigned to seven geographical regions, separating the high-accumulation coastal zones below 2000m of elevation from the dry central Antarctic Plateau. The regional composites of annual snow accumulation were evaluated against modelled surface mass balance (SMB) from RACMO2.3p2 and precipitation from ERA-Interim reanalysis. With the exception of the Weddell Sea coast, the low-elevation composites capture the regional precipitation and SMB variability as defined by the models. The central Antarctic sites lack coherency and either do not represent regional precipitation or indicate the model inability to capture relevant precipitation processes in the cold, dry central plateau. Our results show that SMB for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7±0.13Gtdecade−1 since 1800 AD, representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼0.02mmdecade−1 since 1800 and ∼0.04mmdecade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼75%) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123±44Gtyr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century. Only four ice core records cover the full 1000 years, and they suggest a decrease in snow accumulation during this period. However, our study emphasizes the importance of low-elevation coastal zones, which have been under-represented in previous investigations of temporal snow accumulation.

Zhang, Liping & Delworth, Thomas & Cooke, William & Yang, Xiaosong. (2019). Natural variability of Southern Ocean convection as a driver of observed climate trends. Nature Climate Change. 9. 10.1038/s41558-018-0350-3.
Observed Southern Ocean surface cooling and sea-ice expansion over the past several decades are inconsistent with many historical simulations from climate models. Here we show that natural multidecadal variability involving Southern Ocean convection may have contributed strongly to the observed temperature and sea-ice trends. These observed trends are consistent with a particular phase of natural variability of the Southern Ocean as derived from climate model simulations. Ensembles of simulations are conducted starting from differing phases of this variability. The observed spatial pattern of trends is reproduced in simulations that start from an active phase of Southern Ocean convection. Simulations starting from a neutral phase do not reproduce the observed changes, similarly to the multimodel mean results of CMIP5 models. The long timescales associated with this natural variability show potential for skilful decadal prediction.

From the above
Figures of:
left sea surface temperature, top measurements, showing clear cooling trend, bottom average of model runs, which say it should be warming, yet observations (top) disagree, on the right the SEA ice data, same picture: top the observation that sea ice is growing and bottom are the model runs which (if they were correct enough) claim that sea ice should be shrinking (which would be magic when the seas in southern hemisphere are cooling)

Zeek Fitz
Reply to  MarkH
August 19, 2019 3:35 pm

Millions of years ago the CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are currently. Millions of years before that it was about 17.5 times higher than currently. I very highly doubt if humans have been much of a factor in the recent increase in CO2 levels. In the past (millions of years ago) CO2 levels usually were a laging indicator of higher temperatures. I also believe that CO2 has little or nothing to do with warmer temperatures. It’s the Sun silly Climate Activists!!!!!! Get ready for a cool down over the next 30 to 60 years.

August 19, 2019 3:01 pm

“The current climate alarmist propaganda barrage is on a scale seldom seen in US history.”

Spot effing on.

Somebody ought to do a count of global warming related stories over the last 20 or whatever years, I bet it’s easily between 30k and 50k articles.

Reply to  Kramer
August 19, 2019 4:55 pm


“Somebody ought to do a count of global warming related stories over the last 20 or whatever years, ”

Instead, look at the rate of these articles. My impression is that the rate has accellerated to the current rate, which is in effect a daily barrage of alarmist article. They no longer have effective opposition, so the breaks are off!

The volume makes rebuttal impossible, even if the major media listened (which, of course, they don’t).

Reply to  Larry
August 20, 2019 2:31 am

Larry, I agree that the rate of these articles has increased recently.

Wonder what a graph of total climate change stories per day over the last 20 years would look like? I bet it would look like a hockey stick. : )

Tom Abbott
August 19, 2019 3:02 pm

From the article: “I do not know how this will play out in the next decade. My guess is “badly.” For US politics, for the US economy, and for the environment.”

Only if Trump loses next time.

August 19, 2019 3:04 pm

Did Hell freeze over? I am in agreement with Larry Kummer.

Our elites believe they can shape our minds through propaganda.

The elites believe it because it is true.

Large-scale propaganda works, unless fought. It can mold the opinions of a people – irrespective of its truth. The 20th Century provided enough evidence to put that up with F=MA on the list of proven theories.

Well said.
I will not speak of the rest of the world, but I can speak of the US.
The Powers That Be have taken the measure of the stupidity of the American people. First, they offered up one unknown quantity who promised “FreeStuff”. Barack Obama.
Next they gave us Hillary Clinton, who got the plurality of the votes(!)
The Stupidity of the American people has been analytically determined.

This next election will be a measure as to how far towards the movie “Idiocracy” the American electorate has gone. Anybody who doubts this election is a well calculated measurement need only review the last two Democrat Presidential debates. The debates were nothing but a national platform for Idiocracy, and were well received by half the electorate.

So Global Warming is no big deal, it is easy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyL
August 19, 2019 4:27 pm

“This next election will be a measure as to how far towards the movie “Idiocracy” the American electorate has gone.”

Exactly right. The next U.S. presidential election is the most important election in our lifetimes. The results will either continue our progress with free markets and freedom of speech, or the U.S. and the world will go down the road the socialist elites want to go, where they benefit and the rest of humanity suffers.

So get out and vote when the time comes. Your personal freedoms are definitely at stake. Don’t elect a Democrat/socialist who will take them away from you.

This next election will demonstrate the power or lack thereof of the Leftwing News Media and their propagand efforts against Trump and conservatives. I think their TDS and Trump fighting back effectively at them has damaged the Leftwing Media badly. I think they are turning off more people than they are brainwashing.

We will see the results in the next election.

Imagine where everyone would be had Hillary been elected. We would all be in the dark about how our political system had been corrupted to the point of no return, and we would be headed towards an authoritarian future.

I think Democrats look favorably on the Chinese model of government. That’s where we would be going if they had unfettered power, and they would accomplish that by totally corrupting government to their own ends, with Obama showing the way, and they already have the means of mass propaganda in their pocket, the Leftwing News Media, and they could shutdown the opposition’s speech, and they would have smooth sailing to their goal.

We don’t want that! We want Trump and our Freedom!!!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2019 5:50 pm


“The next U.S. presidential election is the most important election in our lifetimes. ”

I agree. This might be an inflection point in our history. If they win, the Left can make irreversable changes in the fabric of America society. Open borders and the Green New Deal are the big two.

Matthew Bottorf
Reply to  Larry
August 20, 2019 4:36 am

Irreversible changes? Trump has already done that and the world now laughs at us. He has made it ok to lie cheat and steal. He is the person that started fake news. What freedoms do you fear of losing? The Republicans are the ones that take those away not the democrats. This entire article is propaganda and full of manipulation!

Rod Evans
Reply to  Matthew Bottorf
August 20, 2019 11:33 am

Speaking as a non American who takes an interest in your activities. I can assure you the world does not laugh at you. It would be fair to say, since you changed your President from a golf addicted, peace prize winner (before he even entered office), to a President who has worked for a living and has the scars to prove it, the world view of America is a lot more respectful now than it was.
As for fake news, just watch BBC news reports and that will fill your buckets with fake news.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Matthew Bottorf
August 21, 2019 5:30 am

“You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black. You cannot change the basic perception and illogical behavior. In other words, for these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.”

-Yuri Bezmenov, describing people like Matthew.

John Dilks
Reply to  Matthew Bottorf
August 21, 2019 11:46 am

Matthew Bottorf,
I feel your pain. You are not thinking, you are just feeling. Everything that you wrote is backwards. Please find other sources for information. Stay away from CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC. When presented with information, read it, question it, check the original source. In other words, learn to be skeptical. You will feel better.

August 19, 2019 3:15 pm

“The extreme scenario discussed in the paper is (quite rightly) RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Properly, they also show that the RCP4.5 scenario produces minimal impact.”
The RCP’s are tied to emissions with the assumption that the concentration of CO2 is driven by human emissions. Because that assumption if erroneous, even if the projections of temperatures is accurate, which is highly uncertain, we have not caused them nor can we change them by reducing our emissions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DMA
August 19, 2019 4:34 pm

Why don’t these studies ever include RCP2.6? Not scary enough?

“The RCP2.6 emission and concentration pathway is representative of the literature on mitigation scenarios aiming to limit the increase of global mean temperature to 2°C. These scenarios form the low end of the scenario literature in terms of emissions and radiative forcing. They often show negative emissions from energy use in the second half of the 21st century. The RCP2.6 scenario is shown to be technically feasible in the IMAGE integrated assessment modeling framework from a medium emission baseline scenario, assuming full participation of all countries.”

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2019 5:52 pm


“Why don’t these studies ever include RCP2.6? Not scary enough?”

Papers in major journals are written under severe space constraints. Extreme focus is the best tactic.

August 19, 2019 3:16 pm

If this is a ‘well constructed paper’ (and I believe it is) then the scientists = ‘good’
If they accept the sceptics have a point, then scientists & sceptics = ‘good’

But they all agree that some sections of the media = ‘bad’
If they agree that the media is the problem, why do all the decent scientists who have integrity get in bed with this very nasty plague that has befallen us ? They will not come out of this well

August 19, 2019 3:28 pm

It seems to me that whether or not these people are exaggerating, the worst that could happen is we improve human pollution and destruction without improving the climate change problem. It would still be a positive. I don’t understand why people are so upset about making conservationist changes.

Reply to  Logan
August 19, 2019 8:18 pm


“I don’t understand why people are so upset about making conservationist changes.”

Because the alarmists exaggerate the risk to justify fantastically large expenditures of scarce resouces. We face many danagers (such as the damage being done to the oceans) – plus of course investments to help the poor and to produce more prosperity in the future.

Wrong allocations of resources has big costs.

Reply to  Logan
August 20, 2019 12:36 am

Because there is no magic money tree. Missallocation of resources kills people. Deep greens want to reduce population……….

Rod Evans
Reply to  Logan
August 20, 2019 11:41 am

Please explain what is consevationist (sic) about carpeting our hillsides with industrial scale wind turbines that kill raptors and bats every day?
Then explain why mandating bioethenol must reach 10% of fuels in US motor vehicles thus consuming vast food acres in the USA which would be otherwise used to provide cheap food for the poor of the USA and other nations across the world.
I could go on, but please Logan, just answer those two for the time being.

Gordon Dressler
August 19, 2019 3:44 pm

To the best of my knowledge, the only method of relating human activities to global climate change is via (1) Charney sensitivity, the modeling of CO2 as a greenhouse gas affecting Earth’s land and sea temperatures, coupled with (2) the presumption that most of the increase in measured global atmospheric CO2 levels is due to mankind’s emissions, coupled with (3) the presumption that “correlation equals causation”, ignoring that increases in CO2 throughout the paleoclimate record LAG increases in global temperatures based on the best proxies available.

With that background, the above-quoted text from the paper by Holland,, is so brazen as to state: “Here, we combine observations and climate model simulations to suggest . . .”

Sure, lean on those “all-too-perfect” climate models when observational data alone is insufficient to support one’s hidden agenda.

August 19, 2019 3:48 pm

The alarmists have to over sensationalize CAGW. They are trying to pitch the public self imposed poverty and that is a hard sell.

DD More
August 19, 2019 3:49 pm

Must have missed the measurements or all this melting happened since 2004.

From 2004 Climate Variability in West Antarctica Derived from Annual Accumulation-Rate Records from ITASE Firn/Ice Cores

The ice cores from this study were analyzed to look for recent changes in accumulation rates. The period 1970–present was chosen due to numerous previous studies reporting changes in accumulation during this same time period. Mean accumulation since 1970 for each site was compared to the long-term mean and, due to the different time period covered by each record, the mean from 1922 to 1991 (the period of overlap between records) (Table 2). Results for cores 01-5 and 99-1 are disregarded because of the possible need for topographic corrections (see previous section). The results indicate a slight decrease (1–4%) in accumulation at sites 00-4, RIDS C and Siple Dome, and a larger decrease (9%) at site 00-5. Accumulation increased (5–10%) at sites 01-3, 01-2 and 00-1. The geographical clustering of these sites suggests that there has been an increase in accumulation since 1970 in the western sector of the Pine Island–Thwaites drainage system (00-1, 01-2, 01-3) (Fig. 2; Table 2).

So they compare average accumulation 1922 to 1991 against accumulation 1970 to present[2004]. Since there was growth 1922 to 1991, it would take a 100% decrease between the two before any ‘Alarming loss’ is seen. So far only one core has 9% less growth than average and the whole group shows growth not melting.

Mike McMillan
August 19, 2019 3:52 pm

Steig again?

J Woodard
August 19, 2019 3:56 pm

Did they use The Scientific Method?

Reply to  J Woodard
August 19, 2019 8:20 pm

J. Woodard,

Yes. Although one paper is just part of the scientific method.

Jaap Titulaer
August 19, 2019 4:05 pm

Why just West Antartica? Why their focus on the Western part?
Simple, that is where there are many active volcanos & related geothermal phemonema…

Ergo it is the only place on Antartica were you could have seen some ice melting, as the icecap of Antartica has been growing and the southern sees are several degrees colder than modelled or predicted.

In the west the melting is detected below the icecap in some places, due to geothermal processes of course, yet the ludites claim that strange way of melting is also caused by global warming…

Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
August 19, 2019 5:54 pm


“Why just West Antartica?”

Ice shelfs are exposed to warm water. East Antarctica is high and cold, and might be gaining mass.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
August 19, 2019 6:42 pm
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
August 19, 2019 11:25 pm

The collapse of the WAIS has been the subject of wailing and gnashing of teeth for over 100 years.
One more study saying the same thing as others have said is not news.
The time frame for anything substantial to occur is in the several hundreds to thousands of years.
If there were any place with large accumulations of ice that were melting faster than ever before, it would show up in sea level measurements.
Tide gages show nothing of the sort…at all.
Besides…what rational person thinks human beings have any power to change the weather on a continent, let alone the world?
7+ billion human beings depend on fossil fuels for everything that is keeping us alive.
The one power source that we have at our disposal that can replace a substantial fraction of that fossil fuel usage is nuclear, and I do not hear to many people, particularly among the alarmists, even talking about a push to expend nuclear in a time frame and of a magnitude to make a difference on the time scale of decades.
The idea, let alone the actual implementation, of a scheme that would impoverishing ourselves into starvation and deprivation and misery and death, to stop a theoretical melting of some ice at the bottom of the world, is nothing less than unhinged and insane.

August 19, 2019 4:07 pm

Modeling is “evidence”??

Reply to  BallBounces
August 19, 2019 5:57 pm


“Modeling is “evidence”??”

Yes, modeling is evidence in many sciences, from astronomy to some fields of biology. How strong – the weight of the evidence, as they say in Court – is the key question.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Larry
August 19, 2019 7:11 pm

Is the weight of modelled evidence proportional to the number if simulation runs?

Reminds me of this;

Ripley : How many drops is this for you, Lieutenant?

Lieutenant Gorman : Thirty eight… simulated.

Private Vasquez : How many *combat* drops?

Lieutenant Gorman : Uh, two. Including this one.

Private Drake : Sh1t.

Private Hudson : Oh, man…

Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 19, 2019 8:23 pm


“Is the weight of modelled evidence proportional to the number if simulation runs?”

Have you every seen a climate scientist say that it does? I doubt it.

As an analogy, think of a public opinion survey. Proper construction of the survey and sample is more important the number of people surveyed.

Reply to  BallBounces
August 19, 2019 6:00 pm


Follow-up –

I forgot to say, the gold standard in evidence is not the model – but the acuracy of the model’s predictions. Karl Popper should be the king of climate science:

August 19, 2019 5:03 pm
August 19, 2019 5:06 pm

If CO2 is logerithmic then it has already reached a level that any future effect will be very small,.

So unless we have the so called Tipping point , which is highly unlikely, then nothing will change from how it is right now. Thus we have nothing to worry about.


August 19, 2019 6:03 pm

I have seen the statement that there is no hope of population growth slowing as in the assumptions in 8.5 several time in WUWT. This contradicts considerable evidence that as soon as children begin to survive reliably, women look for ways to delay. The need for a son for old age security declines only when social safety nets develop. Putting these two things together you get to where fertility rates fall and population stablizes. From it is apparent that this is happening the world over. As Hans Rosling points out , with half the world population below reproductive age, all of these children will have to go through reproducing before stability. Thus the increase in the next few years reflects children born in higher birth rates reproducing.

Patrick MJD
August 19, 2019 7:00 pm
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 19, 2019 8:27 pm

Good News abounds. !

Where’s my surfboard. 🙂

August 19, 2019 8:17 pm

So who allows this misinformation to proliferate? It’s not the scientists, they’re just useful idiots providing the fodder and basking in the attention and monetary rewards. MSM? Who owns the MSM and determines the propaganda direction? Closer, but more useful idiots with enough money to own the MSM. Who own AGW? That’s the source….. the UN.

Jeff Alberts
August 19, 2019 9:15 pm

Steig is all you need to know. Search for his name on Climate Audit.

John Robertson
August 19, 2019 10:27 pm

The Alarmed ones are not winning.
They had every advantage,government funding and all the bureaus promoting this meme,3 decades of relentless propaganda,now reaching a shrieking crescendo.
They are desperate.
The public still does not care about “Climate Change”,every time they are asked or taxed into putting up money to “fight Climate” they refuse and vote out the politicians involved.
Seems people have a natural BS detecter,we do not need to understand the science,the nuances and the possibilities to recognize a scammer.
Now the claims of Climate Change caused Calamities is so idiotic,they effectively parody themselves.
Extreme Weather,Declare a Climate Emergency,tax air.
the Cult has an air of desperation,even these virtuous true believers can feel the winds of change.

August 20, 2019 6:45 am

Propaganda works because people are prone to feeling guilt and shame, which can be relieved by shifting blame to an “other”, which then lets them feel virtuous again. This, coupled with an education system where the highest virtue is protest and taking a stand, you have a self-reinforcing cycle.

August 20, 2019 7:42 am

Don’t worry as the climate changers are going to sink with their non-scientific prescriptions and the biggie will be their imposition of unreliables on national power grids. Coupled with their push for battery powered transport they can’t possibly make batteries fast enough to salvage their unreliables and they’ve lied about the real cost of what is pure State sponsored dumping.

They’re locked in inexorably with the rent-seekers now and there’s no turning back for them. Dumping is designed to drive competitors out of the marketplace and they’re simply driving out dispatchable voltage and frequency and no good will come of it. We just have to wait until it’s bleeding obvious to the majority with the crisis of their making. Then the next question will be what else did these technical illiterates and nincompoops get wrong and/or lie about?

August 20, 2019 8:46 am

AGW is impossible

August 20, 2019 4:17 pm

Nonsense. Propaganda wouldn’t lean conservatively so heavily in terms of projections which has been the case since the first IPCC report. This has been common knowledge within the not ignorant crowd for a long time. The only ones guilty of propaganda use has been the politely labeled skeptic community who’ve enjoyed media coverage far in excess of those seeking and speaking the truth. And the media they often decry has been their stinking servants which is nothing new either. I’ll die happy when the flat earthers are invisible.

Reply to  Jim
August 20, 2019 8:00 pm

“Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb’s wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.
Then, to develop a consistent picture of long-term trends, techniques had to be developed to compensate for the errors in the older measurements and reconcile them with the newer ones. The Hadley Centre has led this effort, and the new data set—dubbed HadSST4—is a welcome advance in our understanding of global climate change.”

Did they correct for the dog saliva on the homework they suddenly discovered and adjusted the tree rings accordingly?

August 21, 2019 2:40 pm

“How dumb do they think we are? ”
50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or LESS!
So 50% have a below-average intelligence.
Plenty of victims for propaganda.

August 22, 2019 12:10 pm

More and more people are tuning out MSM because they are tired of the exaggerations lies and politicization .
Seems like the Trump election just pushed the whole devolution of media on to a faster pace .
The MSM don’t even bother pretending they are neutral .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights