Opinion by Kip Hansen – 6 May 2021
The Climate Propaganda Cabal, which calls itself Covering Climate Now (CCNow), is a fantastically, frighteningly, effective organization that is flooding the print and online news media with a single message: “The climate emergency is here. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately. Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the extraordinary heat, storms, wildfires, and ice melt of 2020 routine and could ‘render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable’. “
Any moderately educated, well-read human being, and any human possessing even a modicum of common sense, knows that this message is inherently somehow false – but because of the constant barrage of messages repeating the meme endlessly, everywhere they look, many people have begun to think, despite their instincts and intellect, that it just might be true.
That’s how propaganda is intended to work – and work it does. Richard Alan Nelson, in his book A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, provides a definition of the term: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.”
This is the stated purpose of Covering Climate Now — see my earlier essay The Climate Propaganda Cabal .
One of the techniques CCNow is using is the intentional blurring of the lines between Opinion and hard, factual Science News. They do this through their story sharing efforts.
Today’s Example:
On 4 May 2021, Tallbloke’s Talkshop highlighted a story that appeared in PHYS.ORG. Phys.org is a unit of Science X and touts itself as “Phys.org internet news portal provides the latest news on science”. The story posted at Phys.org is “The 1.5-degree global warming limit is not impossible—but it soon will be” by Bill Hare, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Joeri Rogelj and Piers Forster. The bottom line assertion of the story is this:
“The Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries in 2015. The inclusion of the 1.5 degrees C warming limit came after a long push by vulnerable, small-island and least developed countries for whom reaching that goal is their best chance for survival. The were backed by other climate-vulnerable nations and a coalition of high-ambition countries.
The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.“
While almost nothing in those two paragraphs is literally true, I have no objection to the authors stating it, since they were writing their Opinion, originally published at The Conversation.
Here are the connections: Phys.org, a science news outlet, has a contributing partner, The Conversation, which is a basic “opinion page” outlet for academics, despite their pledge to “Inform public debate with knowledge-based journalism that is responsible, ethical and supported by evidence” the only qualifications “To be published by The Conversation you must be currently employed as a researcher or academic with a university or research institution.” The Conversation, as an organization, is a partner of Covering Climate Now, the dedicated climate alarm propaganda organization.
Four authors, academics, write an Opinion piece at The Conversation. At The Conversation their associations and conflicts of interest are clearly stated in the sidebar. [ I insert the disclosures below, readers in a hurry can skip the blockquote – kh ]
Disclosure statement
Bill Hare receives funding from the European Climate Foundation, Bloomberg philanthropy, Climate Works Foundation
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner receives funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LN1711A) and under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant no. 820829 (CONSTRAIN). He is affiliated with Humboldt University in Berlin and Climate Analytics.
Joeri Rogelj receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. He is affiliated with the Grantham Institute – Climate Change & Environment at Imperial College London, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He is a Coordinating Lead Author on the IPCC 1.5°C Special Report and a Lead Author on the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
Piers Forster receives funding from UK funding council (UKRI) and the EU. He is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and Lead Author of IPCC reports.
With the disclosures, knowledgeable readers can easily ascertain the biases of the authors – they are all heavily invested in the IPCC and its 1.5ºC global temperature target and its mandated solution – the total elimination of the use of fossil fuels.
This opinion article gets immediately re-posted to Phys.org as a hard Science News story, but it is posted without the Disclosure Statement from The Conversation and not labelled Opinion — this shift from Opinion to Fact facilitated by the Covering Climate Now resources sharing scheme.
Science Opinion thus becomes magically transformed into Science Fact. At least, as received and perceived by the general public.
Propaganda in its most powerful form.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
This is not an isolated incident, as readers who follow science news already know.
CCNow’s Statement on the Climate Emergency uses this trick in the following:
”Failure to slash the amount of carbon dioxide …. could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable,” warned a recent Scientific American article.”
The linked SciAm “article” is an OpEd piece (repeating link above) not a report of a scientific findings, not research results and definitely not science fact, written by “William J. Ripple … lead author of the World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” Self-referential, circular opinion being re-presented as fact.
Lector cave – Reader Beware.
Many readers might just think that this CCNow thing is just “business as usual” for the media. It is not. It is a whole new level of the intentional corruption of journalism into propagandistic media activism that disregards truth, substituting opinion, bias, worldview and politics in its place – it is a by-any-means-necessary media push to brainwash the population.
I hope to expose this anti-journalism cabal for what it is and what it is doing over the next few weeks in a series of essays.
I will be more likely to see your comments if you address them to me, “Kip…”.
Thank for reading.
# # # # #
You call this “science”? I trust science, I don’t trust you. Pox on you.
The above article references this quote made by Hare, et.al., in their Phys.org story:
“The 1.5 degrees C limit wasn’t plucked from thin air—it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2 degrees C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.“
Well, what WAS plucked from thin air are both of these two memes, which are foundational to AGW/CAGW alarmists claims:
1) that global warming since about 1900 AD is predominately caused by mankind’s release of CO2 emissions, and
2) that it will be dangerous/catastrophic if global lower atmospheric temperatures warm by more than 2 degrees C during the 21st century.
Claim #1 above has been falsified by the two distinct “pauses” in global warming that have occurred from 1940-1975 and from about 1997 to present (refs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-two-months-to-6-years/ ) despite the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements showing a smooth, continuous exponential increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentration since their precision measurements began in March 1958.
Claim #2 above is a prediction, and thus cannot be established to be either true or false.
The first guess/claim about how much warmth CO2 would add to the atmosphere per doubling was 3.0C, plus or minus 1.5C. So the range was from 1.5C to 4.5C on the high end. That’s where the 1.5C number comes from.
The Earth supposedly hit the highmark of 1.02C above the average for the period from 1850 to the present in 2016, and temperatues have since cooled off 0.7C, so the Earth currently sits at about 0.3C above the average. We are not close to hitting the 1.5C or 2.0C limit set for us by the alarmists. And temperatues appear to be cooling, not warming. The CO2 “danger” is getting farther away from us, not nearer.
The mythical 1.5C limit has been exceeded at least 4 times in the last 5000 years. During those periods, nothing bad happened. For most of the last 10000 years temperatures have been way over the 1.5c limit, as much as 3.5C over that limit. Life on earth not only did not perish during these periods, it thrived. These periods are called optimums for that reason.
Yet, there are many who believe that the WORST weather will be caused by the OPTIMUM climate. I call these people “suckers.”
I think you mean a linear increase in atmospheric concentration, which requires an exponential rate of addition of CO2.
No . . . what you posted is specifically NOT what I stated nor what I meant. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (e.g., change in ppm per decade) is on an exponentially increasing trend based on Mauna Loa observations.
Likewise, man’s use of (a) fossil fuels, (b) land use for cropland, grazing land and buildup of urban areas, and (c) cement have all been on exponentially increasing trends over the last 150 years, although not as consistently smooth as the CO2 concentration trend line.
fossil fuel use trend: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
land use trend: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
cement use trend: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/195/2018/essd-10-195-2018.pdf
I await your mathematical proof that a linear increase of any component of a sum (expressed as parts per million) requires an exponential rate of addition of that component.
The questions are :
Who pays those crooks to spout out climate pseudo-scientific nonsense since decades ?
Who promotes this propaganda in almost all the MSM ?
What are the constituents of the criminal organization(s) behind this scheme ?
Nobody.
To many people the science is obvious.
For the MSM, it is just factual reporting.
No, it is obvious PROPAGANDA!
It is sad you are being fooled so easily, it is what happens to people who are not Freethinking individuals, the amazing lack of critical thinking that goes on.
I am IMMUNE to propaganda because I question EVERYTHING and doing so as a Freethinker, I belong to NO club, organization and free pf political parties. I think as a free human being, who checks everything thus never mislead at all.
That is why I can see the obvious lies and bullshit the gets spewed out every day. easily since they have a common marker in them to make clear it is propaganda.
MSM are the biggest abuser and relentlessly promote a barrage of misleading information that are chronically bent to fit the, we are in danger paradigm.
That is why your posts are commonly idiotic and free of rational dialogue, you parrot what you read and told with out realizing it, you have been programmed very well.
Griff personifies a quote from Mark Twain: “It’s much easier to fool a person than it is to convince him he’s been fooled.”
What science?
Are you talking about the climate models that have yet to make an accurate “forecast”?
Are you talking about climate events that are nothing out of the normal, but are portrayed as if they were?
Griff = settled science
To many people the science is obvious ” yes when propaganda is dressed up as science.
For the MSM, it is just factual reporting.” Haven’t you read kips article, do you really think msm tell the truth not just on climate. I think you do, I really do feel sorry for you
You are a victim of brainwashing
Are you still too hot there in central England?
Petit ==> I have promised to do some digging into the funding issue . . . . such research is exhausting and very difficult, so don’t hold your breathe. Do keep reading here at WUWT though, I’ll get to it and publish it here when I have the answers.
That would be true (and tricky) investigative journalism !
What you’ll find is that rich individuals quietly contribute giant amounts of money at key points. For example, Zuckerberg and his wife gave $412,000,000 to influence the 2020 presidential election in the 5 key swing states. That’s half a billion dollars…
Source please. You are claiming that Zuckerberg gave away more money than most sources have him owning.
True. There are two fundamental questions:
1) WHO is behind all of this.
2) HOW they exert such overwhelming and long term power. What are the psychological, social, and organizational characteristics of their power.
That’s where people need to focus their attention.
We need a pyramid marketing structure: You convince 10 people you know personally. Each of those is supposed to contact 10 they know personally. You call the 10 you know to see if they have followed up and contacted some people – never putting down, only praising what they have done. Some sort of badges for people who have reached the next level, etc. Maybe a medal
I’ll start off and finish with my bottom-line question for people who know more than I do about the automobile manufacturing industry. Are they in on this scam or just faking being in on this scam until it goes away?
As we, people who utilize their brain functions, all know, calculator dodging goes all the way to the top, and I use the word “top” in it’s loosest sense, as “top” in this case is several levels below moronicity, or the fake-moronicity of the consultants they hire.
First, the Paris 1.5 degrees is farcical on its face, because no one knows climate sensitivity, but that’s fine if you’re a calculator dodger. So the useless idiots are going to control “climate”, not by getting any CO2 out of the atmosphere, but by telling everybody that they’re going to have to switch to electric vehicles by 2030 or whenever. Obviously, electricity is clean. It just comes out of the wall, right f-wits?
But why are the automobile manufacturers going along with this f-wittery? Are they just pandering to the nitwits or can they see more profits from pandering to the nitwits?
The entire EU, UK and Chinese car making industries are switching to EVs, quickly, immediately, permanently.
Ha ha, you are making that up, you keep ignoring coming power shortfall because of the irrational thinking of climate doomsters opposition to 24/7 base generating capacity.
Uk burning coal again tonight, as Scotland and Northern England experiencing minus temps and snow.
Griff is brainwashed disciple of the green church and all its tentacles, however unless he’s completely dead from the kneck up he must of read kips article’s one can only hope some sinks in ,and at a latter date a event ,triggers his memory, hes not nasty and aggressive like some trolls on here, I genuinely feel sorry for him.
Yes griff, thank you. We already know your reading comprehension difficulties.
Griff actually thinks a press release is evidence that it has already happened.
“The entire EU, UK and Chinese car making industries are switching to EVs, quickly, immediately, permanently.”
And my name is Napoléon Bonaparte.
Profits from pandering is one reason. The other is the absolute corruption of the Democrat party in the U.S. They’ve proven they are willing to punish any organization that does not go along with them. Combine the two and you see a rush of free advertising for liberal policies. Whether it’s climate, COVID, or BLM, you see dozens of companies that never got political making statements on issues that have nothing to do with their business.
Yep, but they are actually, with they being automobile manufacturers, doing it. Silly griff thinks that this has something to do with carbon dioxide, but I’m actually trying to figure out what’s really going on. Not that I really give much of a shit personally.
I think in 10 years time ( in the uk) only second hand diesel and petrol cars will be available. The pumps for diesel will become few and far between , petrol will be around because of hybrids but again eventually faded out . We will be left with electric cars ,mainly for the rich, public transport is being pushed now in the hope it 5akes up the slack, in essence less travel less convenient travel ,this fits with the green agenda , there will be concessions eg farmers, the trial run was in lockdown were shops forcefully closed , so the slack was taken up by on line sales,deliveries by courier, essential stores open for food because logistics of delivering food to every one in the UK was not doable. This is were the green agenda wants us to be.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-private-school-andrew-gutmann-brearley-blm
Students and parents are pressured to become BLM activists, or be labeled as racist.
Finally a comfort companion doubling as an action figure for many contemporary students.
philincalifornia ==> Automobile manufacturers want to make and sell automobiles — that’s their purpose. They don’t really care what kind of automobiles they make and sell, as long as they can do so profitably. In fact, EVs represent a new and expanding market for them.
Like Coca-Cola, which just wants people to buy their brand of soda — sugared or not — or even just their brand of plain water — buy Coca-Cola Brands. The funny thing about Coke is it is accused of forcing sugared beverages on unsuspecting people — when it would really rather they buy is plain water products on which the profit margin is much higher.
This may turn out to be the same for car makers in the future — government subsidies may make the profit margins higher for EVs compared to ICE cars.
The automobile industry, as with most industry around the world, is responding to Regulation or even Threats of Regulation. And they continued while Trump was in office because a) the regulators were still the same people that regulated them during the 0bummer maladministration, so they anticipated unchanged regulation and b) the assurances of all the establishment of the Uni-Party that Trump was only temporary anyway.
“But why are the automobile manufacturers going along with this f-wittery?”
Can you imagine how they would be treated if they didn’t go along?
Human-caused Climate Change shows we have a lot to learn about human psychology and why humans do what they do.
What motivates these people? No doubt, there are many motivations, none of which are based on science because the science does not support their alarmist position.
I think trying to force electric cars on people is going to end badly for some companies and some countries.
“I think trying to force electric cars on people is going to end badly for all companies and all countries.”
Fixed it for ya. 😀
Out in the real world, people see snowstorms in south Texas in February, and in April in Europe, and would probably welcome any warming (by 1.5 C or whatever) so they could turn off their furnaces for the summer and stop emitting CO2, and maybe plant some crops.
Cabeza de Vaca’s(? or maybe it was some other explorer, it will become clear who I mean in just a moment) journal records that his first view of Galveston Bay saw it completely covered by a layer of ice 2-3 inches thick. Seeing ice on Galveston Bay again could mean only a very powerful cold front, or it could mean something else entirely. I vote, let’s wait and see. Likewise if we actually reach that 2.0°C temperature rise (since it’s also plucked from someplace the sun don’t shine, it means just as much as the 1.5°C temperature rise, thus I use them interchangeably) I vote we wait and see what it actually means to our everyday life before I go and spend one penny on adaptation, and I am therefore even less likely to spend any money on mitigation. How do you mitigate a disaster that is so ill-defined no-one knows when or if it even is happening, or maybe has actually already happened (computer models don’t count), and no-one can tell you the cause (computer models don’t count) even if it is happening, and therefore how could we do anything about it when we don’t know what to do, we have no data (computer models don’t count) to support ANY response.
“. . . limiting warming to 2 degs C this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.”
I wouldn’t trust any organisation that cannot even use correct grammar – it should read “prevent dangerous climate change.”
The globe is currently 1.3C cooler than that 2C figure the alarmists say we need to stay under.
We have a long way to go before we start worrying about a 2.0C higher temperature or even a 1.5C higher temperature.
We are in good shape! 🙂
Ask a global warmunista, ‘what is the optimal mean world temperature’?
They can’t answer it, ever.
1.5ºC what and based on what (see above) is becoming somewhat of a totem, a talisman, in chimeric stretch of the imagination. 1.5 is a figure merely plucked out of the air – if you’ll excuse the pun, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for it.
All of them, these so called brilliant professors, exspurts and pscientists pretending to be world stage strutters and all are hollow noise and out of 13th grade minds. The very idea is preposterous nonsense, to think we can ever have the necessary influence (acumen?) arrogance, to be able to turn up and down the earths’ temperature just like the thermostat on your wall at home – boondoggling mindbogglin’ brain rot.
It might have been said (sarc), that, this is about money and control over the west, ‘the great green scam’ this was never about climate or the absurd idea of saving the poley bears, bollocks. Natural, man made CO2, love it because without it, we’re all just waiting for the reaper.
And they always avoid this one like plague: “What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere?”
Mark Twain, a hundred and fifty years said that if you don’t read the media you are uniformed.If you do read the media you are misinformed.
This is an old problem that keeps resurfacing. All the so-called critical thinking taught in K-16 (and beyond) just makes the problem worse.
Kevin ==> True but not by Twain (almost nothing attributed to Twain was actually said by him . . . )
You’re falling for the mainstream media line. They love to destroy Western statues and heroes. Twain is just another target for their ire.
Well, thanks for pointing out the mystery here. I find troublesome things like this interesting, but I see that no one can identify the actual source. I noted among lists of Twain quotes some attributed to others as well. I may look carefully at innocents abroad, though.
By the way, how do you know almost nothing attributed to Twain was actually said by him?
Kevin – Almost everything attributed to Twain was actually said by some guy named Clemens…
TonyG ==> very clever, that . . .
Kevin ==> There are entire websites dedicated to the mis-attribution of sayings to Twain. Almost any real clever snarky comment can and has been attributed.
I own and have read and re-read Twain’s 2-volume autobiography. a brilliant man and wonderful comic — terrible at the daily details of life and personal finance. Didn’t handle celebrity well (almost no one does….).
The same is true of Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, and man many others.
Great article, Kip.
A side note coming from my mostly 2012-2014 research for the second and third ebooks. The original ‘goal’ was 2C, which Schellnhuber of PIK admitted on record he had pulled out of thin air. But it sufficed for urgent action because CMIP3 and then CMIP5 were producing ECS~3, and 2<3. The energy budget stuff started getting an ECS around 1.7 (IIRC the first paper was 2013, there were several in 2014, with the best Lewis and Curry 2016.) This was sufficiently important that AR5 officially refused to give a central ECS estimate because of the model/observation discrepancy.
The climate cabal then realized the world might never reach 2C so they cut it back to the 1.5C that CCnow propagandizes now.
“Schellnhuber of PIK admitted on record he had pulled out of thin air.”
You learn something every day. I thought he pulled it out of his arse.
Rud ==> Thanks for the history lesson — your input is always appreciated.
Kip, Excellent articles. You should send them to the Wall Street Journal.
Thomas ==> Different audience — different articles. It is an idea though.
so far today the climate emergency has resulted in grey skies, seasonable temperatures, and green grass outside. Meanwhile millions are suffering from preventable diseases, malnutrition, contaminated water, extreme poverty and unthinkable human rights abuses that has very little to do with the weather. Not a peep in the press. On the environment front the chemical agriculture industry is alive and well, several dozen zoning orders have been handed down to pave significant wetlands in Ontario against the will of local citizens, several thousand acres of habitat will be bulldozed today, millions of acres of seabed will be trawled, the mining industry will exploit more land and workers all over the world getting our EV batteries and solar panels ready, vast landscapes will be converted to palm oil and “carbon-neutral” biofuel monoculture plantations. Nothing to report. Today thousands of refugees will die in transit and nobody will report on the reasons they are fleeing. In science today several peer reviewed journal articles will published about new climate findings and research which might be opposed to the consensus stance. Nothing to see – they must be wrong. Those who point this out will be shamed, judged, and called a despicable person – then their posts will be deleted by the wise ones. We should consider ourselves among the privileged top 10% of humanity if we consider climate consensus to be “the defining issue of our time”. Wealth and power imbalance is back on the rise after an all time low 20-40 years ago, this is obvious looking at surveys of the other 90%. With this comes a total loss of perspective for those at the top.
Kip…
Thank you for continuing to expose CCNow. You keep writing them, I will keep sharing them with everyone I can! This is a corruption that has seemingly seeped into many systems, including education, politics, science and journalism. Truly horrifying.
Michael ==> Yes, truly horrifying — I was a journalist at uni, and I would have been fired from even the university FM station if I had substituted propaganda for news.
I for one take some consolation in the knowledge that everything published on the internet will always remain.
And so all of this preposterous and obviously nonsensical hogwash, will be here forever after for people to pore over, and the people propounding, promoting, and propagating it, will wear it for all of time.
And the more harm that comes of it, the more the things said and the people who said them will be studied and identified.
I am fairly certain we have already reached a point that the worst of the offenders will have their very names become synonymous with scientific malfeasance, corruption, catastrophism, and deliberate profligacy.
Perhaps they will escape the everlasting infamy of Judas, but in some cases, it may be close.
So what else is new? Whenever funding requires an opinion, the opinions are always biased to favor the funders beliefs.
The question not answered is who is doing the funding. Somebody is, it doesn’t happen by accident.
My Father was a newspaper reporter. Reporters desperately want to get their by-lines published as their careers depend on it. All reporters have editors, who decide exactly what gets published as news. My father used to say that all reporters learned to write their stories based on the personal preferences of their editors. If an editor liked sailing, nautical terms were used in the reports. If the editor liked to golf, golfing terms were used in the reports, and so on and so forth.
Objective reporting? No, but when you are feeding your family and paying a mortgage, it doesn’t seem so vile an idea.
Alpine barracks of the White War warriors emerges through melting ice: Clothes, postcards and canned food of WWI troops are seen for first time in more than 100 years after lost mountain camp thaws out (headline from another source)So we are as warm as we were 100yrs ago
Reading the definition of propaganda, it seems that terrorism has the same objective, just different means. We could think of terrorism as “kinetic propaganda” and propaganda as “non-kinetic” terrorism.
I think,ever since the CRU emails were published,most observers have been fully aware that Climatology of the Catastrophic Kind,is pure propaganda.
Policy Based Evidence manufacturing.
Pure deceit by our bureaucrats.
For even when Team IPCC (TM) is shown to be lying and doing so deliberately “For the cause”,no responsible adults at any level of our governments gave a toss..That take away being they know they are lying..
Evidence and the usage of the scientific method are most unwelcome in this policy..Opinion is all they have and all they ever had..
Hence the blatant lie of the IPCC 2500 expert scientists..What was the final total?
Something close to 0052?
Duh .
These numbers good enough for government.
I try time and again to read ‘science news’ on sites such as phys.org. Time and again i leave the site so angry, frustrated and disappointed because the site is littered with AGW drivel. Plus it is becoming infected with gender idiocy.
What can we (plain ol John doe readers such as myself) do to help you expose this fraud?
Jackie ==> Write to the Editors of phys.org each instance, short, sweet, simple and polite objections to non-science (nonsense) and off-topic gender wars content. This is the link to use: https://sciencex.com/help/feedback/
Why the continued reference to temperatures in pre-industrial times? Is it implied that Global Utopia existed then? Or is it too embarrassing to suggest that a further rise of just 0.5C will be catastrophic?
Robber ==> The use of “since pre-industrial times” is a tell exposing the intent to link rising temperatures with industrialization. In fact, temperatures began to rise in the 1650 to 1750 period (depending on temperature reconstruction), far earlier. The change point itself signifies the End of the Little Ice Age.
From Wikipedia (where there are references)
“The Eemian climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] Changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere. During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 °C higher than today.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.
At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[11] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: currently, the northern limit is further south at Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec. Coastal Alaska was warm enough during the summer due to reduced sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to allow Saint Lawrence Island (now tundra) to have boreal forest, although inadequate precipitation caused a reduction in the forest cover in interior Alaska and Yukon Territory despite warmer conditions.[12”
The thing that bugs me is that it was both due natural causes so no runaway GHE, but higher CO2 caused previous warming as well!
1-2°C degrees warmer (with hippos in the Rhine?) but no positive feed back because it was natural?
And when we have Arctic regions warming now, with absolutely no Milankovitch based influence, perhaps we need to look for a new climate driver in the region – like human caused climate change
Piers Forster receives funding from UK funding council (UKRI) and the EU. He is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and Lead Author of IPCC reports.
Says everything in a nutshell!!!!!
Opinion science is everywhere today. We’ve forgotten that science is data based, and that opinion is really nothing more than a hypothesis. The problem is that we’ve stopped trying to question the hypotheses and simply accept the opinion of so-called “experts”, as though they are the shamans of the past. We seem to have undergone a de-evolution in thinking.