Wild Exaggeration and Egregious Lies

Opinion by Kip Hansen – 6 May 2021

The Covering Climate Now propaganda effort was “co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and WNYC in 2019, CCNow’s 460-plus partners include some of the biggest names in news”  with the stated purpose of  “to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom”.  Their basic document, the CCNow Climate Emergency Statement, claims, in part, “…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…”.   To accomplish their goals, CCNow provides its partners with republishable stories from other partners (.pdf), editorial guidance, story writing ideas, a list of talking points labelled Climate Science 101 provided by Katharine Hayhoe.

Important Notice:  Call 911 immediately if you are choking or experiencing chest pains  as a result of reading that last sentence – in Europe, dial 112 – in the UK, dial 112 or 999 – in Australia, 000 or 112

CCNow also supplies NPR’s Climate Guide of mis- and dis-information on climate and their own “fact sheet “ [ sic ] “Who says it’s a climate emergency?”  in addition to  their list of ten  “Best Practices” for climate propagandists. 

If this is your first time hearing about CCNow, please read my previous essays posted here at WUWT, most recently The Climate Propaganda Cabal and Turning Opinion into Science Fact.  There are some earlier essays as well – here and here.

Last week, on April 27 2021,  CCNow web site posted a list of Nine Pieces We Loved.   One of those featured was:

How Warming Oceans Are Accelerating the Climate Crisis — Humans have locked in at least 20 feet of sea level rise—can we still fix it?” by Harold R. Wanless

On the upside, the article in The Nation is clearly and prominently marked:

Adapted from an article for the Florida Climate Reporting Network’s project “The Invading Sea,” this article is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

My quick check of web search results show this article, one week old now, being re-posted or linked 16 times, before I stopped counting. 

This article represents the “Big Lie” aspect of professional propagandaBig Lies sell better, persuade people better than little nit-picky lies.

Here’s the bottom line Big Lie from this CCNow propaganda piece:

The climate emergency is bigger than many experts, elected officials, and activists realize. Humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have overheated Earth’s atmosphere, unleashing punishing heat waves, hurricanes, and other extreme weather—that much is widely understood. The larger problem is that the overheated atmosphere has in turn overheated the oceans, assuring a catastrophic amount of future sea level rise.

As oceans heat up, the water rises—in part because warm water expands, but also because the warmer waters have initiated a major melt of polar ice sheets. As a result, average sea levels around the world are now all but certain to rise by at least 20 to 30 feet. That’s enough to put large parts of many coastal cities, home to hundreds of millions of people, under water.

Let me point out, unnecessarily for many readers, that not a single phrase or sentence in the first paragraph is true.  The second paragraph fares little better.  But only because “warm water does rise”  — just not in the odd way Wanless says.  [Technically, warming the water in the ocean causes expansion of the ocean’s water  —  the fact the ‘warmer water rises’ is not involved in this – it is the expansion that can lead to rising sea levels.]  Nothing else in the second paragraph is true.

I am loathe to exaggerate, as this is what I am accusing CCNow and Wanless of doing, so let’s take a close look:

The climate emergency is bigger than many experts, elected officials, and activists realize.”   There is no real physical climate emergency – there is only a shared opinion that there is a climate emergency.  At best, the sentence is an unsupported opinion (being presented here as fact).  It would be hard for the real climate situation to be bigger (worse) than some of the more bizarre activists and politicians (“we have nine years left” – John Kerry).

“Humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have overheated Earth’s atmosphere, unleashing punishing heat waves, hurricanes, and other extreme weather—that much is widely understood.”  There is no scientific consensus that the Earth’s atmosphere has been “overheated”.   Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are believed to have cause a small amount of warming – but only that since the mid-1900s.  Many think that that small warming and the CO2 that may have caused it are beneficial, including some of the smartest people in America.  The real data on global heat waves, hurricanes, and extreme weather do not support the claim that the small warming experienced has “unleash[ed] punishing heat waves, hurricanes, and other extreme weather” – that is the climate activist’s preferred meme, not fact. More on the facts are available from the specialized pages on this web site and here.  [ Readers:  Please supply links in comments to reliable graphs showing that the CCNow/Wanless claims are false. ]   Since this point is broadly contested by experts in wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes and extreme weather, it cannot be said to be “widely understood”. 

“The larger problem is that the overheated atmosphere has in turn overheated the oceans, assuring a catastrophic amount of future sea level rise.”   The oceans have not overheated – that is simply not true in any sense – it is difficult to even scientifically support that the oceans have warmed in any substantial, climatically important way.  Measuring ocean water temperature is an ongoing project and we have a very short time series of even moderately reliable data.  It is madness to claim that the tiny amount (if any) of ocean water warming has “assur[ed] a catastrophic amount of future sea level rise.”   

I will leave parsing the rest of second paragraph to readers.  But let’s take a further look at the idea that sea levels are assured to rise  “20 to 30 feet”.

Wanless states:  But if seas rise 20 feet or more over the next 100 to 200 years—which is our current trajectory—the outlook is grim. In that scenario, there could be two feet of sea level rise by 2040, three feet by 2050, and much more to come.” 

That link in there leads to “NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083 — GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNITED STATES” [ .pdf ] which you will not be surprised says no such thing.  The NOAA document does not say that the most extreme (RCP8.5) scenario is our current trajectory at all. And it does not, under any of the scenarios, predict 2 feet of sea level rise by 2040 or three feet by 2050, not even under RCP8.5 (a scenario which is now widely considered highly improbable to impossible). 

Even under impossible RCP8.5 conditions, NOAA predicts only 16 inches (2040) and 25 inches (2050) [yellow highlight]  – but in the real world, we saw only the 0.03m (30 mm) predicted for 2010 to 2020 for the very  lowest scenario [blue highlight] .    Wanless apparently gets his claimed our current trajectory to 20-30 feet from the lower right corner, highlighted in red, RCP8.5 at 2200. 

Adding insult to injury, Wanless goes on to claim in his article that “Today, oceans are rising six mm a year (over two inches a decade), and this pace will continue to dramatically accelerate.”   The only thing correct in this sentence is that 60mm is over two inches.  Wanless’s link to a CSIRO page is broken but current sea level rise, according to NOAA:

Not 6 mm/yr, but 3.3 mm/yr, and level for the last two or three years.  [ source: https://climate.nasa.gov/  to see this graph select Sea Level from right hand bottom section of the graphic at the top of the page.]

You may ask, “How can any article with so many obvious, egregious errors – wild exaggerations, inaccuracies and falsehoods —  get published in The Nation?”  That might be the wrong question.  Better to ask, “How did it get published by the AGU in  EOS in its science news section?”

The answer is:     The Nation, AGU and  EOS are all partners of CCNow

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its associated online magazine, EOS, have abandoned even the pretext of science and opted to join forces with the acknowledged propaganda effort, Covering Climate Now, with its anything-goes push to convince the world that there is a Climate Emergency so they will willingly give up fossil fuels.  This example today shows that that effort extends to publishing wild exaggeration and egregious lies to forward The Message – propaganda’s Big Lie in play.

I honestly don’t know how it has come to this and am simultaneously saddened and outraged. 

This has now gone far, far beyond the go-along-to-get-along mutual back-patting of climate alarmists at AGU meetings of the 1990’s.  Where are the real scientists who are members of the AGU?  How can they remain silent when EOS publishes such articles without even a disclaimer.  Shame.

Note: as always, I have fixed a couple of obvious typos on my first read-through after publication.

Address your comments to “Kip . . . “ so I will be sure to see them if you are speaking to me.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

4.9 40 votes
Article Rating
176 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder
May 6, 2021 6:06 am

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.”– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

From “Reflections on the Failure of Socialism” by Max Eastman.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 6, 2021 6:42 am

Have not seen that quote before. It should be posted on the DNC’s website.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Barnes Moore
May 6, 2021 7:53 am

I think it’s listed on the DNC site under “Methodology”.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Spetzer86
May 6, 2021 10:42 pm

Shame it’s the RNC’s motto.

chickenhawk
Reply to  Prjindigo
May 7, 2021 10:45 am

thus proving your usefulness

yirgach
Reply to  chickenhawk
May 8, 2021 4:25 pm

But only as a useful idiot.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 6, 2021 7:15 am

Indeed Nick. I always noted how the alarmist camp get the cues from Orwell, but this quote from Lenin demonstrates how they may also be getting their cues from notorious totalitarians in real-life history as well. Disgusting.

This is just my opinion, but those responsible for the output of the mass media today have all be abandoned any pretext of being journalists. As political propagandists for their activism, their is little reason left to believe much (if anything) of what they say.

History repeats itself.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 6, 2021 7:27 am

…there is little if any reason….

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 6, 2021 1:49 pm

I always noted how the alarmist camp get the cues from Orwell, but this quote from Lenin demonstrates how they may also be getting their cues from notorious totalitarians in real-life history as well.

Well, Orwell got his cues from the likes of Lenin.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 6, 2021 3:31 pm

You are right Zig Zag. I forgot that Orwell probably obtained his inspiration for 1984 from Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet Union.

observer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 7, 2021 10:53 am

It was a combination of collectivist authoritarianisms… including the BBC, where he worked for a spell.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 6, 2021 7:46 am

Nick,
You’d better be careful; revealing too much of the DemoKKKrats playbook could wind up with you dying of an apparent suicide with three bullets in the back of your head! The radicals have taken over the party and they believe, hopefully correctly, that this may be their last chance to seize power and implement the Marxist agenda they have been pushing for years!

gringojay
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 6, 2021 11:10 am

School daze redux =

EEF38EDC-4ADB-4684-ACB3-A0804C8308FC.jpeg
Prjindigo
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 6, 2021 10:44 pm

You think you’re slick but you’ve just violated site rules. And you’re completely a brainwashed GOP drone as well. The Democrats aren’t organized enough to have membership in such an entity.

observer
Reply to  Prjindigo
May 7, 2021 10:55 am

The Democrats are now the party most in line with the Depp State. Check out the CIA’s recent “woke” recruitment videos.

Drake
Reply to  Prjindigo
May 7, 2021 7:54 pm

They were organized enough to have multiple “candidates” drop out of the presidential primary and endorse OBiden just in time to stop Burney. Burney went along with it because he knew OBiden was a communist sleeper.

Tom Halla
May 6, 2021 6:24 am

And of course they would use the satellite sea level rise figures, and then not even cite them anywhere near correctly. They are not even making an attempt to be credible.

Jim Clarke
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2021 8:29 am

Credibility is not their goal and it never has been. You don’t convince the world that it needs enslaving by being ‘credible’! You do it by being scary.

Climate believer
Reply to  Jim Clarke
May 6, 2021 9:45 am

Scary…yeah sounds familiar….

“I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 6, 2021 9:46 am

Where are the so-called fact-finders when they are needed?

Steve Case
May 6, 2021 6:26 am

Not 6 mm/yr, but 3.3 mm/yr, and level for the last two or three years.

NOAA says sea level has risen at 1.7-1.8 mm/yr LINK

Areas experiencing little-to-no change in relative sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. 

Personal investigation of long running tide gauge data from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level LINK Shows that acceleration of sea level is about 0.01 mm/yr/yr not the 0.097 claimed by Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group. LINK



Steve Case
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 7:47 am

Maybe this LINK will work

Sea level rise is probably the biggest scare the Climate Crusaders have. It has been rising since records began being kept in the early 19th century, and probably has been for thousands of years. The water has to be coming from somewhere, and receding glaciers and the ice caps are a good bet for that.

Much of the narrative, “Warm water melting the glaciers at the grounding line” for example are processes that have been going on right along. Observing something for the first time, doesn’t mean it has never happened before.

Three feet of sea level rise by 2050 (30 mm/year) is an insane exaggeration.

Here’s a LINK to Dr. James Hansen’s paper from several years ago where he said
five meters by 2100 was possible (see figure 7 page 40) and of course figure 7 is what the news media wrote about a decade ago. If you run the numbers, it comes to nearly a millimeter per day by December 2099.

James Beaver
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2021 8:26 am

Water that expands due to temperature changes does not require additional water, from any source, to manifest as higher levels. It’s just expanding.

Curious George
Reply to  James Beaver
May 6, 2021 9:54 am

True. You omitted any calculation, just in case.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  James Beaver
May 6, 2021 9:59 am

According to the University of Colorado, [link not functioning or I would provide it] the global average thermosteric sea level rise is 0.33mm/yr, or less than 19% of the smaller tide-gauge rise, and 10% of the larger satellite estimate of sea level rise. So, it is a measurable quantity, but not what is driving the situation.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 6, 2021 3:04 pm

Aquifer extraction accounts for 0.6mm per year of sea level rise. So it looks like aquifer extraction and thermal expansion accounts for half of sea level rise.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/6/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Toland
Bill Toland
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 3:30 pm

Kip, here is another link to the orginal study about aquifer extraction. This gives more detail about the calculations.

https://www.waterworld.com/international/article/16201939/groundwater-depletion-linked-to-rising-sea-levels

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 6, 2021 3:24 pm

According to this link, thermal expansion adds 1.1 mm to sea level rise. This means that aquifer extraction and thermal expansion make up the majority of sea level rise. If this is true, glacial melting cannot be contributing much to sea level rise.

https://nckingtides.web.unc.edu/2017/07/12/thermal-expansion-and-sea-level-rise-july-17-2017/

Reply to  Bill Toland
May 6, 2021 6:29 pm

Bill T
Lawrence Krauss, in his attempted take-down of Steve Koonin’s new book “Unsettled”, mentioned that the expansion of the oceans by thermosteric processes accounts for ~40% of the rise.
https://quillette.com/2021/05/01/why-climate-science-is-like-the-rest-of-science/

btw Krauss’ article was not very convincing: lots of appeal to authority, tried to suggest climate science is on-par with particle physics, and most laughable said that climate scientists are not swayed by (peer) pressure “to conform”. Presumably he thinks this extends to grant funding as well!
[I have not read LK’s new book; Koonin’s is back-ordered]

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 6, 2021 8:09 pm

It appears that like so many things in climatology, the science is not settled.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 6, 2021 10:45 pm

Bill, Clyde and Kip, I agree that all of these calculations are just informed guesses. I cannot get all of the estimates of aquifer extraction, thermal expansion and glacial melting to add up to the observed sea level rise by tide gauges. Personally, I think the amount of ocean warming is overstated and the estimate for thermal expansion is too high. This will reconcile the total figure to the observed sea level rise. However, climate alarmists will not like this because it means that the oceans are warming very little at all; this means that the amount of global warming that is actually occurring is tiny.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Toland
David A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 7, 2021 2:38 am

“So, it is a measurable quantity, but not what is driving the situation.”

Good post, yet that number is, IMV, more fabricated then measured. For many reasons the official WAGS on ocean T are questionable.

fred101
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2021 7:25 am

Your link for Colorado apparently is incorrect or removed. The link is https://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Ron Long
May 6, 2021 6:28 am

Good report, KIp, and I appreciate your work exposing the deceit coming from the CAGW crowd and their politician enablers. I have suggested that someone with a clearly erroneous view fact check via google or whatever, and, here’s the punchline: not a single person has ever done so. What you are relating is the group think comfort low achievers and their corrupt enablers get by singing the liberal song. A reality check is now posted on foxnews.com wherein President Biden, speaking at the 50th Anniversary of Amtrack, related a story profoundly false, but cherished by the left because of its humanity.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Ron Long
May 6, 2021 7:07 am

The left is simply doubling down on their flagrant lies given that the MSM is their PR firm. The lies about the Georgia voting law along with circle back Psaki and Mayorkis claiming they inherited a border crisis are two recent egregious examples. Thankfully, many states are pushing back, but there is a long road ahead.

DMacKenzie
May 6, 2021 6:34 am

They even have their own Ten Commandments…. “Best Practices”  the tenth is to not allow opposing viewpoints to be heard. Best to call them “Climate liars” at every opportunity and not allow them a platform to insist they are correct. Fair is fair.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 6, 2021 10:07 am

Just as the MSM blatantly calls claims of voting fraud a “lie,” without benefit of a grand jury or congressional investigative committee actually examining all the various claims. Suits have been dismissed as not having standing because of the lack of evidence, because there has not been an investigation — Catch 22! I’ll entertain the idea that the fraud claims could be false, but until there is a thorough, unbiased investigation, no one is justified in calling them “lies.” That tips their hand in being biased and engaging in propaganda.

paul courtney
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 6, 2021 1:13 pm

Mr. Spencer: The real investigations of the past that exposed voter fraud (I’m talking 100 years ago) would have been done by the press. The only way to catch this sort of ballot stuffing is to have someone stake out the back door of the counting stations after they closed. Who knew they would close?! Fox is the only news org. with the resources to do that in several states, and they didn’t. Based on the Fox news director’s attitude, they preferred to stay in the studio and call us liars. So I’m thinking this will not be investigated by anybody. Sad

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  paul courtney
May 6, 2021 8:11 pm

Yes, the Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.

Graemethecat
Reply to  paul courtney
May 7, 2021 3:10 am

Project Veritas has done sterling work on absolutely undeniable voter fr@ud in Minnesota. See their videos on YouTube before they disappear.

Reacher51
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 7, 2021 7:13 am

There is no need to investigate something for which there is no evidence beyond your imagination. In the numerous lawsuits regarding supposed voter fraud, lawyers were given every opportunity to present any evidence they might have. On most occasions, they correctly stated that they had no evidence whatsoever. On a few occasions, they presented witnesses. Those witnesses, however, invariably either testified to something that was not actually criminal (e.g. people giving them dirty looks while they monitored voting), or to something that was only considered hearsay because the witnesses did not actually witness what they were testifying to first hand.

On top of that, the various issues brought up that seemed plausibly interesting at first, e.g. suitcase full of ballots counted after witnesses left, or supposed statistical anomalies, were all explained perfectly reasonably, which accounts for why all of the conservative media interest in those issues evaporated rather quickly. If there was any actual substance to any of these issues, we would all know what it is by now.

The haste with which media outlets have rushed to point out that there is no actual evidence of voter fraud when threatened with defending that proposition in a law suit, however, should point to the obvious fact that there simply is no basis to believe that any significant fraud took place.

No one is investigating whether Santa Claus really has an invisible house packed with elves at the North Pole either. It may be true that an unbiased investigation would find exactly such a house, but the fact that millions of children believe it exists is not sufficient evidence to warrant such an investigation. If you do not comprehend that fact and believe that millions of people imagining something to be true counts as valid evidence, then I would suggest that you get your climate related information from the Guardian, which applies precisely that intellectual framework to its coverage of the “climate crisis.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 7, 2021 7:35 am

“I’ll entertain the idea that the fraud claims could be false”

The fraud claims are rock solid. We know for sure there were many illegal votes cast in the 2020 presidential election.

What we don’t know is who those illegal votes went to.

Something like 15,000 illegal aliens voted in the Arizona election, along with about the same number of dead people, and about the same number of people who were no longer eligible because they had moved out of Arizona.

Trump lost Arizona by 10,000 votes.

My assumption would be that most of the fraudulent votes went to Biden, but of course, I can’t prove it.

About the only way to prove Trump got cheated out of the election will be if Mike Lindell, the MyPillow Guy, can prove in detail how the votes were switched. He claims he can do so, but the rollout has not been smooth, which doesn’t help his case.

There is enough obvious voter fraud in all the battleground States to spur election reform.

There is not enough evidence yet that Biden did not win the election.

Comeon, Mike, let’s see what you have. Or give it up.

The Arizona vote audit is continuing, although now Biden’s “Justice” Department is getting involved and is voicing concerns that the vote audit will somehow discourage people from voting in the future. This is just more of Biden using the power of the federal government against his political enemies. This is what dictators do. He’s inching that way.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
beng135
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 6, 2021 10:44 am

Straight out of Lenin’s/Goebbels’/Alinsky’s playbook — improved even.

dk_
May 6, 2021 6:38 am

Possibly of interest, quoted in wikipedia, from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. “
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “

These are all what is being practiced against the thinking public. They are also a list of tactical weaknesses of the Global Warming Terrorism and their fellow travellers.
There is no climate change debate, there is no crisis, this is not an environmental movement, but a movement for violent and drastic political and economic change.
And although I have a diploma (and partly paid for two others) from the same University as Mx Heyhoe, her college is home to one of the most Marxist/Socialist political science departments in U.S. academic institutions. She has a political science degree, and is not a scientist.

Steve Case
Reply to  dk_
May 6, 2021 8:00 am

5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Ridicule cuts both ways, the lies exaggeration and bullshit need to be pointed out. The problem is there isn’t a platform to do it from. When Twitter banned a sitting president and my little post at QUORA was deleted along with two others you know something is seriously wrong.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Case
dk_
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2021 9:40 am

What did Alinsky do, before facebook and twitter? ‘Member Thomas Paine? Which came first, NYT or the first amendment?

U.S. media were not created to enable free speech, it was the other way around. This is a good web site for publication of opinion. We can find others.

FB, Twitter, and Google sold out to CCP long ago. Do not depend on them to save you, they were never there.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2021 10:12 am

The resident trolls here get their fair share of ridicule. However, it doesn’t seem to faze most of them. They are shameless. The problem is that the readers here are a rather select group; they are better educated in general, and in science in particular. What is needed is access to John Q. Public, which is pretty much controlled by the MSM and social media.

dk_
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 6, 2021 1:03 pm

Is the answer to dominance and intimidation to be found in capitulation or in defiance? If the former, why bother at all? If the latter, then MSM and FANG don’t matter.
Most of the trolls here are no smarter than the text processing “bots” given away as free software a couple decades ago. The ones that were programed to simulate transactional analysis as conversation. The programs didn’t understand what the user was writing, just changed the tense of the input and word order and threw it back as a question. One trollbot the other day replied to a piece with something that didn’t make much sense on its own and was contradicted by the article itself, then replied to himself to give the opposite opion within about 2 minutes of his (its?) first post. Think of them as drunken hecklers if you must think of them at all.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 6:42 pm

Kip & Clyde
Yes! They are mostly impervious to facts so don’t get overheated dealing with them. Kip’s sign is perfect.

However, [conspiracy alert!}: could be Anthony paying the trolls just to rile up the base? or are they “NPCs” [non-player characters run by software in video games to give a foil to the human participants]?
Looking at some of griffs past statements I favor #2. LOL

DrEd
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 7, 2021 8:03 am

They are liars. There is no reason to believe that they do not know what they are pushing are lies because that facts are there for us all to see. They should be called liars, and we must take active action against them. What colleges and professional societies to you contribute to? What woke companies do you support? Please make your voices heard.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dk_
May 7, 2021 7:51 am

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

That’s what the radical Democrats are doing. They are creating a crisis atmosphere every day. If it’s not racism, it’s climate change. Always something to get people stirred up.

It should not be any wonder that a lot of psychopaths in our society are losing control of themselves and acting out in a violent way, in such an atmosphere, like the ones created by these dangerous Democrats.

The Democrats are trying to tear down our society while claiming they are making it better.

The 2022 vote will tell us a lot about the future of the U.S. and the world. Have the insane Democrats seized cotrol or does it just appear that way at this time? They are almost there, but maybe not quite.

dk_
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 7, 2021 9:04 am

I’m not embarrassed to say that I’ve known and know of Democrats who I’d trust my life with. One of the reasons identity politics is played is the Lippmann-esq stereotype replaces all reason, leading to knee jerk overreactions and eventually violent confrontation. This plays, in-turn, to the Marxist/Alinsky/Leninist style of radical political change that several groups are pursuing right now.
There’s fools and lightweights on both sides. I intend to try to call out individuals, and use the word “they” as little as possible.
You are not wrong, but I will suggest that the top end of the party are using convergent crises to further their agenda. In Congress and the most populous states, the party will flock together, but fall to infighting when it comes to competition and micturation competitions. Works in both parties.
For instance, I think Tulsi Gabbard might be a decent politician and human being, even if quite naiive. And while I didn’t really like the late Senator Jim Wright, I ended up accidentally owing him for doing some decent political work from which I benefitted directly.
And for instance, both Georges and the late Barbara Bush all turned out to be ideological and party turncoats, which grieves me personally to no end.
Put not your faith in princes. Human beings are imperfect, hence a constitutional, federalist republic, and not a social democracy or “constitutional monarchy,” is the world leader in prosperity and liberty even now.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
cerescokid
May 6, 2021 6:43 am

comment image

nearly 40 years ago the EPA said oceans could rise by 10 feet in several decades. That was wrong. Why should we believe anything that the same kind of mentality predicts now.

Intergenerational amnesia. We are indoctrinated to fall for this stuff every time.

H. D. Hoese
May 6, 2021 6:59 am

“….a list of talking points labelled Climate Science 101 provided by Katharine Hayhoe.”
https://coveringclimatenow.org/resource/climate-science-101/
“Thousands of scientists around the world are in agreement on the reality of a warming planet. We often hear that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is real and due to human beings, but in reality that figure is closer to 100%. As the climate scientist Michael Mann recently told “60 Minutes”, “There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.”….Suck some of the carbon dioxide we’ve produced back out of the atmosphere and put it into the soil, where it helps restore the land, or turn it into fuel, or stone, or other useful products….”

Hayhoe works, last I heard, at Texas Tech in the often frigid panhandle. A real climate scientist would have been researching the recent blizzard and the continuing cold fronts reaching the Gulf. University administrations have been long corrupted by athletics, at least their score is evaluated more rapidly.

You don’t have to know much science to detect nonsense. I suspect that I have read more scientific papers on climate and weather in the last year or so than she has. It is unprofessional to claim to be a scientist, manager, and a prophet at the same time. Unfortunately, these types are now dangerously all over the place in many disciplines and organizations like the AGU mentioned. Experts on everything, giving instructions. Juvenile and naive and hired by [put your own thesaurus here].

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 6, 2021 8:17 am

These leftists can’t understand that science is driven by empirical data (unadjusted) not concensus. Only politicized science is driven by feelings and consensus.

Fraizer
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
May 6, 2021 9:51 am

They understand that very well. They are not pushing science, they are pushing propaganda. They are trying to win public opinion and are being relatively successful.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 7:00 am

I listen to NPR’s “Morning Edition”, and lately, have been aware of a sharp uptick in the shrillness and blatantness of the climate propaganda. I am tempted to just shut it off, but feel like I have to listen, to know what lies they are telling. It is wall-to-wall lies and whoppers of lies. One wonders if even the reporters believe all that crap, or are simply obeying their marching orders. The True Believers will believe anything I suppose, because “it’s science”. But I also imagine it would be a turnoff for many.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 7:56 am

I gave up listening to NPR years ago. Once I figured out there was always another side to every story they told, but you weren’t going to hear it on NPR it all seemed pretty worthless. Now, I don’t find myself yelling at the radio while I’m driving, so that’s good.

rah
Reply to  Spetzer86
May 6, 2021 8:44 am

While driving back from Kansas City this early morning they had some Irish Professor talking about melting glaciers and how terrible, horrible, miserable the effects will be on NPR. Though I am not a listener I kept listening for laughs.

BTW this comes after Glacier National Park removed their signs saying all of the glaciers in the park would be gone by 2020. LOL!
comment image

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rah
May 6, 2021 8:56 am

I think that Irish “professor” kissed the Baloney Stone more than once.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
May 6, 2021 10:18 am

… how terrible, horrible, miserable the effects will be on NPR.

We can only hope that NPR suffers the consequences of their propaganda. 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 10:26 am

Sun Tzu advised knowing your enemy.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/know-your-enemy/

The link contains some advice that might be useful for those of us in Crusader Rabbit’s grey battalion.

dk_
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2021 1:07 pm

Bruce NPR lost all credibility with me at least a decade ago. I keep hoping that they’ll regain their senses, but so far they’ve just compounded my disappointment. What’s worse, it started with just some of their light comedy shows, but now it saturates NPR and PBS television.

Barnes Moore
May 6, 2021 7:01 am

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

Jon R
Reply to  Barnes Moore
May 6, 2021 7:24 am

None dare call it a conspiracy when it’s a conspiracy.

H. D. Hoese
May 6, 2021 7:35 am

Speaking of exaggeration I just got this off the Sigma Xi/American Scientist blog also from a member of Stable Climate. Sigma Xi administration, as I have posted before, has become, in violation of their constitution, an activist political group. Apparently they have gone quieter because of the pushback, as in suggesting they all resign.

If they are real scientists they would discuss the matter. It is the National Research Honor Society, not the political action group some are using it for. Real scientists would be interested more in the angular momentum of an approaching object, rather than running around screaming “The asteroid is coming, the asteroid is coming….”
http://www.stableclimate.org/
“We recognize the way to do this is to bring excess greenhouse gas emissions to zero very quickly…”

bonbon
May 6, 2021 7:52 am

Kip – ¨I honestly don’t know how it has come to this and am simultaneously saddened and outraged. ¨

Sure, but instead of pounding sand, have a look outside your specialty, to economics.

The entire Great Reset, endorsed by the FED, BlackRock et al. rides on the public going along with a massive green bubble, their proposed solution to the immanent implosion of the everything bubble. See acts of desperation like weaponizing SWIFT.

It is simply astounding that climate specialists refuse to look outside their bunker, understandable with the sheer intensity of incoming propaganda fire.

Another example – the current showdown at Jersey over fishing with UK and French warships on the way is actually about Paris refusing to allow the City of London its usual financial access rules right in the middle of this financial green bubble escapade.

It is a green fishy tail that distracts from the best made plans of mice and men going awry!

bonbon
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 9:17 am

See the Great Reset declaration at Davos – the intent is to use climate hysteria to inflate a massive green bubble . The FED and BlackRock, the largest hedge fund, have endorsed it. They even go so far as a digital currency to replace the US$ – that is called Regime Change by the FED and Mark Carney, ex Bank of England Chief, now UN Climate Action advisor.
This is no joke.
They see a collapse far worse than the 2008 debacle, will expect government bailouts, and provide their GREEN solution. Either countries get on board or face sanction. Russia and China will not go along, India neither. The US would not go along without full spectrum information warfare which has popped up on your radar.

In other words this battle will be won with the combined aggregate of Russia, China, India and the USA together putting the banking system through bankruptcy reorganization. That threat alone is driving the hysteria. It cannot be won with scientific arguments alone – the sheer array of forces makes most researchers quail.
It is simply hopeless to expect that a show of honesty by well meaning researchers will put this irredeemably bankrupt system through Chapter 11.

Unless of course researchers get out of the bunker and notice what is going on!

Pariah Dog
May 6, 2021 8:02 am

“The larger problem is that the overheated atmosphere has in turn overheated the oceans, assuring a catastrophic amount of future sea level rise.”

This is simply impossible. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to attempt to boil water by hanging a heating element a foot above a pot of water, and getting back to me when it starts bubbling.

I predict the water will never boil, and the fool that attempts this will have a rather large electricity bill to settle by month’s end.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pariah Dog
May 6, 2021 8:05 am

The only thing “overheated” is their imaginations and rhetoric.

MarkW
Reply to  Pariah Dog
May 6, 2021 9:25 am

The oceans aren’t heated by longwave radiation. They are warmed, as always by short wave radiation.
However the rate at which the heat being added escapes the oceans is in part dictated by air temperature.
When the air gets hotter, the water has to get hotter in order to maintain a constant heat flow.

dk_
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2021 1:16 pm

Er? Reminds me of the explanation of electron “hole” flow. Why does the water feel that it must get hotter? How is it obliged to maintain a constant heat flow? How does water manage the concept of constant? Is water punished when it doesn’t or is it self-discipline? How does one achieve constancy through change? Short wave radiation is absorbed more readily than long wave radiation? Perhaps through tuning?
Who made air the dictator? Will it now try to conquer Egypt, or Poland? Was that dictator for life or are there term limits?
My thermodynamics instructor would have had fun with this.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2021 2:00 pm

When the air gets hotter, the water has to get hotter in order to maintain a constant heat flow.

Hen that the heat capacity of the oceans is at least a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, that will never have a noticeable effect on the temperature of the oceans.

Bob boder
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2021 2:14 pm

Mark

Correct, and that’s why ocean warming from CO2 won’t cause the oceans to warm first. CO2 would have to warm the atmosphere then the oceans would warm. In the climate schizophrenia world though cause and effect are irrelevant and any order of events is just more proof to them no matter how much it contradicts the actual scientific theory.

Doonman
Reply to  Pariah Dog
May 6, 2021 10:51 am

It is impossible which means the entire publication is junk. No need to further read anything from this source.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Pariah Dog
May 7, 2021 9:42 pm

The word “overheated” is derogatory in the context of describing ocean surface waters, and is relative to an undefined standard.

The temperature of Earth’s sea surfaces ranges from slightly less than 0 °C in the coldest waters in the Arctic and Antarctic regions to about 30 °C maximum in waters near Earth’s equator.

Since the human body has a typical skin temperature of about 33 °C at rest (i.e., excluding heavy work or exercise or long term exposure to sunlight), most people would consider ocean water anywhere to be “cool to the touch” or colder, but not “overheated”.

Abolition Man
May 6, 2021 8:08 am

Kip,
What we are witnessing is the end game of the religious war we have been embroiled in for decades! The Progressives, or neo-Marxists, saw the failures of communism/socialism in China and the Soviet Union; and instead of self correcting, they doubled down! They pushed harder than ever to infiltrate the media and education systems in ALL liberal, Western democracies; especially the US! Both have become more and more left wing as the “true believers” push out those who dissent or disagree!

They must realize that the populist nationalist movements springing up around the globe, like Brexit, the French gilets jaunts, the Trump deplorables and the uprising in Hong Kong are a threat to achieving their Communists worker’s Utopia! The stolen 2020 election is their best chance to win the war outright; if they can implement the Green Raw Deal and other leftists policies, the war is over except for mopping up the pockets of resistance against their tyranny! The uptick in all the propaganda outlets is a sign of where they think they are in the battle!

This isn’t a war you can sit back and watch from the sidelines; they WILL be coming to your door at some point! You have a choice to fight now, or bend the knee and take your punishment! The rules of engagement in a religious war are brutal and bloody! Look at the outcomes in Russia, China, Cambodia and Venezuela. The sociopaths always rise to the top in a dictatorship; like the cream on a bottle of spoiled milk! The idealistic “intellectuals” are usually the first to be executed or imprisoned, but not the last! Everyone will be investigated for wrongthink at some point; and, with the High Tech Nazis fully on board, everything you have ever said or written will be under scrutiny! Look at the jokes that the DOJ and FBI have become as they throw the book at Trump and his supporters, while Antifa and BLM rioters go scot free!

The Church of Climastrology is only one of the sects within the Progressive religion, but it is one of the most vulnerable! By pushing back against the lies and hysteria of the alarmists, we have an opportunity to take out one of the major legs of their movement! I truly believe that if we can fully wake up the public to the costs and dangers of the GND and unreliable energy, we can turn the tide and avoid a new deeper Dark Age!

Peter W
May 6, 2021 8:20 am

I started studying this stuff back in 2006 after becoming aware of the debate. In 2012 I published an article in a local (at the time) newspaper presenting my findings. I sent these idiots a slightly updated version of the paper a couple of days ago; they ignored it, of course.

I have a B.S. in physics and have been through multiple videos from TheGreatCourses.com which cover the associated science and history, and on which some of the professors proceed to make fools of themselves by obviously contradicting the science they present, in order to support “global warming.” At this time my “official” position is that emitting more CO2 is the best thing we could be doing. We are approaching the next BIG ice age, and the increase in plant growth will help to offset a little the resulting loss in plant growth due to shortened growing seasons, and loss of plant habitat as the glaciers once again expand across our northern continents, as they have done about every 100,000 years.

Steve Z
May 6, 2021 8:21 am

NASA’s graph of sea level rise from 1993 to 2021 shows a 3.3 mm/year sea level rise rate, with no sign of any acceleration (the curve lines up well with a straight line between the end points). If there was no acceleration over the past 28 years, there is no reason to assume an acceleration in the future.

Taking 2020 as a base point and no acceleration, we would predict 99 mm (3.9 inches) by 2050, 264 mm (10.4 inches) by 2100, and 594 mm (23.4 inches) by 2200. Less than 2 feet by the year 2200, not 20 to 30 feet!

Would this be so catastrophic for our descendants in 2200? Would it be possible to build a seawall 2 feet high around coastal cities in 180 years? Considering that it took the city of Galveston about 5 years to build a 25-foot high seawall after the catastrophic hurricane of 1900, it probably is VERY possible. We have better earth-moving machines now than in 1900-1905, and they will probably be even better in the future, so building seawalls would be much cheaper than relying on solar panels and windmills (or horses) for our daily energy needs. But earth-moving machines need fossil fuels to power them!

Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 11:15 am

I don’t think it is even that.

  1. Go to the global tidal gauge regression list: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html
  2. Sort by rate of rise
  3. Go to the middle of the list. Since there are 365 of them, that would be Tiksi, Russia
  4. Look at it’s rate/graph. It is 1.53 mm/year.

Finding a “mean” is worthless because of the asymmetries involved. Median is far far superior in this case.

rah
Reply to  Lux Aeterna
May 6, 2021 12:21 pm

Are all of those tide gauges with GPS to adjust for geologic rebound or uplift and subsidence? If not can someone tell me how many are?

Lux Aeterna
Reply to  rah
May 6, 2021 12:34 pm

365 of them. If you pick near the middle, then you get a typical reading. What more do you want? The graph shows what is happening, which is all we care about. We don’t care about “adjusted” models, we care about what is actually happening.
The median tells us that nothing is happening.

Let us assume the sea level acceleration premise is true, please explain how that isn’t completely blown out of the water by the Don Helder graph below.

Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 2:50 pm

Why should they be? Clearly the median and the mode are consistent. Why do I need “VLM”? On the left side of the historgram the elevation is rising, on the right side the elevation is sinking. But towards the middle, there is a stable peak where the land levels are more or less stable. It’s plain to see. There is no need to introduce more error into the process by using “adjustments”.

I don’t care how “serious” the essays are. I see no justification for making adjustments. The histogram shows a clear mode with the median sitting firmly in it. That is better than any cheeseball weighting systems that begs for those with an agenda to put their thumb on the scale.

Last edited 1 month ago by Lux Aeterna
rah
Reply to  Lux Aeterna
May 7, 2021 7:29 am

It seems to me that measuring and adjusting for VLM can only give us a more accurate measurements of actual SLR as opposed to relative SLR.

Relative SLR may be what is important to those that live on the coast but it would seem to me that actual SLR is what is most important for the argument about “climate change”.

I would like to thank those that responded but I would still appreciate a link to some source which lists the specific stations that have the GPS technology if one exists.

Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 3:08 pm

Even at that, one still has ONLY the change in actual sea surface height at THAT ONE PLACE.

Hence the global network of 365. Then the histogram. Then choosing the most reliable from near the median to see what is going on.
Seriously, this is statistics 101.(which I teach BTW). You always make a histogram to get an idea of what is going on.

Moreover, looking at the tidal gauges one-by-one, you see that not one of them shows any acceleration like that shown by NASA, hence you know it is a lie. So looking at them one-by-one is very informative.

Last edited 1 month ago by Lux Aeterna
Graemethecat
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 7, 2021 3:23 am

Why is so much money and resource being invested in measuring SLR to a few microns? It’s abundantly clear that any rise is negligible on a human timespan. In any case, the very idea of measuring sea level to that precision is intrinsically ludicrous.

Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 2:53 pm

Why the love affair with “average?” Who decided that average was “the” metric for measuring sea level changes?

You cannot look at any one tidal gauge. But if you have a globally distributed system of them, which we do, then picking out a few from near the center of the distribution is about as good as you are going to get; moreover, it is as good as you need, because the data is from where people live.

Last edited 1 month ago by Lux Aeterna
Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 11:16 am

Here is a histogram of the tidal gauges. With 5% of the outliers removed. (for resolution)

Screenshot 2021-05-06 2.14.00 PM.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Lux Aeterna
Lux Aeterna
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 11:19 am

Here is Don Helder, Netherlands, which is #171. (the longest and strongest data set near the median). You can see as clear as day that there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

Screenshot 2021-05-06 2.06.28 PM.png
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Z
May 6, 2021 10:44 am

with no sign of any acceleration

There has been no acceleration in 7,000 years!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Z
May 6, 2021 10:46 am

But earth-moving machines need fossil fuels to power them!

Surely you aren’t concerned about battery-powered behemoths working in and around salt water? 🙂

fretslider
May 6, 2021 8:37 am

That’s it in a nutshell:

“The Climate Story”.

rah
May 6, 2021 8:39 am

As usual Tony Heller debunks the BS. “Some Scientists Believe” | Real Climate Science

Climate believer
Reply to  rah
May 6, 2021 9:51 am

You gotta hand it to Tony, he is prolific and relentless, I thumb up every video he puts out.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
May 7, 2021 8:16 am

Hey, rah, I saw a headline yesterday where a trucking company was offering $14,000.00 per week to any driver that would sign up.

Are things that bad in the trucking industry?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 8, 2021 4:01 am

Thanks, Kip.

observa
May 6, 2021 8:43 am

The climate emergency is bigger than many experts, elected officials, and activists realize.

All hail the new Messiah who can see what the many experts, elected officials and activists can’t. As for the demon skeptics and those worshipping the Devil…?

John F Hultquist
May 6, 2021 8:51 am

People do not like to be lied to. When a person fully realizes another is lying regularly and in a big way the relationship sours. The purpose of “wild exaggeration and egregious lies” is to suppress the realization of the climate scam.

Sunlight. Remember the fogs of London and the dirty skies of Pittsburgh? [search up 1948 Donora smog] These incidents, among others, led to a significant clean-up of air pollution.

Sunlight enters water, especially when the encounter is vertical (direct), and there is a massive amount of this action in the near-equatorial Pacific Ocean. Sunlight is energy.

A more straight forward case can be made for a cleaner sky and solar energy heating the ocean, that in turn heats the atmosphere. The events are episodic, rather than cyclical.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/enso.description.html

Compare the information at that site with what you will find at the Wikipedia entry for Tropical Warm Pool.
Do note the phrase “<em>Its intensity and extent appear to oscillate over a time period measured in decades.</em>”
This negates the entire argument.

Jcorbin
May 6, 2021 8:57 am

It’s is far more than the left driving the climate propaganda and the entire sick propaganda machine. If you keep assuming it is the left driving the sick propaganda machine, you will miss the complexity of the situation. Remember big oil is supporting carbon tax and has been a big NPR supporter for a decade or more. The amoral anarchistic elite fringe (left and right) is somehow a benefactor of the dystopia they’re working hard to create. Remember Marxist anarchism is an amoral movement towards revolution to put an elite core in power and radical libertarianism is anarchistic movement of an elite amoral core of wealthy individuals and or corporations to build empires. These are the strange bedfellows driving the dystopic lies in our media. It is as if we live in a world of intelligence organizations willing to impose rigid categories in our thinking about what is happening, yet playing all sides into such a tangle that no can figure it out but another intelligence agency….. and this is on a global scale. They are the dystopia they want us to be. They are the dollars behind the sick propaganda machine. I don’t know who they are or have the ability to figure it out…but just follow the money if you can. The fact is both sides are rooted in amoral philosophy, means they by definition totally lack wisdom and because of this are caught up in the complex multi-layered drama each of them has stepped into for their own reasons. History is not kind to those who lack wisdom but the fact that the lack of wisdom is on such an immense scale, many will affected. What can you do? Will standing up for the truth and countering every idiot claim….maybe. Sometimes I think most of us would be better off to toss the phones, unplug the broadband, write paper letters to our elected officials telling them we want it to stop and print news letters and snail mail them. Have conferences face to face. It’s too easy in this format to be angled and dangled. I loved the climate widgets but who cares about the widgets anymore….all the blab is political.

Mickey Reno
May 6, 2021 9:03 am

Ms. Katherine Allegedly Christian Righteous Hayhoe sins against her profession [1] and sins against her religion [2]. She will burn in hell for promoting her lies. Oh, and you are NOT a Nobel Prize Winner, so stop saying you are or letting others say if of you in promoting your appearances..

[1] – From a Feynman Lecture on the scientific method


[2] – You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. The Torah and Bible, Leviticus 19:11 reiterated by Jesus on several occasions and in the 9th Commandment of Moses to the Jews.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 9:48 am

She has perpetuated the Nobel Prize winner BS far beyond most of the other CAGW alarmists that participated in the IPCC assessment reports. Happily, Michael Mann had to stop doing this due to Mark Steyn ridiculing him and making an issue of it in his court proceedings. But Hayhoe has continued this fiction.

Being a good Christian is at least as demanding of one’s integrity as being a good scientist. Being a double hypocrite is not a good look for anyone. I say this only for her own good. I’m concerned for her, for her afterlife. Yeah, I’m concerted about her immortal soul. That’s the ticket. 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 6, 2021 11:01 am

Kip
She has fans?

Jcorbin
May 6, 2021 9:10 am

States with Carbon Tax : https://www.c2es.org/document/us-state-carbon-pricing-policies/#:~:text=Those%20states%20are%20California%20and,Greenhouse%20Gas%20Initiative%20(RGGI).

“Compared to command-and-control regulations, carbon pricing is a market-based mechanism that creates financial incentives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Twelve states that are home to over a quarter of the U.S. population and account for a third of U.S. GDP have active carbon-pricing programs and are successfully reducing emissions. Those states are California and the eleven Northeast states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, , and Virginia — that make up the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is the first mandatory cap-and-trade program in the United States to limit carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. California’s program was the first multi-sector cap-and-trade program in North America. Massachusetts has also implemented regulations to establish an additional cap-and-trade program for its power sector that runs in parallel with RGGI but extends out to 2050. Washington state moved forward with a market-based climate policy called the Clean Air Rule but this program is currently suspended while working its way through the court system.”

Do you think hydrocarbon consumption will be reduced in these states over the next 5 years? I wonder if these states have passed anti-off grid legislation.


Jcorbin
May 6, 2021 9:16 am

All the states that have passed carbon tax legislation have also passed anti-off grid legislation. Makes no sense right? No one in those states is even thinking about a high tech battery…. no longer viable financially. Put up solar cells to garner fed tax subsidy while they their solar powered electrify goes nowhere. No one will develop a high tech battery when no one wants one due to stupid legislation that have boxed everyone into a corner.

May 6, 2021 9:20 am

Fritz Vahrenholt’s monthly sun column
this newsletter is getting a little longer today. But the Federal Constitutional Court ruling on the CO2 phase-out is also tough.
But first, as always, to the temperature curve. The deviation of the global mean temperature of the satellite-based measurements from the average for the years 1991-2021 decreased further to -0.05 degrees Celsius in April 2021. The cool La Niña situation of the last few months is still having an impact. According to the US weather and oceanography agency, NOAA, there is an 80% chance that La Niña will end between May and July. However, the authority expects a new La Niña to start again in autumn.

A constitutional court ruling based on questionable sources
With a decision of March 24th, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on the action of some individuals such as the actor Hannes Jänicke, Luisa Neubauer (Fridays for future), Prof. Volker Quaschning, Josef Göppel (CSU and Energy Commissioner of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation) that the Climate Protection Act of December 12, 2019, is unconstitutional because “there are insufficient provisions for further emission reductions from the year 2031” .
How does the court come to this conclusion?

Jim Clarke
May 6, 2021 9:24 am

Project Veritas released video last month of a CNN technical director chatting about how they produced the disinformation that helped remove Donald Trump from office. Then he said “Climate Change is next!”

The man-made climate change scare has never been about science. It has always been bout the ‘scare’, or the usefulness’ of controlling the population through fear. The plandemic, climate change, racial tensions (BLM), the border crisis, UFO’s/alien invasion (possibly coming soon) and so on, are not different things. They were all manufactured, orchestrated and coordinated to keep the masses ‘progressively’ marching towards their own enslavement.

When you step back from the emotion, and look at all of these fear campaigns dispassionately, the one thing that really stands out is how completely ridiculous they all are!

Paul Penrose
May 6, 2021 9:52 am

There’s liars, damn liars, and CCNow.

Martin Mason
May 6, 2021 9:58 am

In 1981 I went to work in Malaysia, the location had been flooded badly at King Tides which seemed to occur every 10 years. I sailed at the local boat club and helped them install sheet piling to protect the front of the club. There have been no more floods there, the sheet piling is exactly as I saw it left and the front of the club untouched. There has patently been no sea level rise there in 40 years

Reply to  Martin Mason
May 6, 2021 10:24 am
Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 10:23 am

Is it beyond the bounds that the ocean is rising because of (all) the silt we are pouring into it, off eroding farmland not least.

Is it still true that (I think) Bangladesh is actually expanding in area by 20 square kilometres annually due to silt settling out of the big rivers there and expanding their deltas.
How would that affect Global Sea Level. How much stuff comes down the Yellow River, so-called exactly because of all the silt it constantly carries.

Also dust rising from almost everywhere, quarries, farms, cities, roads, forest fires etc etc – dust which I assert to be the cause of the observed Global Greening.
On average, 70% of that dust must surely fall into the ocean

Back onto soil erosion but this time the biological erosion (read= oxidation) of the soil organic matter.
For every molecule of CO2 that rises up and drifts away, so does a molecule of water.
Except that the water will condense and has nowhere else to go but into The Ocean.

Is it possible that Earth is actually cooling?
How can it possibly not be even by the words of the Warmists?
How is it that the GHGE only seems to radiate heat downwards? Why doesn’t an amount equal to the extra downwelling radiation get radiated upwards and out?

Just as El Nino is a cooling event, where/when heat energy stored (trapped?) in a deep pool in the Western Pacific is scattered out over the whole ocean and lost to the atmosphere.

Once Heat Energy gets into the atmosphere, it can only go to ‘a colder place’ which certainly might stay on Planet Earth at or near the poles, but otherwise is lost to space.

It has been asserted that 300++ Watts of downwelling radiation has been measured many thousands of times.
Maybe.
Maybe using ‘Pyregeometers’?

Can anyone really understand what those things actually do?
All I see them doing is measuring their own temperature (= that of wherever they are placed) and then using a bastardisation of Stefan’s Law (no adjustment for emissivity) and ‘compensation circuitry, they somehow create a figure for downwelling power.

Basically, they compare the temps of a black object (their sensor) with a white object (both looking at the sky) and use the temp difference to create a power figure.
The sensor is carefully shielded from convection and conduction while the white object, the instrument’s own case, is fully exposed to everything.
Why doesn’t NASA’s OCO2 Sputnik use one/more of those things?

They seem so perfectly circular, wtf is Stefan’s Law doing inside a power-meter cum thermometer?
To my mind , Pyregeometers are just as big a train-wreck as Al Gore’s CO2 experiment, is it still in the Climate Fail File here?
Similar in no small way to all the sweet little Youtube experimenters with their perspex cabinets, ice statues and theatrical spotlights.
Well intentioned certainly, but utterly clueless otherwise

Lots to ponder

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
John Garrett
May 6, 2021 10:24 am

I see that Covering Climate Now‘s Executive Director is Mark Hertsgaard.

Hertsgaard is the son of Rolf Hertsgaard, who was a local television station’s anchorman in the 1960s and ’70s. Rolf who was widely regarded as a bit of a nutcase. Son Mark removed to the Left Coast, is poorly educated, has zero scientific training and has become even more of a crackpot than his father.

Nobody will ever accuse either one of them as being the sharpest knives in the drawer.

beng135
May 6, 2021 10:32 am

The post is a catalog of fake-information generation/sources.

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
Reply to  beng135
May 6, 2021 10:38 am

The post didn’t mention you as source….

Hokey Schtick
May 6, 2021 10:38 am

The devil is the father of lies. Make no mistake, the war is spiritual. You think science isn’t part of that war? Ok, sure, whatever.

Gary Pearse
May 6, 2021 10:39 am

Kip: What none of the consensus science team or mainstream media propagandists dare to say is that Asia and Africa (over 5 billion people) are forging ahead with economic development largely based on electrification using coal. Hundreds coal fired plants are being built and planned in China, India, elsewhere in Asia and throughout Africa.

Bangladesh has had a GDP growth of 15% (World Bank has excellent data and many countries will be a surprise – Pakistan ~10%, Africa south of the Sahara a respectable 3%). They have told Al Gore and Kerry they won’t compromise their ec dev plans. CO2 will continue to rise this century.

Think also increased cement, steel, autos and everything that goes with the new prosperity and creates more CO2 emissions. Maybe we will warm up, maybe not significantly, but one thing is for sure, the West spending 90 trillion will be a huge waste under the certainty of ever rising CO2.

Rob_Dawg
May 6, 2021 11:20 am

> …not even under RCP8.5 (a scenario which is now widely considered highly improbable to impossible).

Even -if- reported temperatures magically got back in line with the RCP8.5 scenario it is too late. RCP8.5 has been so wrong for so long it is clear that the models incorporated are wrong.

stinkerp
May 6, 2021 11:39 am

Humans have locked in at least 20 feet of sea level rise—can we still fix it?

Paleoclimate studies show that sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher 125,000 years ago during the peak warm era of the prior interglacial period. Let’s see…6 meters converted to feet is…times 3.28…equals 19.7 feet! Oh, the coincidence of claiming another 20 feet of sea level rise.

The thing is, at the current rate (2 to 3 mm per year), it will take another…math again…2 to 3 thousand years for sea levels to rise another 6 meters (20 feet). Yawn. Back to real stuff.

Davidf
Reply to  stinkerp
May 6, 2021 5:04 pm

And lets face it, on a 2 to 3 thousand year time scale, more likely than not we will be headed down into the next Glacial Maximum

High Treason
May 6, 2021 12:03 pm

“Make the lie big, make it simple, repeat it frequently and people will come to believe it”-Joseph Goebbels. Propaganda requires the lie to be constantly in the loop, otherwise people start to question the narrative.
Then they change the name/ goalposts. Note-moving the goal posts is a classic sign you are dealing with a liar.

Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 12:27 pm

The BBC have got to be part of this monstrosity, if not in league with its creators..

Headline: Cutting methane gas ‘crucial for climate fight‘”
In reference to bovine cows the BBC asks…..so should we change our eating habits?

Quite oblivious to the fact that cows burp for the exact same reason we fart.

i.e. When we eat, when we are forced to eat: Nutrient Free Dreck

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 6, 2021 12:45 pm
David Wojick
May 6, 2021 12:51 pm

I am pretty sure these people believe what they are saying, in which case they are not lying, just wrong. I think there are even published studies that say these things. We disagree with them but name calling is not helpful.

Also, if all CCNow does is circulate its member’s articles then I doubt they are all that important in the climate change debate. Articles on both sides circulate widely in many ways.

Roger Knights
May 6, 2021 2:17 pm

I am loathe to exaggerate”

Should be “loath” (reluctant).

John Bell
May 6, 2021 2:19 pm

Imagine the sense of entitlement for such believers in CAGW to use fossil fuels every day, while trying to take the same fuels away from the little people.

May 6, 2021 2:24 pm

Partners in Australia are just two known wacko greenie outfits.

dk_
May 6, 2021 2:49 pm

Kip,
“I will leave parsing the rest of second paragraph to readers. ”

Okay, I’ll start:
“As oceans heat up, the water rises—in part because warm water expands, but also because the warmer waters have initiated a major melt of polar ice sheets.”

I’ve just had a qualified professional (plumber) demonstrate expansion of water under lab conditions (my water heater). Expansion of fresh water in a closed container over 60 degrees f (33 and a third centimes or 0.05 EU), in a pressure-equalized, cylindrical container is about 1 part in 25. Median temperature of the water over the course of the experiment was near 80 degrees F (26.6 dungarees, something),

According to some imperfect memory of engineering steam tables that I was tested on, once, years ago, for a given constant pressure, the rate of thermal expansion of liquid water is small near freezing and suddenly big at more than boiling.

But weirdly, in water, ice is less dense than water at freezing, and actually expands as it freezes. So when ice melts in a container of water, the water surface stays at the same level in the container. My daughter, a professional (kindergarten teacher) effectively demonstrates this to (sometimes, educationally challenged for their ages) 5-7 year-olds nearly every couple months.

Really strangely, fresh water at just above freezing, can’t melt ice. The water at the interface with solid ice actually cools until it is nearly freezing, just starting to expand a little bit, and stopping the process of heat transfer as it becomes slightly less dense. This was demonstrated to me, as a youngster, by an amateur (ice cream maker at a church social) but I’ve verified it many times since, so I’m pretty sure it is the case. In fact, we had to chemically change the composition of the water/ice mixture by adding salt, then adding more salt, until all the ice melted. We were forced to add the salt to the ice, because when added to the water. the water just next to the under surface of the ice became less salty!

But then, a funny, funny thing occured. The liquid in thermal contact with the mixture actually froze. Yah, I did spring it on you, but you’ll have to take my word for it, the liquid water/ice/chemical mixture was actually colder than the freezing temperature of the freshwater ice, and of the water-based mixture (cream and sugar–both hydrocarbons).

Later, I demonstrated that the frozen mixture was less dense than liquid fresh water, too (in root beer).

I realize that none of this is scientific, at all, but MELTING SEA ICE CAN”T RAISE SEA LEVEL.
I also really, truly, in my tortoise-loving heart believe that less than 32 degree F (upyers centipede) salt water in the ocean CAN’T MELT SEA ICE.
Now I will accept a scientific, or even sensible sounding explanation of why I am wrong, but I feel very, very sure that no semi-human who has ever worked with, for, or near Covering Climate Now can or will ever produce such a thing (except maybe after a bunch of them were banging away at keyboards, with their thumbs, for an infinite amount of time).

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
May 6, 2021 3:35 pm

The CCNow Climate Emergency Statement makes the tale of Little Red Riding Hood look like documented Scientific History.

Al Miller
May 6, 2021 8:39 pm

Life has NEVER been better for humanity – so obviously we must all retreat and suffer under Marxism.

Vincent Causey
May 6, 2021 11:54 pm

They claim to care about the future well being of mankind, while at the same time loathing mankind and wishing for a future with a population massively reduced. You would think they would be secretly delighted that all these bad things will happen.

HotScot
May 7, 2021 2:36 am

Can someone please explain this to me?

The Arctic and the Antarctic are two land masses surrounded by ice, the Arctic being tiny and the Antarctic massive.

The Oceans warm and melt the sea ice. So no meaningful SLR as it’s Sea Ice, right up to the coast of the land masses.

The land masses are covered in Ice hundreds of metres thick, which is an environment probably no warmer than -20 degrees C (When Scott raced to beat Amundsen to the S. Pole it was estimated it was -40C, and it was Summer!) so the land bound ice isn’t going to be affected by even a 4C rise in atmospheric temperature.

How does the land bound ice then melt? The Oceans will meet the land masses and can’t possibly get further than the coastline as there is no meaningful SLR. Even if there were some its effect would surely be insignificant as the land itself rises raising the ice beyond the reach of the Oceans.

It’s all double Dutch to me.

Last edited 1 month ago by HotScot
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 7, 2021 7:10 am

Kip are you sure there is no land mass under the Arctic as according to the Environment Correspondent of the UK i newspaper the Arctic is a continent!

Quote “The Arctic may be getting greener as the climate warms – but it is not nearly enough to curb global warming on the continent,a study shows”

Written by Tom Bawden i newspaper 30th April 2021.

Words fail me.

rah
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 7, 2021 3:14 pm

How can they become a journalist? Even back in the mid 70’s at Indiana University in Bloomington, when I walked by the Ernie Pyle school of Journalism I could smell pot!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 8, 2021 7:33 am

Oh . . . there was a time long, long ago in a world far, far away from the one we have now where journalism had research as one of its key cornerstones.

The Dark Side won.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
huls
May 7, 2021 4:37 am

As a Dutchman living 6,76 meter under sea level, I laugh in the general direction of this prediction.

In case things do go awry I have an escape plan: Move to Sweden where the sea level is falling: comment image

Skol !!

Joseph Zorzin
May 7, 2021 8:02 am

Kip,

I just sent the links to your climate propaganda trilogy to many of the climate “players” in Massachusetts, which I now refer to as the Climate Emergency Caliphate. I presume few will look at your essays- since here in MA, it’s considered heresy to even consider that the “emergency” isn’t proven fact. Of course MA is the state where the Puritans got their start and the home of the Salem witch trials…..

Gordon A. Dressler
May 7, 2021 9:04 pm

Excerpt from the CCNow quote in the above article titled, appropriately, the Big Lie:
“. . . As oceans heat up, the water rises—in part because warm water expands, but also because the warmer waters have initiated a major melt of polar ice sheets.” (my bold emphasis added)

Gee . . . all along I thought that it was the Earth exiting naturally from the last glacial period, some 12,000 to 14,000 years ago—long before there were fossil fuel-powered, human industrial activities, electrical power generating plants, and cars and SUVs—that started the melting of the polar ice sheets and bringing on the welcomed warmth of the Holocene (the current interglacial) that enormously benefitted development of human civilization.

It seems that CCNow owes all of its followers an explanation of just what melted polar ice sheets prior to, say, 1700 AD . . . or did all the scientists and historians just get that part wrong?

May 7, 2021 11:21 pm

Kip,

this is a personal information. Many of your articles are translated into German for the climate realistic German website EIKE-Klima-Energie.EU. With this one, I will do likewise. If you want and if I have your e-Mail, I will provide the link to those German translations.
Best wishes Chris Frey

%d bloggers like this: