Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

This is a re-post from the CO2 Coalition, here. Re-posted with permission.

[Ed. Note] The number of opinion pieces disguised as “Fact Checks,” and the use of them to censor one side of scientific debates has reached epidemic proportions. We need to fight back against this abhorrent trend. Science is all about debate. The debate must be with well-founded evidence, with objective reason, without personal attacks, and with both sides represented. The following post is long but addresses many climate-alarmist generated media myths quite well and authoritatively. AM

By Gregory Wrightstone, Managing Director at the CO2 Coalition, expert reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, author of Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.

On Earth Day this year, the Washington Times published an op-ed that I wrote titled “There is no climate emergency – We love CO2 and so should you.” Not long after publication, the paper’s Facebook post on the commentary was labeled “false and misleading” and their ad for it was rejected. This was based on a lengthy “fact-check” titled Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change by Climate Feedback (CF). It was composed by eight scientists and upon detailed review of their “fact-check,” it became clear why they were not labeled “experts.”

In order to rebut this review, I asked six of the top experts in the world in various fields related to climate change to assess the statements by the Climate Feedback reviewers for accuracy and validity. All the scientists I consulted are members of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit scientific coalition based in Arlington, Va. All agree that there is no man-made climate emergency.

Since many of the sections contain duplicative statements alleging various supposed “false” claims and statements in my commentary, I have distilled them to eleven primary statements of supposed “fact” used to “debunk” the op-ed. Climate Feedback claims and quotes are in red.

In each case, we find that the Climate Feedback reviewers are the scientists providing muddled, misleading, and false information.

CF Claim #1: Wrightstone fails to disclose conflicts of interest

CF: the sponsored article fails to disclose conflicts of interest. As Kerr said to Climate Feedback, “Gregory Wrightstone is a professional in the fossil fuels industry. He works on shale gas and oil in the Appalachian Basin.

Response 1 – Gregory Wrightstone 

That is factually and blatantly incorrect (even though if it were true, it would not matter). I am not employed in the energy sector. I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry.  If the authors get this basic “fact” wrong, how can we rely on any later statements of “fact.” Several of the Climate Feedback reviewers have definite unrevealed conflicts of interest, including Amber Kerr, who is a paid consultant for Carbon Direct, a consulting firm that provides advice to companies concerning carbon offsets. I doubt that she would be employed long in this capacity if she produced any science that disputes the “consensus” opinion on climate change.

CF Claim #2: Continents near the equator were too hot to support life in the past

During some of that ancient history, continents near the equator were too hot to support life (Amber Kerr)

Response 2a: Gregory Wrightstone 

Dr. Kerr’s statement that continents near the equator were too hot to support life at some undefined point in Earth’s history is not supported by any reference or source by her. None of our distinguished scientists at the CO2 Coalition have ever heard of such a claim and we can find no supporting evidence to substantiate this. When making a statement that is far outside the mainstream thinking, it is incumbent on the claimant to provide a reputable source. In addition, she and several of the other Climate Feedback authors, in this and later sections, appear to be unaware that greenhouse warming mostly affects the higher latitudes and poles, with greatly diminished effects near the equator (Lindzen 1997).

Contrary to her contention that extreme heat in the future may result in temperatures too hot to sustain life, some of the most populated cities in the world today are in areas with the hottest temperatures like India, Indonesia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

It should be noted that Africa, a continent that straddles the equator, is home to two desert regions that are nearly devoid of life today. Both are found at about 30 degrees north (Sahara) and south (Kalahari and Namib) of the equator. Note that the equator is home to abundant and thriving ecosystems in the equatorial rainforests, just opposite of what Ms. Kerr seems to allege. The lack of life in the desert areas and the abundance of life at the equator are not driven by changes in CO2, but rather high precipitation or the lack thereof by the rising (wet) and falling ([1] dry) of the Hadley cells.

Response 2b: Dr. Patrick Moore – Ph.D. in Ecology, Co-founder of Greenpeace, Director CO2 Coalition

Dr. Kerr’s statement is simply ridiculous and without support. Some of the richest ocean biodiversity, including corals and fish, is found today in the hottest oceanic waters in the Indonesian Archipelago. Warmer is better for many species of ocean life.

CF Claim #3: Modern temperatures are higher than any in 12,000 years

Wrightstone states that our current global average temperatures are remarkable “only if your record is limited to the last 150 years or so.” That is not correct. The prevailing understanding in paleoclimatology is that our current global average temperatures are the highest since before the last Ice Age more than 12,000 years ago[9]. (Amber Kerr)

Response 3: Gregory Wrightstone

Dr. Kerr’s contention that “the prevailing understanding in paleoclimatology” is of warmer modern temperature than the entire Holocene (12,000 years) is patently false. Nearly all within the paleoclimate community on both sides of the issue agree that a much warmer period occurred 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, including Dr. Michael Mann, NASA, and the IPCC. The very study cited by Kerr does not support this idea and is described in some detail in the next section. The vast majority of paleoclimate studies agree that the most recent warming period, known as the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today including summaries of more than 1,000 papers that are documented herehere and Figure 1, below.

Figure 1 – Review of >1,000 studies confirm majority agree that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present
Modified from Lüning (2020)


In support of her contention that current temperatures are warmer than any in the last 12,000 years, Amber Kerr references Kaufman (2020) which is a global multi-proxy paleo-temperature reconstruction. The portion of the study that deals with paleoclimate is excellent and shows the high temperatures of the Holocene Optima with thousands of years of declining temperature. In the summary, Kaufman pasted modern instrument data onto the paleoclimate data, but he specifically warned against comparing the two, as Dr. Kerr has done here.

This paper does not state that paleoclimate records show our current global average temperatures are the highest since the last Ice Age. Kaufman warns against comparing his low-resolution proxy data against high-resolution modern instrument data stating, “most of the paleotemperature time series are not sufficiently resolved temporally to meaningfully compare with instrumental-based observations” and “2000-year-long records provide a bridge between the overall lower-resolution time series of this database and the highly detailed, but relatively brief instrumental-based record of climate.” And finally: “The resolution of the paleoclimate proxy data over the past 12,000 years is about 150 to 200 years.  Global instrumental data measures temperatures hourly and daily which are then averaged for monthly and annual presentation.  For a fair comparison, instrumental records would need to be averaged over a time period of 150-200 years. In other words, you can’t compare apples to oranges which Dr. Kerr has done here.

Perhaps Dr. Kerr either did not read the paper or did not read it closely enough because the authors state “The warmest 200-year-long interval was also centered on 6.5 ka and was 0.7 °C warmer than the 19th Century.”

Kaufman’s most recent previous study (McKay and Kaufman 2014) was found to have multiple glaring errors that required a complete correction (Ahmed 2015). In the corrected study, the authors admitted that our modern warming, which they defined as the period 1971 – 2000, was NOT the warmest 30-year period in 2,000 years, but the third warmest (Figure 2). The warmest such period occurred during the Roman Warm Period, centering on the year 395 AD, so even the author she references disagrees with her statement.

Figure 2. Modified from Gosselin (2018). Source data: Ahmed (2015)

In my subsequent communication with Dr. Kerr she added another study she indicated would support her contention of unusual and unprecedented warming over many thousands of years, stating “previous studies using proxy data to reconstruct global average surface T, such as Marcott, et al (2013), have reached similar conclusions.” She apparently is completely unaware that it too had been found to be fatally flawed with even the author admitting that the modern data should not be relied on, after all it consisted of just one data point “The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes.” In fact, Australia’s National Science Agency, CSIRO was asked for evidence of anything unprecedented in climate due to human carbon dioxide, and despite nearly 50 years of climate research, it could only provide the discredited Marcott (2013) paper on temperatures and the discredited Harries (2001) paper.

Astrophysicist and Geoscientist Professor Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”.

CF Claim #4: Future temperatures are likely to be >12 degrees Celsius (23 degrees Fahrenheit)

If current warming trends continue, then by mid-next century we will likely achieve temperatures not seen since the early Eocene, more than 50 million years ago (Burke et al., 2018). (Amber Kerr)

Response 4a: Gregory Wrightstone (H/T to Renee Hannon for input)

According to Amber Kerr, temperatures are “likely” to increase to those which were present during the Eocene, or at least 23 degrees Fahrenheit higher than our present temperatures. The temperature, based on HadCRUT4 has risen about 1 degree C since 1900. If that is the “current trend” and it continues, then we could expect about one degree C increase by 2150,

The Burke, 2018, article is guilty of the same comparison of Paleoclimate low-resolution “proxy” data to high-resolution instrumental temperature data.  Their figure 1 and supplemental figure 1 is extremely misleading with no mention of data resolution on the y-temperature axis and even worse show a distorted non-uniform time x-axis.

For example, the Marcott data has a temperature resolution average over 300 years, Dome C over 100-500 years , and the marine benthic oxygen isotopes probably 500+ years. The benthic oxygen values are first converted to sea temperatures approximations and then to surface temperature approximations.  In contrast, Instrumental data are direct measurements of temperature, not proxies, taken on a daily and monthly basis.  For a more honest presentation, the instrumental temperature data should be averaged over 300+ years.  Also, if they used a uniform time scale on the x-axis, the instrumental data and RCP projections would be a mere dot.

Importantly, Burke claims the figure referenced by Kerr is just an illustration and not the basis for quantitative climate similarity analysis.  It’s scary, unrealistic, and not a properly scaled figure.

Response 4b: Dr. William Happer – Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers and invented the sodium guidestar that is used in astronomical adaptive optics to correct for the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence. He was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Award in 1976, the 1997 Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, and the Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award in 2000.

The IPCC claims an ” equilibrium climate sensitivity,” S, (the steady-state temperature increase from doubling CO2) of somewhere between S= 2 C and S= 4.5 C.  To good approximation, every doubling of CO2 concentration increases the temperature by the same increment.  The real sensitivity is probably less than S= 1 C but let us see what CO2 increases would be needed to get 12 C of temperature increase, if we take the upper bound of the IPCC’s range of sensitivities. The CO2 concentration would have to increase from N0 = 410 ppm, today’s approximate concentration, to N > N0 x 2^(12 C/ 4.5 C) = N0 x 6.35 = 2603 ppm.  So, we would need to add 2600 – 410 = 2193 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. There probably is not enough economically recoverable fossil fuel around to provide that much CO2.

But suppose the fuel can be found.  For the past decade concentrations of CO2 have been increasing at about 2.3 ppm/year.  At this rate, the time required to add 2193 ppm to the atmosphere would be 2193/2.3 years = 953 years.  For smaller, more realistic sensitivities, much more fuel and much longer times would be needed. There is no scientifically plausible way for Earth’s temperature to rise by 12 C by the middle of the next century.

CF Claim #5: Ecosystems and humanity are being harmed from increased temperature and rising CO2 levels

There is no science nor is there any data that globally support the assertion that ecosystems are thriving or that humanity would benefit from increasing temperature or increasing carbon dioxide. There are literally tens of thousands scientific publications that indicate that ecosystems are increasingly being degraded due to climate change and other impacts

Response 6a: Dr. Patrick Michaels – Past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years and Senior Fellow at the CO2 Coalition. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Feedback contests Wrightstone’s claims that “our planet’s ecosystems are thriving, and that humanity is benefiting” from increases in CO2 and temperature.

In fact, scientists have noted greening of terrestrial ecosystems for decades, and it has been profound, as shown by Zhu et al., (2016) in a Nature Climate Change paper titled “The Greening of the Earth [sic] and its Drivers”.  Central to the paper is a map of changes in Leaf Area Index over a nearly two-decade period (Figure 3):

Figure 3 – Changes in Leaf Area Index beginning in 1982

Note the places with the greatest changes are in purple and correspond to the locations of the world’s tropical rainforests. Changes are significant where stippled.  Also, note the absence of statistically significant declines in LAI.

Zhu et al. (2016) also performed a factor analyses to isolate the causes of the planetary greening.  They found 70% was caused by the direct effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, 9% from increased nitrogen deposition, 8% from climate change itself (largely in Northern Hemisphere high latitudes) and 4% from land use change.

So, it appears that Climate Feedback somehow missed that a total of 91% of global terrestrial greening is a result of human activity, or that the global food supply is clearly growing steadily and has been ever since Paul Ehrlich wrote over fifty years ago (1969:  The Population Bomb) that food supplies were about to rapidly decline.

CF Claim #6 a) Warming and CO2 do not play primary roles in increasing crop production and b) future warming will have a negative effect on agriculture

Other plants do not profit from higher CO2, and their photosynthesis rates have been shown to decrease under higher CO2. More importantly, higher CO2 has been shown to reduce the nutritional quality of some plants we depend on, such as wheat (Katrin Meissner)

Increases in extreme weather events can have strong negative effects on crop productivity and are expected to negatively impact food production (Sara Vicca)

(G)lobal warming is already negatively impacting global food production, at least in some regions (Alexis Berg)

Wrightstone confuses correlation with causation when he discusses the fact that over the past century, global agricultural productivity has increased, and weather-related deaths have decreased. We cannot thank anthropogenic climate change for this. Rather, better infrastructure and better health care have reduced the number of people who die from environmental factors such as weather. Progress in crop science and technology (as well as unsustainable depletion of the biosphere) have enabled a steady upward trend in crop production, outweighing any marginal effects of CO2 and warming. (Amber Kerr)

It is ethically indefensible that Wrightstone celebrates potential gains for agriculture in the global North while ignoring the numerous studies that describe damages in the global South. (Amber Kerr)

Response 6a: Dr. William Happer 

All the statements of Mr. Wrightstone’s op-ed were based on very sound science. In contrast, the Climate Feedback review includes made-up, false assertions and personal attacks.

Scientific studies show clearly that CO2 has been a significant contributor to the increased yields of agriculture and forestry over the past fifty years. The contributions have been particularly striking in arid regions because more CO2 increases the drought resistance of crops. Long-term satellite measurements of plant cover show particularly pronounced greening in arid regions of the Earth, many in the tropics and subtropics.

The most reliable proof of the benefits of CO2 to plants is the use of additional CO2 in commercial greenhouses to accelerate growth. Greenhouse operators are willing to accept the cost of added CO2 and the necessary equipment for CO2 enrichment. The improved yield and quality of their plant products, from vegetables to marijuana, more than pays for the investment.

These statements confirm that what Mr. Wrightstone said is “not untrue = true.”  In the field, both C4 and C3 plants grow better with more CO2 because more CO2 makes plants more drought resistant.  C3 plants also benefit because more CO2 reduces photorespiration, which saps some 25% of photosynthetic efficiency.  All forest trees and a major fraction of agricultural crops (wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, etc,.) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway. With more atmospheric CO2, C3 plants get a double benefit: more drought resistance and less photorespiration.

Response 6b: Dr. Patrick Michaels 

Climate Feedback does not appreciate that the overestimation by climate modeling errors (discussed later in Section 12) are fatal for the reliability of virtually all ecosystems impact models (including agriculture).  The vast majority of moisture that falls in the midlatitude growing regions (some of the most productive agricultural land on earth) originates in the tropics[2] .  Large and systematic errors in the tropical vertical precipitation forecasts for the future make them simply unreliable, as it is the tropical lapse rate that largely governs how much oceanic moisture is transferred into the larger global atmosphere.  In fact, the sign of large precipitation changes can be positive or negative at the same location, depending upon the model.

Climate/crop models generally attempt to parameterize the effects of year-to-year weather fluctuations as inducing departures from smooth technological trends reflecting fertilizer use, varietal and mechanical improvements, etc…

Figure 4, calculated from global FAO data for the four major crops, shows 1) at this level, the global food system is highly buffered from overall weather effects, and 2) there’s absolutely no evidence that the residuals from the technological trend are increasing (i.e. the weather component is not becoming larger).

Figure 4 – Total production for the four major crops.  The simple second-order fit explains over 99% of the year-to-year variability, leaving little room (about 1%, globally) for a stochastic or systematic weather or climate effect.  Raw data from the FAO, United Nations.

Response 6c: Gregory Wrightstone 

In a follow-up email exchange with me, Dr. Kerr admitted to the huge positive impact that increasing CO2 is having on crop growth:

“In my own subfield, climate change impacts on agriculture, I find it irksome that most models and published studies intentionally omit the CO2 fertilization effect (citing too much uncertainty, or assuming there will be acclimation to higher CO2). But so far, data suggest that the CO2 fertilization effect can be a significant boon to agriculture in temperate regions.”

In the peer-reviewed literature, there is little support for the frequently cited notion that tropical and sub-tropical areas are currently experiencing a decline in agricultural productivity. The CF reviewers appear to be basing a projected decline in crop productivity in the tropics and low latitude regions to climate models and worst-case scenarios that significantly over-predict warming as discussed by Dr. Happer in Section 4b and by Dr. Michaels in Section 12.

Contrary to the claim of crop endangerment from rising temperature and increasing CO2, there are hundreds of studies that document just the opposite. Many of these are captured by Dr. Craig Idso here: Interactive Effects of CO2 and Temperature on Plant Growth. These peer-reviewed papers show the following important considerations:

1) crops tend do better at higher temperatures thanks to CO2, which raises the optimum temperature for photosynthesis (often by a much larger value than that predicted by the models for warming),

2) CO2 helps ameliorate temperature-related stress.

Real-world data contradict the idea of heat-related crop declines in the Earth’s hottest regions. For example, in India, 2020 was expected to break all-time records for wheat harvested for the second year in a row.

In the United States, increasing yields of corn in bushels per acre show a remarkable correlation to increasing CO2 emissions (Figure 6). To argue that this increase is due to improvement year-after-year in agricultural practice is just not believable.

Figure  5 – U. S. corn yield trends vs. global carbon emissions

CF Claim #7: Extreme weather and related deaths are increasing

Unfortunately, droughts, forest fires and heat waves are increasing world-wide, and so do temperature-related deaths. The statements made here are invented by the author and entirely “at odds with reality”. (Wolfgang Cramer)

Droughts and aridification have increased in many regions of the world. For example, in Europe and North America. Forest fires have increased and now show the fingerprint of global warming, e.g. in Australia and the Arctic. Heat waves have increased in frequency, intensity and duration. (Katrin Meissner)

Response 7a: Jim Steele – Biologist, formerly Principal Investigator for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Monitoring of Riparian Habitats on the Tahoe National Forest (USFS) and Director of SFSU’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, Author of Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Despite accurately asserting droughts, forest fires, and heat waves have declined substantially despite rising CO2 concentrations as the earth has grown greener, Wrightstone is slandered by “fact-checker” Wolfgang Cramer who falsely suggests his statements were “invented” and “entirely at odds with reality”. However, peer reviewed science supports Wrightstone, not the fact checkers. In 2013 climate scientists published Monitoring and Understanding Changes in Heat Waves, Cold Waves, Floods and Droughts in the United States, State of Knowledge.1They reported,

“Instrumental data indicate that the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s’ drought were the most widespread twentieth-century droughts in the United States (see Fig. 1), while tree ring data indicate that the mega-droughts over the twelfth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century in both spatial extent and duration”. 

Stahl (2007)2 similarly reported that relative to the 1930s’ and 1950s’ extremes, multi-decadal droughts during the cooler Little Ice Age were more severe and longer lasting “including the 16th century “mega-drought” which may have been the most extreme drought to impact North America in the last 500 years.”

Figure  6 – Decadal average of heat waves and cold waves

In addition to his factual reporting of the satellite-observed greening of the earth that has been attributed to increased CO2 (70%) and warming (8%), the main thrust of Wrightstone’s article points out there’s a wealth of scientific data revealing “droughts, fires and heat waves” are driven by other climate factors unrelated to rising CO2. The so-called fact checkers failed to acknowledge how long-term climate dynamics clearly altered the frequency, intensity and locations of droughts, fires and heatwaves. In order to attribute blame to CO2-driven warming, they referred to published studies that only examined drought, heatwaves and wildfire trends over the past 50 years. A timeframe far too short for a meaningful climate analysis.

For example, Sinha (2017) provides evidence that India’s periodic droughts lessened as the world ascended from centuries of the Little Ice Age. Between 1350 and 1850 AD when CO2 concentrations were very low, at least five episodes of mega-droughts devastated southeast Asia. Droughts in 1899 and 1918 affected about 70% of India, as the earth warmed further only 53% of the country experienced drought by 1972, 48% by 1987 and just 20% by 2002.  Such benefits of a warmer world only become obvious on this larger time scale. During the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was more expansive than today. As the world began warming 14,000 years ago, the Sahara’s desert sands became covered with grasslands, extensive year-round shallow lakes, and a rich diversity of wildlife and human inhabitants. Simultaneously Africa’s increased precipitation brought snow to the top of Mt Kilimanjaro, causing its glaciers to grow. This period is known as the Green Sahara or the African Humid Period. When the world then began to cool 5000 years ago, northern Africa experienced severe droughts as northern Africa again reverted back to the Sahara Desert.

The changes in the Sahara are attributed to a shift in the global band of intense tropical rains identified by the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). As Ice Age glaciers retreat from the northern hemisphere, the ITCZ moved northward, providing enough rainfall north of the ITCZ to generate the Sahara’s grasslands. When orbital cycles altered insolation and began cooling the north, the ITCZ moved southward again which reduced Sahara rainfall.  Similarly, the ITCZ moved south during the Little Ice Age when solar output fell during sunspot minimums.  Felis (2018) determined that the eastern Sahara-Arabian desert became more arid than today from ~1750–1850, concurrent with India’s cold-induced mega-droughts.

The southward movement of the ITCZ also alters global atmospheric circulation.  The ocean’s subtropical pressure systems which now inhibit the flow of moisture from the ocean to the land and create the Mediterranean climates, also moved southwards during the last Ice Age and the LIA. That allowed more moisture to transfer from the Pacific Ocean to inundate western North America. Much of America’s current deserts became covered by inland seas; Lake Bonneville covered much of Utah while Nevada was largely covered by Lake Lahontan. As the glaciers melted and the ITCZ  and pressure systems moved northward, rains were diverted and the American west dried out. All that remains of Lake Bonneville is the Great Salt Lake. Similarly during the Little Ice Age, when the ITCZ moved southward for a few centuries, water levels in the Great Salt Lake rose6 to relative highs in 16007.

In Europe the more southern ITCZ location, likewise, removed the blocking effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation, allowing more rains to reach the Alps, causing its greatest glacial advances in 6,000 years. Vincent (2005)7 reported glaciers advanced as periods of higher winter precipitation were 25% higher than the twentieth century average. The Little Ice Age Paradox was so named because European glaciers retreated despite cold LIA temperatures. However, as the ITCZ moved northward rains were blocked causing glaciers to retreat.

Fact checker Katrin Meissner denigrated Wrightstone’s article as an “aggregation of false statements” with a “few partially right statements, taken out of context and presented in a misleading way.” However, it was Professor Meissner who engaged in “misleading statements” suggesting rising COwas causing droughts and aridification to increase in many regions such as Europe and North America. She referenced Buntgen (Fig 4) who indeed reported greater aridity in Europe, but that research also showed the drying trend had been ongoing for 2,000 years, unrelated to CO2 concentrations. One extreme 300-year drying period culminated in Europe’s Renaissance Drought, followed by the wet period during the LIA with growing glaciers, and now the drying out period of modern times as the ITCZ moves northward from its LIA location.

Figure 7 – 2,100 years of reconstructed central Europe wet vs. dry

Meissner also failed to account for the ITCZ’s role in drying out western North America as the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended around 1850, and failed to mention the effects of the EL Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the related Pacific Decadal Oscillation. As Pederson (2005)documented, the western United States experienced three heavy wet periods during the Little Ice Age (LIA). Similar to the LIA events in Europe, the accompanying heavy rains drove glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park (GNP) to their greatest extent in at least 6,000 years. As the LIA ended and the ITCZ and the high-pressure system moved northward, GNP experienced a series of droughts. Between 1901 and 1960 GNP’s largest glaciers had lost 65% of their LIA ice.

El Nino, La Ninas and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation also affect global droughts. Some of the most devastating droughts in India and SE Asia occur in association with extreme El Niño events as the focus of heavy rains moves eastward across the Pacific. El Nino brings more rain to Peru and the southern half of western North America. Conversely, La Nina episodes locates more rains over SE Asia but bring stronger drought to the American southwest. During the negative phase of Pacific Decadal Oscillation, not only are La Nina events more common but the associated droughts are more intense. When the negative PDO phase coincides with La Nina, the Southwest and southern Rockies including Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming experience greater drought and worse wildfires.  Between 1700 and 1975, 69% of the largest fires (Schoennagel (2005) in Rocky Mountain National Park occurred when a La Nina coincided with a negative PDO, although those phases coincided only 29% of time.12

Even though Harvard fact checker Alice Berg acknowledged the global area burnt from wildfires had decreased by 25% over the last 20 years, Cramer and Meissnerfalsely insisted climate change was increasing wildfires pointing to the western USA.  In reality, identifying an increase in wildfires requires cherry picking a trend that starts in 1970 (Westerling 2008). Fire experts reported “a decline in wildfire in the Southwest, due to the region-wide onset of intensive livestock grazing beginning in the late 1800s followed by the beginning of organized fire suppression” In a comprehensive assessment of the acres burnt in the contiguous United States, the US Forest Service reported, (Keane 2002) “3 to 6 times more area must be burned to restore historical fire regimes”

Figure 8 – Regional fire occurrence over 300 years

Berg countered the decrease in observed area burnt by wildfires by arguing warming would cause more fires, but agricultural expansion restricted how much land can burn, so expect more fire in the future. Yet Berg herself misleadingly omitted all the critical factors that have been documented to increase wildfires. Fuel loads have built up due to fire suppression causing bigger fires. As populations increase, fire ignitions are increasingly caused by humans and ignitions occur all year instead of being limited to the season of natural lightning. According to Balch (2017)13, between 1992 to 2012 human ignitions account for 84% of all wildfires and 44% of the total area burned. In addition, disturbance of natural landscapes has caused the spread of invasive cheat grasses. These grasses die in early summer and require just 1 hour of warm dry temperatures to become highly flammable. Warm dry summers happen whether or not there is global warming. Larger wood requires kindling to provide enough heat to burn, and the spread of invasive grasses supplies that.

Sagebrush habitat dominates the American west and rarely burned due to the lack of ground fuel, perhaps burning once every 60-100 years. But introduced cheat grass dominates sagebrush habitat which now burns every 3-5 years. The 2012 Rush Fire was California’s 4th largest fire since 1932, burning 272,000 acres of sagebrush habitat in northeastern California. It then continued to spread burning an additional 43,000 acres in Nevada. The 2018 Carr Fire was California’s 7th largest fire and threatened the town of Redding, California. It started when a towed trailer blew a tire causing its wheel rim to scrape the asphalt. The resulting sparks were enough to ignite roadside grasses. Grassfires then carried the flames into the shrub lands and forests, as burning grasses served as kindling to ignite less-flammable trees.

Those who are wedded to the idea of a CO2 caused catastrophe cherry pick the fires in California to attribute those fires to CO2 caused global warming.  In addition to the other causes of California fires, local maximum temperatures where fires got started, have not exceeded the warmth of the 1930s. So, one must ask who is fact checking the so-called fact-checkers. As Mr. Wrightstone accurately reported, the changes in droughts, fires, and heat waves do not correlate with rising CO2, but are more accurately attributed to other factors.

Response 6b: Dr. Patrick Michaels 

From the extensive media coverage of extreme weather, one would think that drought and tropical cyclone activity must be going up.  But the most recent comprehensive report of the IPCC says this about drought:

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

And here is a plot of the Accumulated [tropical] Cyclone Energy index since the beginning of global satellite coverage:

Figure 9 – Accumulated [tropical] cyclone energy.  From Maue, 2011 and updates

It would be easy, but boring, to go on and on about Climate Feedback. In general, after adjusting for population and property values there’s actually a slight negative trend in weather-related damages. It strains credulity to believe that a 1⁰C change in global average surface air temperature would nullify and reverse centuries of economic development, alleviation of poverty, and increasing life expectancy, given that Homo sapiens lives and prospers when adequately protected in temperatures from -40⁰C to +50⁰.  That one degree is less than the difference in mean annual temperature accomplished by moving approximately 50 miles south in the mid-latitudes, and we all know that’s fatal.


CF Claim #8: Coral reefs are negatively affected by man-made warming
current warming levels already have very noticeable negative impacts on marine ecosystems (i.e., coral reefs) (Alexis Berg)

Heat waves are becoming more frequent and more severe in many parts of the world. They even occur in the ocean and are one of the key drivers for the loss of tropical coral reefs.  (Wolfgang Cramer)

Response 11: Dr. Peter Ridd – Physicist, PhD from James Cook University, formerly head of the Physics department at James Cook University from 2009 to 2016, and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at that institution for 15 years.

Below, I have summarized bullet points of the primary facts disputing the idea of the declining health of corals and reefs.

Those of us in North Queensland Australia, who live right next to the Great Barrier Reef, find it incredible that the world has been convinced that the Reef is on its last legs. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is spectacular, and one of the most pristine ecosystems on earth. Once the COVID restrictions ease, come and see for yourself.

(1) Corals like it hot. The region with the most diverse and fastest growing corals on earth, called the “Coral Triangle”, is around Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, which is also the hottest major water mass on earth – the Indo-Pacific warm pool.


(2) For every degree (Celsius) temperature increase, corals grow about 20% faster. Corals in the coldest parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) grow at about half the rate of the same species of coral in the Coral Triangle. (Lough 2000)


(3) Corals experience temperature variations often up to 10 degrees over a year, which is large compared to the modest increase in water temperature over the last century of, at most, one 1 degree Celsius (1.5 F) in tropical waters. It is implausible that all the corals on earth live in water so close to their thermal maximum that this small increase in temperature is causing mass coral death, as reported in the media.


(4) Coral bleaching events, where coral turns white during hot weather, which have been reported ad nauseum in the media, are entirely natural events that have always occurred. They are not a new phenomenon as is often reported. What has changed is the technology to monitor them, and the explosion in the number of scientists interested in reefs. These did not exist a few decades ago. (Hao et al 2021, Oliver et al 2018, Yonge et al 1931)


(5) Bleaching is not a death sentence; most corals fully recover. (Marshall 2006, Australian Inst. Of Marine Sciences)


(6) Unlike most other organisms, corals have a remarkable adaptation that makes them more able to deal with changing climates, natural or man-made, than other organisms. Inside the coral, which is an animal, lives a type of algae called zooxanthellae. The algae give the coral energy in return for a cosy environment. There are many different species of algae, and the coral can select the species that allow it to best cope with the required temperature. In fact, coral bleaching is part of the process that coral does this. When a coral bleaches, it expels the algae (turning white) and will likely take from the surrounding water a different species of algae.

Whereas most organisms need to go through many generations of evolution to change their genetic makeup to be suited for a different temperature, corals can do it in a few months by changing the algae that lives inside them. Rather than being the poster child for representing the impact of climate change, corals are among the best adapted organisms to deal with changing temperature. This should not be surprising. They have lived over hundreds of millions of years when the climate has been much hotter, and colder, than present. They have come through changes in climate that were far more dramatic than the gentle temperature changes we have seen over the last century (Baker 2003, Buddemeier 1993, Marshall and Baird 2000, Guest et al 2012).

(7) Corals need this mechanism because of the way they reproduce. They produce larvae which drifts in the current. And unlike seeds from trees which fall close to the parent and therefore in the same climate, coral spawn may drift many hundreds of miles where the water temperature is different.

(8)   Corals reefs, especially Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, go through natural cycles of destruction where huge amounts of coral occasionally die. Hurricanes are by far the most important cause. For example, a hurricane in 2009 killed half the coral on the southern Great Barrier Reef – an area the size of Maine. But by 2016, the coral had fully recovered. It always has, and it still does. The events are like bushfires. They look terrible. And the media, and some opportunistic scientific organizations, can use graphic images of dead coral for nefarious purposes. What is almost never reported is the way the coral grows back strongly (De’ath et al 2012).

CF Claim #9: Climate change will have a negative economic effect

An IPCC special report also states, “Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased (Summary)

(T)he societal consequences of these changes (economy, health, etc.) will be disastrous for a large part of the world’s human population in the near future. (Wolfgang Cramer)

Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased. (IPCC)

Response 11: Dr. Patrick Michaels 

Climate Feedback quotes a recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) that states, “Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased.”

Here the IPCC is only trivially correct. Yes, weather-related losses must go up because there are more people with more stuff experiencing the same weather.  A more clear-eyed analysis would look at global weather-related damages as a percent of global GDP, as in Figure 2.

Roger Pielke, Jr., in a 2018 publication in the refereed journal Environmental Hazards, used insurance industry data from Munich Re and United Nations GDP data, and found a slightly negative trend in damages over time.

Figure 10 – Global Weather-related Losses as Percent of Global GDP through 2018.  Source: Pielke, Jr., 2018 update of 2017 paper in Environmental Research.

Does the observed slight decline in relative damages mean that the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions could be negative (i.e. a benefit)? There is a certain logic.  In the developed world, life expectancy has nearly doubled since 1900, and, in the U.S., per-capita net worth has increased more than elevenfold. Could this be a part of a globally positive effect?

Dayaratna et al. (2020) examined the behavior of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) adjusting its agricultural terms to reflect recent research on growth enhancements.  While yields may be enhanced by as much as 25% in most of these models, Munier et al (2018) found much larger increases in both natural and agricultural ecosystems.  He segregated satellite data over six different vegetation types around the globe.

The most common ones in Munier et al. (2018) are collectively referred to as grasslands, land largely used to provide standing crops for livestock.  He found the leaf area increasing at a remarkable 5 percent per year, over a 17-year period, which gave a net increase of 85 percent. This no doubt creates a remarkable increase in the amount of harvestable high-quality animal protein.

Dayaratna et al. also followed 2003 Office of Management and Budget guidelines for regulatory calculations, using discount rates ranging upwards of 3% (OMB recommends using values as high as 7%).  They also used temperature scenarios consistent with the low-sensitivity climate simulations, described below, that provide the most accurate simulations of observed tropical tropospheric temperatures since the beginning of the global satellite-sensed temperature records in 1979.

Under these assumptions, under every different discount rate, Dayaratna et al. found the SCC to be slightly negative.  Again, this shouldn’t be surprising given the relative prosperity and high quality of life in developed countries that rely heavily upon carbon-based fuels.

CF Claim #10: Climate Feedback reviewers rely on unlikely and worst-case climate models to predict future calamities

Response 12: Dr. Patrick Michaels – Past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years and Senior Fellow at the CO2 Coalition. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Indeed, the earth’s surface temperature has risen; about 0.9⁰C since 1900.  Surface thermometers show two distinct periods of warming, as shown in the history from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, a long-standing record that has been in the peer-reviewed literature for literally decades and is constantly improved.

The two periods of warming, roughly 1910-45, and then 1976-98 are statistically indistinguishable in their slopes, but the first one likely has only a very small component from increased carbon dioxide. A ball-park calculation follows:

Ice core data from Law Dome show the surface concentration was only around 298 ppm when the first warming began, which gives a CO2 forcing of +0.35 w/m2 over the background, based upon the standard formula (dRF= 5.35ln(298/279)). Note that this is a very liberal calculation because the concentration at the beginning of the CRU record is closer to 285ppm.

Stevens (2015), citing Carslaw et al. (2013) gives a sulfate forcing of -0.3 watts/m2, resulting in a near-zero net combined forcing. Tuning the models to somehow account for this warming with such a small radiation change as would be the case in 1910 implies an enormous sensitivity. If that were actually true, current temperatures would be so high that there would be little policy debate.

The rise from the mid-19th century (when the record begins) is again only from roughly 285 parts per million (ppm) to 298.  For comparison it is around 417ppm now.

Satellite-sensed temperatures from the NOAA microwave sounding units (MSU) represent a truly global record (with a only very small blank spot over each pole).  Unfortunately, there have been controversial revisions of surface records that mitigated a much discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in warming from roughly 1998 through 2012.  But it is very apparent in the MSU satellite data.

Figure 11 – The most recent iteration of the MSU temperatures. These are roughly in the 850-300mb layer. Source:  https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/

Note that in the in the post-1998 period there really is only one significant period of warming, from 2012 to 2016.

The satellite data underscore the fact that most climate models, as shown in our next figure, tend to predict quasi-linear warmings, owing in part to the fact that the temperature response to a given increment of carbon dioxide is logarithmic, while the increase in COis a low-order exponent.  The summation of the two indeed can be linear.  The slope of the entire satellite record has been very constant at around 0.13 to 0.14⁰/decade averaged over the entire 42-year record, which is slightly less than half of the warming rate predicted by the models for recent decades.

The actual warming attributable to carbon dioxide is given by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its last (2013) comprehensive report is a vague “more than half” of the change since 1950. This would vary from approximately 0.3 to 0.6⁰C, based upon the CRU history.

It is important to note that all quantitative projections of warming—including those of the IPCC, the various US “National Assessments” of climate change impacts on the country, and indeed even the EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (which is still the document of record) are all based upon complicated General Circulation Models (GCMs) or even more complicated Earth System Models (ESMs).

With one exception these models are predicting far too much warming in a climatically critical region of the atmosphere, the tropical troposphere.

The following figure is a detailed version of Figure 1 in Christy and McNider (2017), showing GCM and ESMs from the CMIP-5 model collection that was featured in the last IPCC report, in comparison to tropical temperatures measured by weather balloons, satellites and global reanalysis.  The failure of the models is, with one exception, starkly obvious, and the similarity of the balloon, satellite and reanalysis data is a reassuring indication that the CMIP-5 models simply got it wrong.

Figure 12 – Predictions vs. reality

The one model that works is the Russian INM-CM4, which also has the least prospective warming of all of them, with an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 2.05⁰C, compared to the CMIP-5 average of 3.4⁰C

If the National Assessments or the IPCC followed best scientific practice (which is what operational meteorologists do every day!), they would emphasize this working model and eschew the broader, obviously incorrect, community of others.

A closer inspection of the predicted and observed warming trends in the vertical is from Figure 2 in Christy and McNider (2017):

Figure 13 – Thick black line:  Average warming trends per decade.  Thin colored lines:  Average warming trends for each model.  Colored geometric figures:  Observations.  The vertical axis is height as measured by atmospheric pressure. The maximum error is around 200mb (“20000” on the graph).  The average predicted warming rate at this level is a remarkable six times what is being observed.  CMIP-5 model family.

Since this work was done, we have begun to see the next (CMIP-6) series of models.  As shown by McKitrick and Christy (2020), they are even worse.  And the one of two that works, the Russian INM-CM4.8, has even less warming than its predecessor, with an ECS of 1.8⁰C, compared to the CMIP-6 community value of around four degrees.[1] (The other one is also a very low ECS model from the same, group, INM-CM5.)

Quoting from their conclusion:

The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics.

Climate Feedback does not appreciate that these errors are fatal for the reliability of virtually all ecosystem (including agriculture) impact models.  The vast majority of moisture that falls in the midlatitude growing regions (some of the most productive agricultural land on earth) originates in the tropics.  Large and systematic errors in the tropical vertical precipitation forecasts for the future make them simply unreliable, as it is the tropical lapse rate that largely governs how much oceanic moisture is transferred into the larger global atmosphere.  In fact, the sign of large precipitation changes can be positive or negative at the same location, depending upon the model.

CF Claim #11: Wrightstone confuses natural drivers from man-made CO2-driven warming

The author makes the frequent mistake of mixing natural variability (the slight warming after the Little Ice Age) and current warming, which is due to greenhouse gas forcing. These processes are well understood by climate scientists. In fact there is no alternative explanation for the recent rapid warming, as described in this Climate Feedback review. (Wolfgang Cramer)

Response 13: Gregory Wrightstone 

As Dr. Michaels stated in the previous section, the earth’s surface temperature has risen about 0.9⁰ C since 1900.  The HadCRUT4 thermometer record reveals that there were two distinct periods of warming in the 20th century, roughly 1910-45, and then 1976-98. The slopes of the two periods are indistinguishable, although the earlier one occurred during a period of low CO2 of less than 300 ppm and any CO2 warming would be negligible, while the latter occurred at levels more than 400 ppm.

The figure below shows both of the warming periods and I challenge you to decide which one occurred in a low- CO2 environment and which one happened at >400 ppm.


Figure 14 – Which 20th century temperature increase is the one supposedly caused by CO2-driven warming?

The Central England Temperature Record is shown below and is the oldest continuous thermometer record available and dates to 1659. Also shown are global carbon emissions documenting a 250-year record of warming in a low CO2 environment. The first 200-plus years of the warming would have near -zero to negligible CO2-driven warming. Also note that the highest rate of warming occurred during the first 40 years from 1695 to 1735 as the Earth began to recover from the coldest temperatures in 12,000 years (Little Ice Age).

Figure 15 – More than 250 years of warming occurred before man started adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Bibliography here.

4.9 26 votes
Article Rating
186 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 6, 2021 2:20 pm

If I read “fact checker” I’m aware the following text is a lie. Corona, climate, what ever, it’s never the truth. Truth doesn’t need “fact checkers” !

observa
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 7, 2021 5:55 pm

No they just need to be reminded about their weather predictions-
Antarctic cold blast to bring ice and snow (msn.com)
as the BoM and the usual suspects now toy with with indigenous seasons and weather. They’re getting more desperate and infantile by the season.

June 6, 2021 2:31 pm

Figure 5 – U. S. corn yield trends vs. global carbon emissions

That is one stunning graph.

Editor
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 6, 2021 2:59 pm

CO2 does more than warm the planet? Amazing that.

Ron Long
Reply to  Andy May
June 6, 2021 3:53 pm

Maybe he is not confusing correlation as the satellite record, reported by NASA, shows a 10% greening of the earth. What effect, shown by what data could produce this? Temperature? No. Rain? No. CO2 plant food increase? Likely.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Ron Long
June 6, 2021 4:31 pm

Even the BBC admits that commercial greenhouse growers pump up the concentration of carbon dioxide to improve crop yields.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/z7snvcw

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 6, 2021 11:32 pm

Thank you for admitting that increasing the level of carbon dioxide increases crop yields. For a moment there, I thought that you were the only person in the entire world who denied that basic biological fact.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 7, 2021 2:59 am

There is a huger difference between a corn and a wheat or soybean field, you ignorant!

Last edited 17 days ago by Joao Martins
bigoilbob
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 7, 2021 9:00 am

Comparing the two is foolish.”

True, but such a simplistic delight that they just can’t help themselves. Oh, and better to ignore all of those post WW2 improvements in almost every area of Ag production, from better mechanization, pest control, land management, and on and on, as well….

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Ron Long
June 6, 2021 5:22 pm

Gosh, you are confused. You did know that commercial greenhouse growers add CO2 to raise concentrations, didn’t you?

So you are saying that there are 10% more weeds in crop farmland?

Straw man. No such conclusion can be derived. Crop yields depend on the best possible conditions. Until the present, ambient CO2 concentrations have not been ideal for optimum growth. All evidence shows that the Earth has enjoyed CO2 greening from the higher CO2 levels.

Assuming outside growers have optimized best practices, only increased CO2 can explain the higher yields.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 6, 2021 6:34 pm

And your point was? You sidestepped everything I wrote and merely stated a truism, no one is disputing. That’s called a straw man.

There can be only one factor which can explain the universal increase in global biomass, since CO2 is available to all parts of the world equally; whereas the variables you stated (pests, water, temperature, chemical fertilizer and genetics) vary in all cases and all locations.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 6, 2021 8:51 pm

You “merely stated a truism, no one is disputing. That’s called a straw man.”

Increasing global biomass is not the same thing as increasing crop yields.

No one said it was. But when when yields have increased irrespective of best practices and all other variables, CO2 can safely be turned to as the cause. It’s easy enough to factor out other causes comparatively.

Does increased CO2 affect crop yields?

Yes it does, as I demonstrated earlier with the greenhouse example. It also enhances crop’s resistance to drought and conserves water.Your response was the straw man. It can safely be assumed that if increased CO2 concentration is beneficial to indoor crops, outdoor crops will also benefit … correlation and causation.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 3:15 am

Go study, you ignorant!

Since decades that plant physiology has investigated and understood that. Yes, increased CO2 concentration increases primary producttion by all species. But that rate of increase (biomass created per unit CO2) differs greatly among species of pants.

Yes, we know even better what happens with cultivated plants than with vegetation. Because cultivated plants, as they are food or industrial stuffs, are more studied.

And yes, there is plenty of scientific data that support the assumption that the correlation you mention in fact is the outcome of a known causation (i.e., increased CO2 leads to increased biomass production).

You could know that if you had studied the subject. But you prefer go on repeating blindly the same nonsense.

eo
Reply to  Ron Long
June 6, 2021 7:43 pm

Neil,

You mean more energy input to build dams, produce nitrogen fertilizer, etc. Here is a link to a FAO publication The energy input in US is 320 times the traditional farming but the output is roughly 10 times see table 2.3.
 http://www.fao.org/3/X8054E/x8054e05.htm

Reply to  eo
June 7, 2021 2:12 am

While I do not dare guess why the Fibre Optics Association would carry such data, I followed your link anyway. No secure link available as you post it, but I can open their main site.
Got a working link for that data? I would very much like to see it, if true. I’ve long been of the opinion that most “progressive mechanisation” throws enrgy and machinery at problems only created by the reckless throwing of energy and machinery at problems created by throwing energy and machinery at problems created by….

Joao Martins
Reply to  Ron Long
June 7, 2021 2:58 am

We are talking about food production, i.e., cultivated plants, NOT of vegetation! Can you tell the difference? Are you aware that humans are producers, not hunter-gatherers, since some thousand years ago?

rah
Reply to  Joao Martins
June 7, 2021 7:45 am

Heck, Neil apparently doesn’t even know that herbicides are used in agriculture to prevent germination of or kill weeds!

mike macray
Reply to  Ron Long
June 7, 2021 7:39 am

….”So you are saying that there are 10% more weeds in crop farmland? Does the satellites distinguish between wheat and pine trees?..”

Does CO2 distinguish between wheat and pine trees??!
That would be botanical discrimination and a violation of vegetative equity laws. Get real!
Cheers
Mike

Rick
Reply to  Ron Long
June 7, 2021 8:08 am

I have to agree that agricultural technology has been a major factor in yield increases since the forties. However, the data suggests CO2 is also a factor and definitely shows that CO2 has not reduced yields. Something some alarmists have tried to imply. To conclude that CO2 has not had a beneficial impact seems a stretch.

M Courtney
Reply to  Andy May
June 6, 2021 4:04 pm

Absolutely true.
But it does show that the negative effects of AGW are also negligible for this issue.
So it still debunks the “fact checkers”.

Reply to  Andy May
June 6, 2021 5:05 pm

Elevated CO2 (“eCO2”) has certainly increased corn yields. It’s not the only reason corn yields have increased, but it is one of the important reasons. Here’s a paper about it:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413

Corn is a C4 crop. Most crops are C3. eCO2 is even more beneficial for C3 crops, than for C4 crops!

eCO2 is especially beneficial for legumes, like beans, peas, and alfalfa, which are grown for their protein content. So eCO2 helps mitigate protein shortages in poor countries. Here’s a paper:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.01546/full

eCO2 is helping to make famines rare for first time in human history. If you’re too young to understand how important that is, count yourself blessed! Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war & disease.

Compare:

 ● The1918 flu pandemic killed ab estimated 2% of world population.

 ● WWII killed 2.7% of world population.

 ● The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed 3.7% of world population.

When I was a child, horrific famines were often in the news, in places like Bangladesh. But Bangladesh and India now have food surpluses, every year. Rising CO2 level is one of the reasons for that.

https://ourworldindata.org/famines
comment image

Believe me, food gluts are a MUCH better problem than famines!

Drake
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 6, 2021 7:58 pm

So, Neil, did you read the literature at the links Dave provided. Obviously not, but why would you? You might learn something.

And WHY are you so against the reality that increased atmospheric CO2 improves plant growth and drought tolerance?

Is it that you are a CAGW believer?
Is is impossible for you to believe that the increase of atmospheric CO2, caused by a warming earth and its oceans, is a POSITIVE for mankind?

So Dave provided links, READ THEM. Then read any scientific studies referenced in them. You just MIGHT learn something.

But I doubt it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Drake
June 6, 2021 9:12 pm

How’s THIS for an argument; the scientific “consensus” asserts that CO2 is “unequivocally” linked to enhanced growth, all things being equal, and that it also increases plant’s resistance to drought while reducing their demand.

It would only increase weed growth if no steps were taken to limit them … in the same way farmers have always done. The fact is, hardy crops limit weed growth all by themselves. I can see you’re no gardener. BTW … plants are far more able to adapt to increasing warmth than to increasing cold. I mean, Duh! That’s a no brainer.

Oh and if a warmer earth melts the ice caps, I don’t think it will be a positive thing for places like Miami or Venice.

A warmer Earth had been “melting the icecaps” throughout the Younger Dryas. Furthermore, the Holocene has been steadily cooling since the Thermal Optimum and it’s showing no signs of reversing that trend. This interglacial is already past average length, so there’s little likelihood the ice caps will melt much more before the Ice Age resumes.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Drake
June 7, 2021 3:26 am

Will you please elaborate on the mataphysical distinction that makes “crop yield” independent from “plant growth”?

Along with that philosophical argument, some plant physiological facts can also help…

Last edited 17 days ago by Joao Martins
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Drake
June 7, 2021 4:50 am

The US has not warmed.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Drake
June 7, 2021 7:56 am

There will be beachfront somewhere and rest assured it will be expensive Neil. think of all the farmland opening up at the poles. Greenland will be green again. It is called adaptation Neil.

All you doomsayers will be long dead before the oceans wash your graves away. If you read Ehrlich’s Population Bomb in the 70s he was sure we would have all starved by now.

You are such a Negative Nancy. You need to bend over and smell the roses. They are so abundant among all your “weed yields”

Reply to  Dave Burton
June 6, 2021 8:19 pm

Thank you Dave Burton for this excellent post! Positive and entirely true!

Neil Lock – I have rarely if ever seen anyone trying to make your point. I have studied this subject since 1985 and published papers since 2002, and your position is not even credible enough to be specious.

Are you being serious Neil, or are you just messing around? I must conclude the latter – you are messing with us. Silly boy!

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 13, 2021 1:55 pm

Not only was he just messing around, “Neil” was apparently messing around while impersonating someone else:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/06/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#comment-3263938

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 6, 2021 9:34 pm

I think it is well beyond the realm of humor for you to accuse skeptics with confusing correlation with causation.

Do you do irony?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 7, 2021 4:54 am

As for causation: CO2 causes plants to grow faster, bigger, and better, while requiring less water and hence they are more resilient under adverse conditions.
CO2 is literally what causes plants to grow.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 7, 2021 3:22 am

Sorry, Dave, I have written a few comments on the subject before reading this post ou yours. I see now that I was saying the same as you did, only with much less Christian pity: I cannot tolerate assumed, militant ignorance. You are nicer, or more polite: you show some basic information. I doubt that your effort will contribute to the spiritual elevation of this Neil creature… it seams to be locked (according to the surname).

Last edited 17 days ago by Joao Martins
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 7, 2021 4:49 am

What is foolish is when you ignore the obvious: CO2 is the raw material that plants use to carry out photosynthesis.
CO2 is is critically short supply.
More of it increases the growth rate and size of plants.

Your willingness to say anything you can think of to deny the obvious truth is startling.

Last edited 17 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Gunga Din
Reply to  Andy May
June 6, 2021 8:07 pm

You cannot attribute increased crop production to increases in CO2. There are too many other confounding variables to prove causation. You are confusing correlation with causation.

Guess what?
You also cannot attribute an increase of Man’s CO2 to “Climate Change”. Nature’s contributions of CO2 are enormous. As is nature’s absorption of ANY and all CO2 regardless of the source.

This all started with the claim that Man’s CO2 causes Catastrophic Anthropometric Global Warming. Therefore, “we” need to control Man.
This has always been “The Cause” looking for something to blame on Man to further “The Cause”.

Reply to  Andy May
June 7, 2021 12:25 am

Gentlemen,

A number of comments have been made on this thread, which purport to be from me. This is to make clear to you all that the person using my moniker on this thread from 3:36pm yesterday until now was not me. I have alerted Charles and asked him to follow it up.

(Did some checking too, there is a clear problem as the other one is too far away from where you are to be the same person, will send e-mail alerting the Admins) SUNMOD

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 7, 2021 9:46 am

The bad Neil Lock has been BANNED and all of his comments deleted

The real Neil Lock is a member in good standing

Last edited 17 days ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 7, 2021 10:04 am

Thanks for the info, Sunsettommy.

It would be easier if he changed his moniker, since I have a few articles on the site as author, and changing mine might confuse someone looking at those.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Neil Lock
June 7, 2021 10:15 am

Ohhh my apology, didn’t realize you have been been a guest blogger here, will ask him to change.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Andy May
June 7, 2021 2:53 am

Have you ever heard of C3 and C4 plants? Have you any idea of which species of foodstuffs belong to each group? You certainly cannot grasp (due to lack of studying or some idiopatic limitation) the physiological differences between both groups of plants, and how the primary production kinetics varies with temperature in each group.

Go study, try to increase your knowledge (perhaps also your intelligence) before uttering nonsense statements: the argument of correlation vs. causation does not apply in this case, as anyone with some knowledge of plant physiology can tell.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joao Martins
June 7, 2021 5:02 am

Exactly.
In every case, more CO2 makes plants grow faster and better.

DMA
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 6, 2021 3:18 pm

Unfortunately a proper analysis of those emissions and atmospheric CO2 shows that there is no statistical correlation. It is possible that most of emitted CO2 is absorbed by the local biosphere but largely the increase in CO2 is natural.

Reply to  DMA
June 6, 2021 3:34 pm

Oh, but… Data analysis at its finest.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 7, 2021 3:38 am

You are right. Some people need data anaysis and sophisticated statistical techniques to “demosntrate” that a pine tree is taller than a corn plant…

Reply to  DMA
June 6, 2021 5:20 pm

DMA wrote, “It is possible that… the increase in CO2 is natural.”

No, that is not possible. None of the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural. It is entirely caused by man.

Nature is a net REMOVER of CO2 from the atmosphere. We know from measurements that that has been the case every year since at least 1958.

The reason that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising is that mankind’s net annual CO2 emission rate is currently greater than the net natural CO2 removal rate. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are currently about double the rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But as mankind’s emissions decline, that will no longer be the case.

Nature’s accelerating removal of CO2 from that atmosphere is a looming problem, because it means that when mankind’s CO2 emissions decline by more than about half, the atmospheric CO2 level will begin to fall, with negative consequences for agriculture. If mankind’s CO2 emissions dropped to “net zero” then the atmospheric CO2 concentration would fall precipitously, which would be a slow-moving but ever worsening disaster for mankind and nature.

Last edited 17 days ago by Dave Burton
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 6, 2021 5:30 pm

Nature is a net REMOVER of CO2 from the atmosphere.

You’re ignoring the possibility of the oceans outgassing CO2 as temperatures rise naturally.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 6, 2021 9:18 pm

Except, geologically speaking, temperatures are not rising. They have been declining steadily since the Holocene Thermal Optimum. All we are experiencing is short period fluctuations. This planet is equipped with so many buffers against change that for the most part the “climate” is amazingly stable.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 18, 2021 12:41 am

Zig Zag, you didn’t click the links I gave you, obviously.

Mankind is currently adding about 5 ppmv of CO2 (about 10½ PgC) to the atmosphere each year, but the atmospheric CO2 level is only rising at a rate of about 2.5 ppmv per year. The difference is the rate at which natural negative feedbacks (mainly terrestrial greening and absorption by the oceans) remove CO2 from the air: currently about 2.5 ppmv per year.

Someone who claims nature is raising the atmospheric CO2 level must be incapable of subtracting 2.5 from 5.

As you probably know, at the air-water interface, CO2 molecules are constantly being exchanged between the two. The rate at which the ocean absorbs CO2 from the air is proportional to CO2’s partial pressure in the air. That’s intuitively obvious when you remember that the concentration of CO2 in the air determines the rate at which CO2 molecules collide with and are absorbed by the surface of the ocean, and falling raindrops.

Mankind has increased the atmospheric CO2 level by about 48%. A 49% increase in the CO2 concentration in the air increases the rate at which CO2 molecules in the air impact the ocean & falling raindrops by 48%, and thus increases the rate at which CO2 in the air is absorbed by the water by 48%. It effectively increases the equilibrium capacity of the water to hold dissolved CO2 by 48%.

That dwarfs the effect of the slight water temperature increase over the same time period, which averages less than 1°C. The solubility of gases like CO2 (or CH4) in water does decrease as the water gets warmer (per the temp­er­a­ture depen­dence of Henry’s law), so as the oceans warm they would outgas CO2, if nothing else changed. But the capacity of the water to hold dissolved CO2 decreases by only about 3% per 1°C by which the water warms. Here’s a graph:

comment image

So the measly 3% per °C, by which CO2 solubility in water decreases as the water warms, is dwarfed by the 48% by which solubility increased as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by 48% (from 280 ppmv to 414 ppmv), and as atmospheric CO2 level continues to rise, the rate at which the oceans remove CO2 from the air will continue to accelerate.

When the oceans are absorbing CO2, as is currently the case in most places other than the tropics, if the water warms then the oceans absorb CO2 only slightly more slowly. But it does matter. The effect of temperature change on the solubility of gases in water is surely one of the reasons that atmospheric CO2 levels swing up & down by about 90 ppmv over glaciation/deglaciation cycles. (There are almost certainly also biological [2] and/or ice sheet burial mechanisms at work, which increase the magnitude of glacial-interglacial CO2 swings.)

The CO2, in turn, works as a GHG to cause warming. That is a slight positive feedback mechanism.

That positive feedback loop is undoubtedly one of the causes for the apparent hysteresis [2] in the temperature and CO2 records: Over the last million years, the Earth’s climate has tended to be either mild, as in our current interglacial (the Holocene), or, more of the time, heavily glaciated and cold, with relatively brief, unstable transitions between. (But see also: Deglaciation / Volcanism / CO2 Feedback.)

In paleoclimate reconstructions from ice cores, CO2 level changes generally lag temperature changes by hundreds of years, which is consistent with the fact that higher CO2 levels not only cause higher temperatures, but are also caused by higher ocean temperatures, and ocean temperature is slow to respond to air temperature changes.

For a more complete treatment of this issue, I wholeheartedly recommend this essay by Ferdinand Engelbeen:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

Reply to  Dave Burton
June 18, 2021 3:46 am

Minor correction:
“49%” was a typo, intended to be “48%”

DMA
Reply to  Dave Burton
June 6, 2021 7:19 pm

DB
My comment is based on several years of analyzing your position. I think the best place for you to review what I have is to visit Dr. Ed Berry’s site, read his preprint 3
( https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/) and read as many of the references as you can. If detrended analysis of emissions shows no correlation to atmospheric content the emissions can’t be the driver of the increase.(https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/11/annual-changes-in-mlo-co2/ )

Peter W
Reply to  DMA
June 7, 2021 7:46 am

Our burning of coal, especially, is returning to the atmosphere carbon which was stored there by major past events such as the meteor which hit some 65 million years ago. The result was a heat shock which ignited forests worldwide and created coal deposits which we have been burning recently, as shown by a recent paper on the age or coal. I have retained a graphic from that paper, but unfortunately did not record the publishing details. Before that meteor hit there was a large population of dinosaurs on earth. They would have trouble surviving today, with our relatively meager plant growth.

Reply to  DMA
June 18, 2021 12:55 am

Ed Berry’s paper and his PSI article are a mess.

Ed (and a few others, like Murry Salby) contend that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not significantly affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Read that sentence again. If it sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is ridiculous.

They would have you believe that the anthropogenic CO2 just vanishes from the atmosphere, or somehow doesn’t count, and Salby, at least, thinks that the atmospheric CO2 level is increasing by an average of more than 2 ppmv per year simply because global mean temperatures are now about 1°C warmer than they were during the Little Ice Age.

That is obviously completely wrong. I posted a detailed critique of one of Salby’s lectures, in the comments on his youtube video, in two parts: here, and here.

Ed published one of his papers on this in one of those pay-to-publish journals:

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

I wrote to them and asked if they would accept a Letter to the Editor about it, and their answer was that they would do so only if I paid them.

Last edited 6 days ago by Dave Burton
Joao Martins
Reply to  DMA
June 7, 2021 3:36 am

Whatever the cause, “That is one stunning graph”!…

gringojay
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 6, 2021 5:01 pm

There is no rational connection between USA corn yields and carbon emissions. The original post figure 5 is only “stunning” as an example of confirmation bias.

Corn (maize) is a C4 plant and at elevated CO2 (eCO2) it will reduce leaf stomata conductance with a subsequent improvement of soil moisture. In trials which avoided root restriction problems of pots/chambers and there was good growing season water elevated CO2 (550 ppm CO2) did not affect carbon assimilation to the result that there was no increase in corn grain yield under eCO2

Young leaves and mature leaves of C4 plants can exhibit some variation in real time responses to eCO2 and specific alterations of gene expression levels. This comment is not
going to parse those kinds of nuances; I do find various C4 plants exhibiting genetic responses to eCO2.

I will add that under drought conditions eCO2 impact on some aspects of corn productivity does occur. The eCO2 water benefit for leaves has carbohydrate accumulation that in a natural plant feedback there is a self regulatory process of down shifted photosynthesis and the leaves get more genetic activity of enzymes processing (in C4 maize) fructose and glucose; which is then what leads to measurably increased bio-mass due to eCO2.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  gringojay
June 6, 2021 9:36 pm

There is no rational connection between USA corn yields and carbon emissions.

It has long been my opinion that people using “carbon emissions” instead of CO2 are usually blowing smoke from their fundamental orifice.

Science Daily,
November 5, 2020.

“When crops are grown in elevated CO2 that mimic future atmospheric conditions, research shows that C3 crops can become more productive while some experiments suggest that C4 crops would be no more productive in a higher CO2 world.”

Notice the writers say “some experiments”. The science is far from settled on that point.The “study” was clearly presented with a strong AGW bias. Such papers are rarely, if ever, very reliable.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201105134513.htm

ATheoK
Reply to  gringojay
June 8, 2021 5:27 am

There is no rational connection between USA corn yields and carbon emissions”

That graphic is an example of correlation is not causation. Interesting only.

The right hand metric, “carbon emissions”, and scale, “billion metric tons”, are tailored to make it appear one causes the other.

1) Neither the titled graphic “U.S. Corn Grain Yield Trends since 1866″ nor the embedded link “http://www.agry.perdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YieldTrends.html” for the graphic are active.

2) Where do estimates of “corn grain yields” prior to 1900 come from?
I’ve been doing some genealogy research and haven’t found reference to how much corn my ancestor farmers grew.

3) There is no such actual metric for carbon global emissions. Even the emissions for well reported Western Civilizations are just educated guesses.
Those estimates for closed secretive countries are pure guesses.

Making the corn yields graphic a purposely constructed feel good graphic low on reality.

Reply to  gringojay
June 18, 2021 1:28 am

gringojay wrote, “There is no rational connection between USA corn yields and carbon emissions.”

Wrong.

Well, CO2 emissions don’t directly affect corn yields. But CO2 emissions increase the amount of CO2 in the atmospheric (cumulatively by about 48%, so far), and that improves corn yields, considerably.

The benefits of eCO2 for corn are measured and large. Here’s a paper:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413

Here’s an excerpt from the Abstract:

“The grain yields of summer maize increased by 21.28% and 29.07% in the two elevated [CO2] plots. Furthermore, spike numbers, kernels per spike and 100-grain weight were increased by elevated [CO2] treatments. Kernels per spike and grain yield showed obvious differences between elevated [CO2] treatments and CK (p < 0.05).”

My guess is that there are three mechanisms through which eCO2 benefits the two major C4 crops, corn and sugarcane.

1. There is, of course, a direct CO2 fertilization effect, but it is small for C4 crops. It is approximated by the slight rise in the red trace, in this graph:
comment image

2. There is also the fact that eCO2 is very beneficial in drought conditions, because:

“There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192310003163

3. In still air, on a sunny day, a healthy cornfield can remove most of the CO2 from the air by noon. When that happens, the rate of photosynthesis drops nearly to zero, and the afternoon sunlight is largely wasted. Higher initial CO2 levels delay the local decline in CO2 level to the point at which the corn can no longer extract carbon from the air. The productivity of a healthy cornfield in still air conditions should be roughly proportionate to the level of CO2 initially available.

Most of the benefit of eCO2 for corn is probably due to #2 and #3. That is, it only occurs in particular “special circumstances.” But since still air and dry soil are both special circumstances which occur frequently, it should not surprise you that eCO2 is very beneficial for overall corn yields.

Last edited 6 days ago by Dave Burton
Paul Buckingham
June 6, 2021 2:31 pm

The ‘fact’ is that there is opportunity now to widen the whole scientific integrity issue, as the medical sector is on the receiving end of the pseudoscience guff now as well, so it’s well beyond time that the genuine scientific community came together under one roof across multiple disciplines, before the whole endeavour becomes engulfed in garbage. Open to organising this.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
June 6, 2021 5:32 pm

But who will fact-check the fact-checkers that are fact-checking the fact-checkers?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
June 7, 2021 3:41 am

“it’s well beyond time that the genuine scientific community came together under one roof across multiple disciplines”.

Paul, please count me in for that.

ATheoK
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
June 8, 2021 5:49 am

it’s well beyond time that the genuine scientific community came together under one roof across multiple disciplines”

Those multiple disparate disciplines and the entire science publishing community are already corrupted. Putting them all under one roof just makes corruption and corrupt control of them easier.

What needs to be established are strict controls and open access for research design, research, data, program code, all outputs even the inconvenient outputs, statistics and mathematical calculations, graphics, sources.
Along with strict publishing metrics that:
A) Identify and remove spurious research officially.
B) Prevent tyrannical or despotic blockages to new research and publication.
C) Fully identify and publish all involved parties to the research.
D) Fully establish criteria that ensure government or publicly funded research are freely available to the public.

What also needs revision are how the government, NGOs, charitable institutions, publicly funded universities:
A) Establish criteria for awarding grants or other funds for research.
B) Publish centrally all award applications, reviews, awards, grant finance utilization, results and award ROI.
C) Publicly review, critique, administer awards and seek reimbursement for mismanaged/wasted funds.

Hammer the funding of bad research and their secretive publishing standards hard!

rah
June 6, 2021 2:34 pm

“Fact Checkers” as we know them today, were an invention that came about when much of the public lost their trust in the veracity of the media and “journalists”. While the intent was to use “fact checkers” to bolster the credibility of the media and their stories, the fact is, their existence is a clear sign that they lack that credibility. Journalists used to be the “fact checkers”.

Editor
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2021 2:57 pm

We grew up in a golden time when journalism was an honorable profession, sadly now journalists are propagandists. William Randolph Hearst, who hyped and sensationalized the Spanish-American War to increase his circulation, would fit right in today.
https://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/section2/

I could see him at the helm of CNN.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Andy May
June 7, 2021 11:12 am

Nah, He wouldn’t put up with the drastic loss of readership that has befallen CNN since the first of January :<)

ATheoK
Reply to  Andy May
June 8, 2021 5:55 am

News and newspapers before, during and after the Civil War were well known for muck raking and outright falsification.

The movie “My Girl Friday” with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell provide an excellent view of newspapers during the 1920s and 1930s as the other reporters filed all sorts of imaginative absurd stories.

Reply to  rah
June 6, 2021 3:10 pm

Journalists used to be the “fact checkers”.
No, in case of science it’s not the job of a journalist to decide what’s fact and what not.
But his job is to present the different oppinions if there are more than one as it’s usually the case.

Streetcred
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 6, 2021 4:10 pm

The last person whose ‘opinion’ I want to read is that of a ‘journalist’ … just give me the facts and I’ll develop my own opinion.

Last edited 17 days ago by Streetcred
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Streetcred
June 6, 2021 5:31 pm

Spot on. Who cares what the reporter thinks? Many of them don’t know whether they’re punched or bored.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 6, 2021 5:30 pm

No it is not the journalist’s job to present opinions. It’s his job to provide facts, checked by at least three sources. Opinions are what editors and pundits offer. A real reporter reports what he sees and hears without bias.

Peter W
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 7:50 am

No, a REAL reporter takes the trouble to do a little-checking!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Peter W
June 7, 2021 11:21 am

Yes, that’s what I wrote …

“It’s his job to provide facts, checked by at least three sources.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 8:24 am

Perhaps it was once the case that journalists would check with at least three sources but today in most UK papers anything to do with climate change quotes from the latest paper and if you are lucky will have a (generally supportive) comment from only one source not associated with the paper.

Plus it seems that ANYONE can be an ‘Environment Correspondent’ and it is not unusual for The Guardian, for example, to have separate pieces written by different people who are said to be such correspondents.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 7, 2021 11:28 am

I don’t think most of them are doing any checking at all. Judging from the word for word talking points I hear from all the Left leaning media outlets, It looks like they all receive the same wording, from some central source, with “the message for today”. There is no investigation needed. Their source is just an affiliate paper. State media, like BBC, ABC and CBC stories come directly from the propaganda department.

M Courtney
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2021 4:09 pm

A journalist’s job is to sell copy.

In the 1970s Superman the Movie had Perry White say to Lois, “A good journalist doesn’t find the news…”
She completes, “A good journalist makes the news”.

True then. True now.
Fact Checking, may help raise revenue. But it’s just one acceptable strategy to sell copy.

“WW2 Bomber found on the Moon” made a lot of money and is still remembered.
It was a lie, of course.

Last edited 17 days ago by M Courtney
Neo
Reply to  rah
June 6, 2021 6:34 pm

Excuse me? There is no science anymore. It’s all politics, period. Science has left the building……..and won’t return.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  rah
June 7, 2021 5:08 am

Everyone paying attention has known darn well for a long time, that so-called fact checkers are nothing of the sort.
They are propagandists.

dk_
June 6, 2021 2:51 pm

Thanks for reposting to WUWT. CO2 Coalition is added to my reading list.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 6, 2021 2:59 pm

Let’s call a spade a spade. Climate Feedback clearly is Quack Central.

Last edited 17 days ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
Joseph Zorzin
June 6, 2021 3:05 pm

Wow- knocked it out of the park. I’m sure this story will soon be discussed in the WP, the NYT, the Guardian, Scientific American, CNN, MSNBC and Australian papers- NOT.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 6, 2021 4:46 pm

uh,uh,yah, sure…

June 6, 2021 3:09 pm

On just his first point:

“That is factually and blatantly incorrect (even though if it were true, it would not matter). I am not employed in the energy sector. I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry.”

It seems he certainly has been employed there. Looking at his papers and the affiliations he gives

2019: Unusual and unprecedented warming? What do geologic and human history tell us?
Gregory Wrightstone
Wrightstone Energy Consulting, Pittsburg, PA

2011: An overview of Some Key Factors Controlling Well Productivity in Core Areas of the Appalachian Basin Marcellus Shale Play
W. A. Zagorski¹ , Douglas C. Bowman¹ , Martin Emery¹ , and Gregory R. Wrightstone¹
¹Range Resource Corporation, Canonsburg, PA

 2009: Marcellus Shale–Geologic Controls on Production
 G Wrightstone¹
¹Texas Keystone, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (gwrightstone@texaskeystone.com) 

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 3:23 pm

You know the grammatical meaning of past and present ? 😀
If not, it’s still time to learn about.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 6, 2021 5:54 pm

You know the grammatical meaning of past and present ? 😀

Unfortunately, English is one of those ambiguous languages. The present tense can mean ‘right now’ or ‘habitually’. Think of “I eat cheese”.

Personally, I think that if he was paid once by some company involved in fossil fuels, that saying he receives funding from the fossil fuel industry is disingenuous at best. It’s more like “I ate cheese”. It’s only really true if the funding is continuing or regular.

But Nick does like to pick nits. He has little else to work with. If he did it once, I’d say he had little else to work with, but he does it both continuously and regularly!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 6, 2021 6:09 pm

“It’s only really true if the funding is continuing or regular.”
From here, in 2019
“After his testimony, he confirmed he worked as a geologist for the Pittsburgh-based gas company Texas Keystone for 20-odd years, but said the experience doesn’t influence his current work.”

From here, in 2011
“said Wrightstone, director of geology for Texas Keystone, Inc., of Pittsburgh”
“Wrightstone, who has been involved with natural gas drilling for more than 30 years, including many wells in the region, called the Marcellus shale a “great gift”…”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 11:50 pm

I worked as a software developer fir decades.

I don’t write software.

Both of these statements are true. I can pick nits too, Nick.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 5:13 am

Every single warmista is paid to give only one certain result, or they will be not only terminated, but blackballed, scorned, lied about, and villainized.
Pot, meet kettle.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 6, 2021 8:24 pm

He worked in the natural gas and petroleum industry for more than 30 years. Saying he “was paid once by some company involved in” it is something of an understatement. Neither Nick Stokes nor the Climate Feedback people are saying he is currently receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry, but the fact that his entire career was spent working in that industry seems quite germane. If someone was writing article advocating the many health benefits of daily tobacco smoking you would probably consider it relevant to know that their entire life’s work was in the tobacco industry and might feel that they had not been entirely forthcoming if they did not acknowledge this.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 3:36 pm

Attacking a man’s funding instead of attacking his arguments will never be a valid argument, no matter how many times the alarmists claim otherwise.

Reply to  MarkW
June 6, 2021 3:46 pm

No, just checking on some of his fact checks. After all, his statement went on:

I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry. If the authors get this basic “fact” wrong, how can we rely on any later statements of “fact.””

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 4:04 pm

Nick, you are doing serious damage to your reputation as an honest broker. Your ad hominins are accumulating to an alarming degree.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 4:48 pm

Nick never had a reputation to worry about…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 6, 2021 5:35 pm

He certainly does have a reputation …

… mostly bad.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 3:42 am

He is (or possibly was) an independent consulting petroleum geologist with his own company Wrightstone Energy Consulting, which specialises in, um, oil and shale gas. He may hiding behind the fact that he is freelance, or not currently receiving fossil fuel income, but his entire career has been in natural gas, disingenuous at best to try and hide this.
 
When tried this farrago of half truths in front of the House in 2019 he was asked about his interests…

Asked when he had stopped consulting for gas companies, Wrightstone said he still does “a little bit when I can, but I’ve been so busy I turn down almost all my work.”

 
“I’ve got to make some money,” he added.
 
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/27/house-panel-hosts-climate-change-doubter-whose-beliefs-draw-a-rebuke-from-scientists/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 5:14 am

So, Mr. Stokes, it is your position that once someone has said something that is demonstrably untrue, anything else they have to say after that (or even before that), is unreliable at best?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 7, 2021 10:37 am

I’ll quote again Mr Wrightstone on that:
“I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry. If the authors get this basic “fact” wrong, how can we rely on any later statements of “fact.””
That overly aggressive response was what prompted me to try to find out what the real facts were.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 5:27 am

In light of the obvious fact that people can be, and sometimes are, unreliable, I propose we all adopt the standard of ignoring “Who said it”, and concentrate our attention solely on “What was said”.

That should solve the entire potential problem of unreliability as it pertains to personalities.

I think maybe someone else said something similar, once upon a time…

4732915-Richard-P-Feynman-Quote-It-does-not-matter-who-you-are-or-how.jpg
Last edited 17 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 3:40 pm

Nick, you have stooped very low by using ad hominins. Your biases are showing. You are unable to rebut Gregory’s factual statements and seem to have sunk to the CliSciFi lows of credibility. Please don’t continue to beclown yourself.

Last edited 17 days ago by Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 3:50 pm

Just fact checking the fact check.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 4:07 pm

“Fact Checking” is an ideological operation. It replaces ideology for rational thought and intellectual rigor. Are you losing your sense of intellectual honor, Nick?

Last edited 17 days ago by Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 4:12 pm

‘“Fact Checking” is an ideological operation.’
This article is titled
“Fact Checking the Fact Checkers”
I was checking his fact check #1.

Last edited 17 days ago by Nick Stokes
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:42 pm

“I was checking his fact check #1”

And not doing a very good job of it.

Here’s the quote:

CF Claim #1: Wrightstone fails to disclose conflicts of interest
CF: the sponsored article fails to disclose conflicts of interest. As Kerr said to Climate Feedback, “Gregory Wrightstone is a professional in the fossil fuels industry. He works on shale gas and oil in the Appalachian Basin.
Response 1 – Gregory Wrightstone 
That is factually and blatantly incorrect (even though if it were true, it would not matter). I am not employed in the energy sector. I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry.”

What about that don’t you understand, Nick?

You, Nick, are implying that he *does* receive funding from the fossil fuel industry. You are implying that he is lying.

Where’s your evidence?

If I stopped working for a Business in 2011 and someone claimed I was still being paid by that business now, that would make the person making that claim a liar.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 6:10 pm

Clearly his statement left out a lot.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 7:59 pm

Clearly you can’t make the case at all, why don’t YOU look up the definition of CONFLICT of INTEREST?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 10:37 pm

He left out nothing germane to the subject. If he is not earning from the fossil fuel industry, there is no financial conflict of interest. But you people never could understand ad hominem. Learn how to debate the facts. You’re the LAST people who should talk about “hiding facts”.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 6:12 pm

Expect silence.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 7, 2021 6:15 am

That’s just about what I got.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:43 pm

I was checking his fact check #1.

… and yet you managed to fail at distinguishing past and present.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 6, 2021 7:59 pm

BINGO!

Streetcred
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 4:16 pm

Oh my, take a look at who funds ‘Climate Feedback’ and its authors … a literal who’s who of climate alarmism, never mind the pesos donators.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:02 pm

Here’s an everyday example of ‘conflict of interest’ –

  • I am a ‘scientist’ employed at XYZ University.
  • To continue in this job, I have to generate funding through government grants.
  • It is critical that my research work gets published in academic journals.
  • If my submitted papers are not supportive of the ‘consensus’ position that manmade CO2 is warming the atmosphere and causing climates to change, they will be rejected by journals.
  • Hence, I will always line up to support the ‘consensus’ about manmade climate change.
Tom
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:21 pm

Here is some information about Michael Mann’s site 
RealClimate, funded by unwilling taxpayers and run during work hours by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, William Connolley, etc., and funded by George Soros through Fenton Communications. Climateprogress, funded by George Soros’ string puppet Joe Romm, etc. And the new “Climategate Chairman,” funded by the heavily pro-AGW Grantham Foundation…
VS
WattsUpWithThat, funded by a few dollars a day in ad revenue, and mostly by voluntary reader contributions.
Question: Which ones are “well funded and well organized,” and which one is actually serving the general public interest?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:38 pm

Look who funds warminism. Look who funds all Marxist movements.

Better still … look who doesn’t understand what ad hominem means.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 5:59 pm

The funding canard is YOUR way out of addressing the content of the article, it appears you have NOTHING in the way of a cogent argument against the post.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 6, 2021 10:28 pm

Warmunists always pull out a logical fallacy from their little bag of sophistry whenever they realize the argument is lost to them. They rely on quite a lengthy collection of fallacies …with “climate change” itself being the most subtle. It’s simply equivocation of a tautology … an appeal to ambiguity.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 6:00 pm

Ahh this means you have no argument to offer against the article, must be a slow day for you……

Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 6, 2021 6:27 pm

I was commenting on the truth of his fact check #1.
More below.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 7:37 pm

I saw it, but you have a serious ocular problem because you missed the very first paragraph of the article:

“On Earth Day this year, the Washington Times published an op-ed that I wrote titled “There is no climate emergency – We love CO2 and so should you.” Not long after publication, the paper’s Facebook post on the commentary was labeled “false and misleading” and their ad for it was rejected. This was based on a lengthy “fact-check” titled Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change by Climate Feedback (CF). It was composed by eight scientists and upon detailed review of their “fact-check,” it became clear why they were not labeled “experts.”

In order to rebut this review, I asked six of the top experts in the world in various fields related to climate change to assess the statements by the Climate Feedback reviewers for accuracy and validity. All the scientists I consulted are members of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit scientific coalition based in Arlington, Va. All agree that there is no man-made climate emergency.”

bolding mine

===

His article he posted was dated April 21, 2021 that the W. Times posted, Climate Feedback replied quickly.

=====.

Now here is the sequence you failed to understand:

CF Claim #1: Wrightstone fails to disclose conflicts of interest

CF: the sponsored article fails to disclose conflicts of interest. As Kerr said to Climate Feedback, “Gregory Wrightstone is a professional in the fossil fuels industry. He works on shale gas and oil in the Appalachian Basin.

Response 1 – Gregory Wrightstone 

That is factually and blatantly incorrect (even though if it were true, it would not matter). I am not employed in the energy sector. I receive zero funding from the fossil fuel industry. If the authors get this basic “fact” wrong, how can we rely on any later statements of “fact.” Several of the Climate Feedback reviewers have definite unrevealed conflicts of interest, including Amber Kerr, who is a paid consultant for Carbon Direct, a consulting firm that provides advice to companies concerning carbon offsets. I doubt that she would be employed long in this capacity if she produced any science that disputes the “consensus” opinion on climate change.

======

Can you figure it out Nick?

He ONCE worked for the Pittsburg company, notice the PAST TENSE statement he made below?

“After his testimony, he confirmed he worked as a geologist for the Pittsburgh-based gas company Texas Keystone for 20-odd years, but said the experience doesn’t influence his current work.”

bolding mine

The presentations you posted were also at least 10 years ago, 2011 and 2009.

Currently he isn’t working for the “fossil;” fuel industry and isn’t currently being paid by them either.

You failed to show CURRENT conflict of interest of Amber Kerr and others who made the dishonest and LYING attack on him, while you dishonestly ignored this hypocrisy:

“Amber Kerr, who is a paid consultant for Carbon Direct, a consulting firm that provides advice to companies concerning carbon offsets”.

LINK

You like to fog things up with deceptive bullcrap.

Last edited 17 days ago by Sunsettommy
rah
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 6, 2021 9:28 pm

Waiting for Nick’s reply. You laid it out as clear as could be done Sunsettommy. Thank you.

John Phillips
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 7, 2021 4:17 am

One of those technically correct but misleading statements. He is an independent consulting petroleum geologist with his own company Wrightstone Energy Consulting, which specialises in, um, oil and shale gas. He may hiding behind the fact that he is freelance, or not currently receiving fossil fuel income, but his entire career has been in natural gas, he has no training or experience in climate science. He doth protest too much.
 
When tried this farrago of half truths in front of the House in 2019 he was asked about his interests…

Asked when he had stopped consulting for gas companies, Wrightstone said he still does “a little bit when I can, but I’ve been so busy I turn down almost all my work.”
 
“I’ve got to make some money,” he added.
 
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/27/house-panel-hosts-climate-change-doubter-whose-beliefs-draw-a-rebuke-from-scientists/

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  John Phillips
June 7, 2021 7:14 am

Neither YOU, Nick or Amber can show there is a Conflict of Interest, all you people do is babble about funding that isn’t illegal.

John Phillips
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 8, 2021 1:26 am

Straw Man, the point is when he described linking him to the gas and shale industry as a ‘blatant lie’, he was himself being disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

My criticisms downthread show he is not averse to lying or bending the truth in support of his ‘nothing to worry about’ nonsense.

rah
Reply to  John Phillips
June 7, 2021 7:20 am

In the simple minds of the watmests; I’m an advocate for big steel because I was once a welder and fabricator.

I am an advocate for coal fired power plants, coal mining, and coal preparati, because I was once VP and GM of a small company that provided products and installation services for ceramics used in systems which transport coal and the ash it’s incineration produces.

I am now an advocate for POL because I drive a big truck with a Diesel engine.

I am a advocate for fossil fueled vehicles because I drive several.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 10:46 pm

There was a time when I believed you had a vague understanding of the basics of this subject and a working knowledge of logic. Now I realize you’re just another warmunist bloviator.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 3:00 am

Stokes is clearly declining as he is not making the slightest effort to rebut the article but merely playing the tired ad hominem card.

Renee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 10:09 pm

Nick,
I don’t understand why climate scientists don’t solicit industry funding or utilize their public databases. They have world-class environmental databases required by hundreds of federal and state permits for each project.

Zig Zag Wanderer
June 6, 2021 3:12 pm

Those of us in North Queensland Australia, who live right next to the Great Barrier Reef, find it incredible that the world has been convinced that the Reef is on its last legs. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is spectacular, and one of the most pristine ecosystems on earth. Once the COVID restrictions ease, come and see for yourself.

And bring tourist dollars! We like them the best.

Rud Istvan
June 6, 2021 3:13 pm

Two observations.

First, while an excellent review, it won’t matter. Dr. Kerr doesn’t care about truth or accuracy. She knows no one in the MSM will call her out, and that none of her intended audience will bother to check. Those who do care (like WUWT readers) don’t need fact check review to know she is wrong.

Second, in re Marcott, the greater sin was not failing to disclose his certainty interval did not support his ‘blade’, as the link here said. True, but. The greater sin was fabricating the blade for Science via proven academic misconduct, since his thesis version of the same analysis had no such blade. The misconduct proof was posted by me in 2013 at Climate Etc, and was repeated in essay ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Proof that both my observations are correct is that I sent ‘High Stick Foul’ to then Science managing editor Marsha McNutt 6 weeks before book publication, requesting a retraction. Her admin acknowledged receipt. Then nothing. That factoid became an essay ending footnote. IMO the coverup was worse than the crime, because it indicts the whole climate establishment, not just a newly minted climate PhD seeking fame and glory.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 6, 2021 3:53 pm

Rud, it appears that CliSciFi practitioners use the technique of avoidance to deny your and others’ scientific critiques of their published nonsense. Instead of confronting your analyses directly, they seem to deny that you have actually spoken. One would think that a media driven by scandal-induced ‘clicks’ would be all over proven scientific fraud. My only hope is that a future ‘Woodward/Bernstein’ would gain fame from exposing massive international and governmental fraud.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 5:51 pm

My only hope is that a future ‘Woodward/Bernstein’ would gain fame from exposing massive international and governmental fraud.

That has happened numerous times over the past 40+ years I’ve been following this goat rodeo. We see it weekly at WUWT. The difference is; ‘Woodward/Bernstein’ are from the Left. They have dominated the media for two generations and have no problem being heard. Look what the Left is doing to President Trump’s voice. Dominating the media was the 1st order of business for the Left. Now they’re trying to dominate the internet with cancellation and censorship.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 3:07 am

Remember, for the Left, the ends justify the means. Deceit and obfuscation are permitted in the name of the Greater Good.

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2021 3:13 pm

He who controls the fact checker knob is all powerful.

Tom
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 6, 2021 4:57 pm

Note that (IFCN)Poynter receives substantial donations from the Open Society Foundation, owned by George Soros.
I wouldn’t trust anything that has ties with Soros.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 7, 2021 12:42 am

Good point. Clearly fact checkers are knobs.

Last edited 17 days ago by Ed Zuiderwijk
Zig Zag Wanderer
June 6, 2021 3:17 pm

In fact there is no alternative explanation for the recent rapid warming, as described in this Climate Feedback review.

There are none so blind as those who will not see (or even look)

Nick Schroeder
June 6, 2021 3:18 pm

“Science is all about debate. The debate must be with well-founded evidence, with objective reason, without personal attacks, and with both sides represented.”

Uh, yep!

ResourceGuy
June 6, 2021 3:21 pm

Low rent or unqualified fact checking as a pretext for censorship is a new tactic I did not see coming. It’s a good thing Einstein published before the climate control era came along. Otherwise we would still have enforcers of the ether theory.

Neville
June 6, 2021 3:26 pm

Here’s a quick and easy way to show how much better everything is today.
Africa is our poorest continent and in 1970 population was 363 mil and life expectancy was about 46.
But today pop has increased by about 1000 mil to about 1370 mil and life expectancy today is about 63. Look up the data and WAKE UP.
If we had a climate crisis this would be an impossibility and since 1970 global life expectancy has increased from about 59 to 73 in 2021.
Also global pop has increased from 3.7 billion in 1970 to 7.78 billion today.
In just 50 years and over that time urbanisation has increased to higher levels all around the world. IOW the percentage of farmers is at an all time low. LOOK UP THE DATA .

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Neville
June 6, 2021 5:58 pm

As I have said so many times over the past 30+ years; more food of higher quality is now available to more people, at lower cost than at any time in human history. On a per capita basis thee have never been fewer people starving. The definition of poverty keeps shifting. The human condition has never been so hopeful.

rah
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 8:38 pm

There will always be famines as long as there are wars and conflicts. Denying your enemies food and/or water is far more powerful than any conventional weapon.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  rah
June 7, 2021 8:55 pm

Absolutely spot on. The greatest threat to our well being is interpersonal strife and war. One only need look at the recent history of Somalia. Thousands of tones of aid snatched up by warlords and acres of fields laid waste to punish non compliant civilians. Cheapest weapon there is … starvation.

Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 3:58 pm

So? Would it be better if it received funding from one of the Rockefeller Foundations? There is a hell of a lot more money from there and like-minded Leftist foundations.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2021 6:07 pm

Better still would be you getting a clue … see my earlier response.

Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 4:31 pm

From the article: “The vast majority of paleoclimate studies agree that the most recent warming period, known as the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today including summaries of more than 1,000 papers that are documented herehere and Figure 1, below.”

Actually, the most recent warm period before today is the Early Twentieth Century Warming. It was just as warm then as it is today.

Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 4:41 pm

From the article: “In support of her contention that current temperatures are warmer than any in the last 12,000 years, Amber Kerr references Kaufman (2020) which is a global multi-proxy paleo-temperature reconstruction. The portion of the study that deals with paleoclimate is excellent and shows the high temperatures of the Holocene Optima with thousands of years of declining temperature. In the summary, Kaufman pasted modern instrument data onto the paleoclimate data, but he specifically warned against comparing the two, as Dr. Kerr has done here.”

Amber Kerr should have referenced the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts instead. Had she done so, she would see that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

Here’s an example, the India chart:

comment image

All the regional charts from around the world resemble the Indian chart which shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. We don’t need proxies to determine that the Earth is not experiencing unprecedented warming today.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 6:20 pm

Well played that man!

That’s what I call a grand slam and vulnerable!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 7, 2021 6:31 am

And the climate alarmists manage to ignore all the regional surface temperature charts.

I can understand why those who have a climate agenda would want to ignore the regional surface temperature charts, because they don’t support the “unprecedented warming” climate alarmists need to sell their narrative, but it seems like many people who are genuinely concerned and have no agenda have not looked around enough at alternatives to the bogus Hockey Stick charts.

If I genuinely thought the world was in danger from CO2, I would want to know every aspect of the science involved. Knowing every aspect of the science involved, in this case, would allay the fears of those who think the world is overheating because of CO2.

The evidence (regional charts) to date shows we have nothing to worry about from CO2. Bogus Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” charts are not evidence of anything but fraud. The regonal charts put the lie to the instrument-era Hockey Stick charts, which puts the lie to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 7, 2021 11:19 am

The regional charts put the lie to the instrument-era Hockey Stick charts, which puts the lie to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative.

Which puts the lie to much of the science, or at least the way it has been interpreted. Of course all this has nothing to do with the real science. It’s maintaining the fear they want, Look how easily people were malleable to all the Covid restricions. The famous H L Mencken quote comes to mind …

“the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

Mr.
June 6, 2021 5:06 pm

Yes and David Suzuki receives funding from the Tides Foundation (and other “dark money”)

Your point was?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Mr.
June 7, 2021 9:09 am

Your point was?”

I am assuming that it was the fact that they are open about it.

Tom
June 6, 2021 5:07 pm

Science organisations funded by Fossil Fuels 

“We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.”

https://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/

Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 5:08 pm

From the article: “Ice core data from Law Dome show the surface concentration was only around 298 ppm when the first warming began, which gives a CO2 forcing of +0.35 w/m2 over the background, based upon the standard formula (dRF= 5.35ln(298/279)). Note that this is a very liberal calculation because the concentration at the beginning of the CRU record is closer to 285ppm.
Stevens (2015), citing Carslaw et al. (2013) gives a sulfate forcing of -0.3 watts/m2, resulting in a near-zero net combined forcing. Tuning the models to somehow account for this warming with such a small radiation change as would be the case in 1910 implies an enormous sensitivity. If that were actually true, current temperatures would be so high that there would be little policy debate.”

I love it! A near-zero net combined forcing. So I guess something else must be making the temperatures climb? Mother Nature doing Her thing!

So if the magnitude of the warming from 1910 to 1940 is the same as the magnitude of the warming from 1979 to 1998, then it is a possibility that most of the warming in both periods came from Mother Nature, since one period had a lot of CO2 and the other had much less.

This would all be clear as day if the Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn had not bastardized the global temperature record to make it appear that we are getting hotter and hotter, decade after decade, and it’s now the hottest period in 12,000 years. It’s all a big lie but the chart gives them the talking points.

But if you put that bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart up beside any unmodified, regional surface temperature chart it would be obvious that one or the other did not represent reality.

We have numerous regional surface temperature charts that all resemble each other, and we have one bastardized Hockey Stick chart that doesn’t resemble any unmodified surface temperature chart. The computer spit out an outliar.

Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick

comment image

A legitimate chart would show the 1930’s to be just as warm as today. If a chart does not show it that way, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, computer-generated, Hockey Stick Chart, Big Lie.

The Hockey Stick Chart is the only thing the Alarmists have that shows warming, and it is as fraudulent as it can be.

The Data Manipulators were able to change the appearance of the temperature record by creating the Hockey Stick chart, but they could not modify the magnitude of the warming from 1910 to 1940, so it’s still there to plague their “hottest year evah!” claims.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 5:08 pm

“Satellite-sensed temperatures from the NOAA microwave sounding units (MSU) represent a truly global record (with a only very small blank spot over each pole). Unfortunately, there have been controversial revisions of surface records that mitigated a much discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in warming from roughly 1998 through 2012. But it is very apparent in the MSU satellite data.”

Well, let’s see about those revisions. Here are plotted UAH V5.6 and UAH V6.0 over those years. Yes, V6.0 shows a downtrend, -0.74 °C/cen. But then current V5.6 shows a similar trend, but the other way, 0.56 °C/cen. No wonder Lord M used RSS then, not UAH V5.6! But of course, UAH V6.0 now.
comment image

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 6:36 pm

Debating a difference in a planetary average temp construct of 1.30 degrees C per century?
(and note the precision: hundredths of one degree C. ffs!)
Seriously?

Drive to the nearest hill overlooking the ocean and the interior landscape.
Stay a few hours.
Take a 360 degree long look around.
Feel the sun, watch the clouds, hear the wind, smell the rain.

Then consider what it is you are asserting can be precisely measured to hundredths of one degree C over a period of 100 years.

(and please show your work)

Reply to  Mr.
June 6, 2021 6:45 pm

It is Patrick Michaels who said that he can discern something significant in the 1998-2012 trend (a pause). And who said that he doesn’t want to use surface data because it has been revised. I just pointed out that his preferred UAH, for the period he nominated, was revised sufficiently to turn warming into a pause.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 6:59 pm

And Willie Shakespeare said it all –
“All Ado About Nothing”

J Giles
June 6, 2021 5:21 pm

Real science is much more than just debate. In fact, real science is driven by skepticism, not surrender to bullying by a so-called consensus and their “fact checkers”. Indeed, if believers in prevailing ideas had the ability to shout down questions and skepticism, there would have been no scientific progress for centuries. Every important scientific breakthrough occurred in the face of push back from a ‘consensus’.

Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 5:23 pm

From the article: “Unfortunately, there have been controversial revisions of surface records that mitigated a much discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in warming from roughly 1998 through 2012.”

Yes, the Data Manipulators cooled 1998 to insignificance in their computers, and this gave them the ability to proclaim every successive year in the 21st Century as the “hottest year evah!” and scare eveybody to death.

If they had left 1998 alone, then they could not have declared any year between 1998 and 2015 as the “hottest year evah” because 1998 was hotter than all of them.

The UAH satellite chart still shows 1998 in it proper position among the hot years (see the chart in the article). NASA Climate and NOAA couldn’t declare “hottest year evah!” using the UAH chart. That’s why they don’t reference it. It doesn’t conform to the “hotter and hotter” narrative NASA Climate and NOAA are trying to sell.

June 6, 2021 5:34 pm

An “alternative explanation for the recent rapid warming” is the rise in water vapor; a ghg. Measured WV has increased about 43% faster than in the GCMs. Since both have been accurately measured worldwide (Jan 1988), about 7 molecules of WV have been added for each molecule of CO2. 

TPW meas & calc H4 &5 29 RH thru Jan 2021.jpg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
June 6, 2021 5:46 pm

An “alternative explanation for the recent rapid warming” is the rise in water vapor; a ghg.”
Water vapor feedback!
But many would query your satellite measure of TPW.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 6, 2021 8:09 pm

GCMs calculate WV from feedback. Actual measurements of WV are about 43% more than that.
 
Since Jan 1988 NASA/RSS have been accurately measuring average global WV using satellite instrumentation. Their last on-line report is for Jan 2021 and is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt
 
It takes some engineering/science skill to understand it but this demonstrates that CO2 change has not caused climate change and that the green-new-deal is an egregious mistake.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
June 6, 2021 9:09 pm

“this demonstrates that CO2 change has not caused”
No, if the figures are believed, it means that wv feedback was 43% higher than expected.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 7, 2021 1:48 pm

With a little more knowledge and understanding you might be able to realize that it means that the WV increase is about 43% more than is POSSIBLE from feedback. Click my name for more.
This is a second demonstration that the GCMs are faulty. It is in addition to Dr. Christy’s assessment showing average GCM calculated temperature increase to be about twice measured.

Sunsettommy
Editor
June 6, 2021 6:04 pm

Your continual hypocritical funding babbling shows that you have NOTHING against the article itself.

LOL

Rory Forbes
June 6, 2021 6:05 pm

By definition, a charitable agency is NOT part of the fuel industry. But even if it was, so what? The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the home of the CRUTemp data and parent to the IPCC was originally funded by Royal Dutch Shell. Does that fact mean AGW, the IPCC and all your warmist heroes like Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Gore, Briffa, Jones etc. should now be cancelled?

BTW, the Koch Foundation funds something like 100 universities as well as the NOVA programming on public broadcasting.

Mumbles McGuirck
June 6, 2021 6:52 pm

In Miami, there was a ‘Conservative Climate Rally’ on World Environment Day. Not all conservatives at the Rally were on-board with CO2 demonization. See Reuter’s photo from the rally.
U.S. conservatives stake claim to climate activism with Miami rally | Reuters

Neal@rally.jpg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 7, 2021 6:44 am

I saw an interview with a couple of these Republican climate activists and I saw no questioning of the basic premise of CO2 climate science. They appeared to just be more moderate in their alarmism.

I don’t see any Republican pushback to the basic premise that CO2 is overheating the Earth’s atmosphere. Other than perhaps my own U.S. Senator, James Inhofe.

Alarmist Republicans are focused on doing things a little differently than Democrat alarmists, but they are still thinking they have to do something to save the Earth from CO2.

We have a lot of work to do.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 7, 2021 7:07 am

Exactly. All of the speakers simply accepted the CAGW narrative. The organizer is a 28 year old “true believer” who no doubt has been taught this since grade school. However, the crowd was more sceptical. Another sign read “There Is NO Climate Crisis”.

June 6, 2021 7:57 pm

A very good read, thank you Gregory Wrightstone, written by some of my favorite people.

I was recently amused to note a Nobel-Prize Winner in Medicine being censored by a $10/hour high school dropout “fact-checker” on one of the popular social media sites.

What I find most appalling is not the blatant fraud of global warming catastrophism and its corrupt leadership – society has always had fraudsters – warmists are just the latest very-seedy crop.

What is most the appalling is the gullibility, stupidity or outright corruption of our so-called “intellectuals” in academia, who have not even spent ten minutes to check the facts that clearly contradict the fraud of global warming alarmism, but are adamant and often vicious in their defense of this blatantly-false nonsense – this global-scale political and financial scam.
___________________________________

The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change” – utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
 
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.
 
Excerpted from:

CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
 
This update was written in May 2021 to report even more global cooling as measured by satellites and new harsh cold events, particularly in Europe and North America that have severely harmed early crops. Harsh cold events have struck all countries in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

SUMMARY

We published in 2002 that there was NO catastrophic human-made global warming /climate change crisis, and green energy schemes were NOT green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy. Dangerous global warming and climate change have NOT HAPPENED and green energy schemes have proved to be COSTLY, UNRELIABLE AND INEFFECTIVE.

Global warming is NOT a threat, but global cooling IS dangerous to humanity and the environment. In 2002 we predicted that natural global cooling would start circa 2020, based on low solar activity, and that prediction is strongly supported by recent evidence.
 
Politicians foolishly believed scary global warming falsehoods and brewed the perfect storm, crippling our energy systems with costly and unreliable green energy schemes that utterly fail due to intermittency, at a time when we need more cheap, reliable, dispatchable energy due to increased energy demand and imminent global cooling. The people of Australia, Britain, Germany, California, Texas and elsewhere have all suffered due to GREEN ENERGY FAILURES THAT WERE PREDICTABLE AND WERE PREDICTED.
 
We published in March 2020 that there was no justification for the Covid-19 lockdown, and that it would cause great and needless harm. The Covid-19 lockdown is now estimated to have caused 10-to-100-times the damage of the Covid-19 illness, in terms of increased harm to individuals, families and the economies they depend on.
 
The same leftist groups concocted and promoted the global warming fraud and the Covid-19 lockdown scam, for political and financial gain. Then these groups linked the two frauds, stating “to solve Covid-19 we have to solve Climate Change” – utterly false and foolish, not even plausible enough to be specious. Then these same groups proposed their Final Solution, the “Great Reset”, a Chinese Communist Party style dictatorship, a centrally-controlled economy where we live like poor slaves, lorded over by our wealthy political masters.
 
The tragic reality is that the twin frauds of Climate-and-Covid have been accepted by most politicians. Some have covertly or overtly embraced extreme-left politics, and others are so simple-minded and gullible that they believe any falsehood that is repeated often enough. We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 6, 2021 11:09 pm

One of my greatest disappointments was when I realized one of my once esteemed heroes, Noam Chomsky had fallen victim to the obvious fallacies of socialism and defended some of their most egregious actions and mindless economic ideas. Great intellect and scholarship can so easily fall victim to wrong headed ideas. It occurred to me many years ago that to falsify socialism all one needed to do was read an unbiased, non-fawning biography of Marx. Trying to spin socialism is like looking for the clean end to pick up a turd. Everything we’re now seeing … AGW through Covid, cancel culture, feminism, BLM and all the rest is the presence of Marxism seeping into our culture.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 7, 2021 6:48 am

“What is most the appalling is the gullibility, stupidity or outright corruption of our so-called “intellectuals” in academia, who have not even spent ten minutes to check the facts that clearly contradict the fraud of global warming alarmism, but are adamant and often vicious in their defense of this blatantly-false nonsense – this global-scale political and financial scam.”

Well said! Exactly right. Sheep.

Matthew Schilling
June 6, 2021 8:31 pm

Nice rebuttal, but it’s too little, too late. The “fact checkers” already accomplished what they set out to do – signal their millions of mindless minions.

Climastrology isn’t the worst scandal of the 21st century – The Wuhan Virus relegates Globaloney Warmunism to no “better” than Third Place. Yet, the worst scandal of the 21st century is that millions of people are utterly under the thrall of a criminally insane cabal. We are surrounded by millions of Manchurian Candidates who exhibit no angst or struggle toward their handlers.

This goes way past indoctrination. Millions have fully bought into their manipulation. Two decades of handling – from innocent babes, through awkward adolescence, onto early adulthood – has left the victims fully assimilated. They now equate compliant with “cool”. The more compliant, the cooler! There are at least two generations now involved, probably three: The loathsome boomers (abusive abused) that carried out the indoctrination on Millennials, and are now busily at work abusing another generation of children, creating another crop of societal zombies.

Warmunism and the Wuhan Virus debacle made use of the hapless fawns, but the existence of the fawns, the creation of the fawns, is the worst thing to happen in my lifetime.

Last edited 17 days ago by Matthew Schilling
AlexBerlin
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
June 6, 2021 9:12 pm

The worst thing that happened BEFORE our lifetime was making political choices dependent on the opinion of “the people”. Democracy would be a good thing if all voters were of similar intelligence and education. Since they are not, it will always wander off to the benefit of the less educated and less intelligent (who, under a just government, would be poor and restricted in their rights, in order to disturb the others as little as possible, but of course vote for just the opposite). The bad idea of equal votes for everybody must be replaced by votes being weighted according to the income (measured by the tax return) of each voter. Not only would this naturally bring the system back on track by allowing those living a successful independent life and supporting the country by their taxes to also make the decisions, but as a nice side-effect it would be a MAJOR incentive for people and corporations alike to be honest with their taxes – maybe even paying more than they must. If you lose your vote when you don’t pay taxes, trafficking your wealth out of the country won’t look so desirable any more! The endless and fruitless discussion about the voting status of immigrants and other fringe groups would also come to an end: If they earn money and pay taxes from their income, they OF COURSE are allowed and invited to vote, regardless of ethnicity and color! It’s the freeloaders and crooks that vote other freeloaders and crooks into office – keep them away from the ballot boxes, and the risk of the country taken over by leftwing or rightwing radicals falls to zero.

Last edited 17 days ago by AlexBerlin
Matthew Schilling
Reply to  AlexBerlin
June 7, 2021 4:18 am

So, you would give Bezos and Gates how many votes? Earth called – said any time you want to come back you’re welcome, but we’ll have to have a serious talk.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
June 7, 2021 6:52 am

“The loathsome boomers (abusive abused) that carried out the indoctrination on Millennials,”

More accurately, that should be the radical, Leftwing Boomers.

You don’t want to stereotype a whole generation, do you?

Mike Maguire
June 6, 2021 8:46 pm

Wonderful job using facts to show the truth about the fake climate crisis.
I think that using soybean instead of corn yields is a better crop to demonstrate the affects of CO2 because:

  1. Soybeans use the C3 pathway, as do the majority of crops and C3 plants are affected more than C4 plants, like corn by the CO2 level.
  2. Corn has benefited more from nitrogen fertilizer than soybeans.
  3. Regardless, all crops, including corn are greatly benefiting from the increase in CO2 and beneficial weather/climate.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php

If you want actual scientific data from 290 studies on soybeans and many hundreds of other plants, with many thousands of studies……..follow the links here:

ttps://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/#62787

Why people still question this powerful fertilization affect and the law of photosynthesis can only be explained by severe cognitive bias that causes them to ignore no brainer science.
Thousands of studies done on almost every plant we know of tell us clearly that the optimal amount of CO2 for most plants is around 900 ppm, which is more than double the current level.

The planet is greening up….REALLY greening up, including remote areas, which can’t be caused by technological advances, like the use of fertilizers on crops.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming

Forests are growing much faster:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm

Even deserts are greening up some:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

It’s not like there are mixed signals or that CO2 and its relationship with plants has 2 sides that offset each other. In fact, in addition to the fertilization benefit to plants, elevated CO2 levels allow plants to conserve water during droughts and be more heat tolerant during heat waves.

https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/

Young children in grade school can easily understand this basic science, though sadly, many are being taught that CO2 is pollution which is killing the planet and NOT the authentic science of the REAL world above.

If there was such a thing as greening the planet to death, then maybe we would have a real climate crisis from burning fossil fuels.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 6, 2021 9:29 pm

Correct link to soybean studies here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/#62787

John Dueker
June 6, 2021 8:59 pm

I have no doubt that Facebook’s fact checkers are biased based much past experience.

Did they do the right thing and admit their error and remove the blocks or not? Maybe it’s in here but I can’t find it. If they didn’t what remedy is left?

Rod Evans
June 7, 2021 12:34 am

Thank you Gregory Wrightstone for laying out the facts and correcting the fact checkers errors.
It is a great piece of centralising the many issues favoured by climate alarmists in one article. You have carefully disarmed the alarmists and shown their agents up, for exactly what they are i.e. .Scaremongers.
The alarmists are like dung flies, they simply flit from one scare to the next when the one they are on has been shown up, for the pile of dung it actually is.
You have managed to remove the juicy favourite go to piles in one well constructed effort.
I will bookmark this for ongoing future reference.
Many thanks.
Rod

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 7, 2021 12:44 am

So does Penn State, brooding place of Mickey Mann. Is he now tainted too?

Matthew Sykes
June 7, 2021 1:46 am

Clearly CO2 is a benefit to the planet, mild warming and a big increase in plant growth.

François Marchand
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 7, 2021 2:27 am

Farenheit, bushels, grains, pounds, ounces, stones, feet, miles, scientists?

John Phillips
June 7, 2021 6:03 am

“Nearly all within the paleoclimate community on both sides of the issue agree that a much warmer period occurred 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, including Dr. Michael Mann, NASA, and the IPCC. The very study cited by Kerr does not support this idea and is described in some detail in the next section. ”

NASA: “Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. “

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

That was 2006, so add about another 0.3C. So NASA does not agree the Holocene Maximum was ‘much warmer’.

I am not aware that Dr Mann has written on the period, however he presumably signed off on this RealClimate group post:

[Holocene Opitmum] is a somewhat outdated term used to refer to a sub-interval of the Holocene period from 5000-7000 years ago during which it was once thought that the earth was warmer than today. […]. The best available evidence from recent peer-reviewed studies suggests that annual, global mean warmth was probably similar to pre-20th century warmth, but less than late 20th century warmth, at this time (see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002).

So RC, and by extension, Dr Mann does not agree the Holocene Maximum was ‘much warmer’.

IPCC AR5, in the Paleoclimate section has this ” According to a recent compilation of proxy data, the global mean annual temperatures around 8 to 6 ka were about 0.7°C higher, and extratropical NH temperatures were about 1°C higher than for pre-industrial conditions”

Given the IPCC estimate that global temperatures have risen 1C since pre-industrial times the IPCC does not agree the Holocene Maximum was ‘much warmer’.

Amusingly the Fact Check Fact Check also falsifies one of its own facts. It cites approvingly Kaufman et al 2020 and correctly states

“...the authors state “The warmest 200-year-long interval was also centered on 6.5 ka and was 0.7 °C warmer than the 19th Century.”

Elsewhere Wrightstone states “The temperature, based on HadCRUT4 has risen about 1 degree C since 1900.

So Wrightstone does not even agree with himself that the Holocene Maximum was ‘much warmer’ than current temperatures. LOL.

Editor
Reply to  John Phillips
June 7, 2021 10:30 am

John Phillips,
NOAA: “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.” https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

Global OCEAN temperatures were 0.7 deg warmer in the HCO than the late 20th century, Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures were 2.5 deg warmer than today in the HCO.

You have your numbers all mixed up, see more here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/holocene-thermal-optimum/

It is well documented that Greenland was ~2.5 deg warmer than today in the HCO. See this article: “The effect of a Holocene climatic optimum on the evolution of the Greenland ice sheet during the last 10 kyr”

For the IPCC view see AR5, 433-434.

You cite a statement by Kerr (which is incorrect btw) and compare it to a statement by Wrightstone. Read more carefully next time, as before your reading comprehension is awful.

John Phillips
Reply to  Andy May
June 7, 2021 1:17 pm

Wrightstone’s “a much warmer period occurred 6,000 to 8,000 years ago” Is hardly supported by “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

Your source for the ‘world oceans’ being 0.7C warmer is Rosenthal et al which looked at the North Pacific and Antarctic Intermediate waters only, and does not support the conclusions you take from it, to compare with present dayyou would need to adjust for currents, differences in salinity etc. The authors themselves conclude ‘ Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large’.

Greenland is not the globe. It is ‘well-documented’ that Holocene warmth was concentrated at higher latitudes and non existent at low and middle latitudes. See “The temperature of Europe during the Holocene reconstructed from pollen data” for evidence of cooling in Southern Europe.

Could you quote the exact part of the IPCC AR5 you find convincing? I see nothing relevant on the pages referenced.

The article is so poorly punctuated it is hard to know where Wrightstone is paraphrasing and where expressing his own view, however it is the case that global temperatures have risen circa 1C since 1900 (Wrightstone concedes this “As Dr. Michaels stated in the previous section, the earth’s surface temperature has risen about 0.9⁰ C since 1900.”) and Wrightstone cited Kaufmann as saying “The warmest 200-year-long interval was also centered on 6.5 ka and was 0.7 °C warmer than the 19th Century.”

So he contradicts himself, according to his own sources, modern temperatures are warmer than the warmest period in Kaufmann.

John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
June 7, 2021 1:21 pm

“Kaufman’s most recent previous study (McKay and Kaufman 2014) was found to have multiple glaring errors that required a complete correction (Ahmed 2015). In the corrected study, the authors admitted that our modern warming, which they defined as the period 1971 – 2000, was NOT the warmest 30-year period in 2,000 years, but the third warmest (Figure 2). The warmest such period occurred during the Roman Warm Period, centering on the year 395 AD, so even the author she references disagrees with her statement”

This refers to the Corrigendum and is incorrect in all respects. The corrections were required to Arctic datasets only and did not affect the original papers conclusions about global trends, which is presumably what is meant by ‘our modern warming’.
 
” No major conclusions have been affected by the corrections made to the Arctic data set including the conclusion that, during the period AD 1971–2000 , the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature among regions was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

The plot of global temperatures (‘modified from Gosselin’) seems to be from this blog where it in turn labelled as ‘adapted from PAGES 2K 2015’, which is the Corrigendum – and as that paper contains no plot of global temperatures, the graph must be Arctic only, incorrectly labelled as global.

Hard to see this as anything but dishonest, not exactly what one wants in a ‘fact check’.
  

TonyG
June 7, 2021 8:30 am

Problem is: what can be done to combat this?

Editor
June 7, 2021 8:58 am

Gregory ==> A marvelous take-down — now if you can only get the Washington Post to publish your correction of the “fact check”.

Of course, they are not fact checking, they are, as many others, including myself, have pointed out, just Opinion Checking.

%d bloggers like this: