Advocacy disguised as ‘science’: ‘Intergenerational inequities in climate extremes’

There is a lot of press being generated this past week over a new paper titled “Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes” (paywalled). 

The Washington Post (WaPo) covered the new paper with the headline, “Today’s kids will live through three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, study says.”

WaPo writes:

If the planet continues to warm on its current trajectory, the average 6-year-old will live through roughly three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, the study finds. They will see twice as many wildfires, 1.7 times as many tropical cyclones, 3.4 times more river floods, 2.5 times more crop failures and 2.3 times as many droughts as someone born in 1960.

The study’s alarming claims are based on the worst-case scenarios of future conditions made climate model projections. The study ignores hard data on the minimal impact of recent climate change on weather conditions and society, it also fails to examine past responses to climate change. Indeed, the study seems less of a scientific exploration of the possible effects of future climate conditions under reasonably expected emission scenarios than political screed posing as science. The study and its press release are a call to action.

“Our results highlight a severe threat to the safety of young generations and call for drastic emission reductions to safeguard their future,” write the authors. “This impending reality has fueled a surge of climate protests and litigation led by young people worldwide.”

On the face of it, statements like this announcing a purportedly scientific paper are absurd; it reads like an opinion piece, and should be a red flag to anyone who thinks this is actual science, rather than advocacy disguised as science. Another red flag is that the abstract of the paper has just one sentence: “Young generations are severely threatened by climate change.” When a scientific paper states a certainty in the abstract, especially when it is only a single sentence, you’d think they’d have concrete proof. Instead, the authors only “proof” is extreme model projections out to the year 2100.

In this case the authors used “…analysis by combining a collection of multi-model extreme event projections with country-scale life expectancy information, gridded population data, and future global temperature trajectories.”

These projections are built on the same models used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Yet, the scientists involved with operating these models were forced to admit, the newest generation of climate models produce “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming,” in the words of the journal Science.

In addition, other climate model studies clearly demonstrate projecting a single model projection into the future is fraught with uncertainty, with the projections becoming less certain the farther one projects into the future. Imagine combining several models and datasets and expecting a result that isn’t further amplified by the combined uncertainty within all the data and the models used to project the data out to year 2100.

By having so many parameters, models can be tuned to predict most anything. Noted mathematician John von Neumann once famously said, “…with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

Essentially, von Neumann was saying that the more parameters you have in any mathematical model, the more flexible and malleable the output will be, i.e., you can make it visualize anything you want.

The authors say six extreme event categories: wildfires, crop failures, droughts, river floods, heat waves, and tropical cyclones will be on the increase over the next 79 years.

Missing from their analysis, is the most important element against which to measure the probability of their projections being accurate: data describing what has happened so far while the planet has modestly warmed over the last century as carbon dioxide increased in the atmosphere.

Figure 1: Data from the International Disaster Database from 1920 to 2019, graph plotted by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg.

Since the 1920s, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 410 ppm today, and global average temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet globally, as seen in Figure 1, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters declined by 99 percent and is approaching zero.

No clearer indication could exist that as the planet has warmed, deaths have actually decreased over the last 100 years. This is exactly the opposite indication of the “Intergenerational inequity” study suggesting that more wildfires, crop failures, droughts, river floods, heat waves, and tropical cyclones will be in our future, affecting our children and grandchildren, and presumably causing more deaths.

Data shows rather than extreme events increasing as the Earth as warmed, they have decreased. Each of the extreme weather events the Intergenerational Inequity study says will get worse, were actually worse in the past, when the planet was cooler and carbon dioxide levels were lower.

For wildfires, our Climate at a Glance: Wildfires shows a significant drop in burned area over the last century. Wildfires are far less frequent and severe than was the case throughout the first half of the 20th century as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Total wildfire acreage burned by year in the United States, 1926 to 2019. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center. Graph by Anthony Watts

Using real-world data to look at what has happened as the planet has modestly warmed, we find the same pattern for cropsdroughtsriver floodsheat waves, and tropical cyclones. These extreme weather events were either less severe or common in the past or display no trend at all as the Earth has warmed.

But wait, there’s more! The IPCC’s AR6 report says looking at past data, they could find no indication of climate-related increases in many of the indicators modeled in the “Intergenerational inequity” study.

Climatologist Dr. Roger Piekle Jr. writes of the IPCC AR6 report, saying,

These conclusions of the IPCC, … indicate that it is simply incorrect to claim that on climate time scales the frequency or intensity of extreme weather and climate events has increased for: flooding, drought (meteorological or hydrological), tropical cyclones, winter storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, lightning or extreme winds (so, storms of any type).

When examining real-world data versus the modest warming for the past century there’s been no measurable increase in weather catastrophes as the study claims. The IPCC acknowledges this.

Accordingly, the only conclusion one can draw concerning the “Intergenerational inequity” study is that it’s not only wrong, but, given the highly opinionated statements made within the study and press release, it is little more than advocacy disguised as science. Or, to use another word, propagandadefined as:

“Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 1, 2021 2:12 pm


Curious George
October 1, 2021 2:18 pm

“Today’s kids will live through three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, study says.”

It is a simple redefinition of a “climate disaster”. “Free speech” is not what it used to be. “Marriage” is not what it used to be. “Pandemic” is not what it used to be.

bill Johnston
Reply to  Curious George
October 1, 2021 3:01 pm

Adapt, commoner, adapt.

Reply to  Curious George
October 1, 2021 3:20 pm

If I could ask my grandparents, I’m sure, they saw some more, certainely many more.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Curious George
October 1, 2021 10:04 pm

It is a simple redefinition of a “climate disaster”. “Free speech” is not what it used to be. “Marriage” is not what it used to be. “Pandemic” is not what it used to be.

‘Warming’ us not what it used to be. Cooling is now warming.

‘Vaccines’ are not what they used to be. They used to prevent the spread of a virus by imparting immunity. Now they slightly reduce the symptoms you get when you contract the virus.

‘Herd Immunity’ is not what it used to be. It used to be attained when enough of the population had contracted the disease and were immune. Now it’s apparently when enough people have had the ‘Vaccine’ (see above).

George Orwell was so very, very prescient.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 3, 2021 2:47 am

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia….

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Curious George
October 2, 2021 11:56 am

Maybe, but they will ten times better prepared for it.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
October 2, 2021 1:37 pm

Yep, they will be ten times better prepared for what is NOT going to happen.

October 1, 2021 2:19 pm

Advocacy planet run by oligarchs

Joao Martins
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 2, 2021 4:07 am

And as good demagogues, trying to seduce the less informed, less educated and with lesser living experience: the kids and youg people.

October 1, 2021 2:20 pm

October 1, 2021 Cap Allon
Far from warming, planet earth appears on the cusp of its next great cooling epoch–one driven by historically low solar activity: prepare.


Well, there it is – the perfect Trifecta – my work here is done.

In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013 or earlier:

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

Regards to all, Allan MacRae

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 1, 2021 3:46 pm

I rely on the majority of posts here (not Griff, of course) to be honest and accurate. But for a few months now I see posts on “cold weather”, mostly from ELECTROVERSE, that don’t match what I can find on line. Not slightly, but way, way off.

“On the opening day of October, the Russian Base of Vostok logged an astonishing minimum temperature of -79.4C (-110.9F) — this reading is just 0.6C above the world’s lowest temperature ever recorded in the month of October (set at the former Plateau Station, also in Antarctica).”

Except when I look on Yahoo weather for Vostok, I find this for the next 10 days: lowest high for 10 days 46, lowest low 29. I’m only posting this because I find this over and over. El says it’s colder than can believed, but Yahoo says it’s rather mild. What gives…?

Reply to  Robert Hanson
October 1, 2021 5:08 pm

I don’t know anything about Electroverse vs Yahoo, but isn’t this the temperature data you are looking for?

Vostok Station 14 Day Extended Forecast

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert Hanson
October 1, 2021 5:29 pm

Robert, you must suspect from general listening to news on other topics that fake news is a pandemic. The mainstream media in general will not report anything that would threaten the crisis climate narrative.

The high tech industry has bought heavily into the narrative. Twitter, Facebook, You-Tube, Microsoft, etc censor information and regularly shut people’s accounts down for criticizing the narrative.

What can I say? You are in need of an education on what is going on. Yahoo is one of ‘them’. The internet is not a friendly place for enquiring minds. Ask on Yahoo how the Wattsupwiththat science site is as a source of info and data on climate change!

WUWT has received the top global awards (see side panel )for its site but you’d never know it from the abuse it gets from the lefty internet and mainstream climate science institutions. Unless you violate the few sensible rules anyone is free to comment here.

Open invitations have been made to doctrinaire scientists and activists – a few have showed up, but debate isnt what they like to do.

Nobel Prize winning scientists, top mathematicians, physicists, NASA astronauts and engineers and other noables have shown up. Excellent scientists, engineers and economists are regulars here.

Reply to  Robert Hanson
October 1, 2021 5:56 pm

Vostok is a town in Siberia, far removed from ice station Vostok in the Antarctic. In the age of data feeds, you, Electroverse, Yahoo, or the Weather channel could have them mixed up.
Vostok station is about -50 this time of year….
Vostok means East, so there are also a dozen or so geographic areas in the USSR with the name Vostok….

Reply to  Robert Hanson
October 1, 2021 9:09 pm

Robert Hanson:
I find Cap Allon’s work at Electroverse accurate, and I have reviewed it for years.
Cap sometimes cites short-term forecasts that may be off by a few degrees from actual, but not enough to matter.
In this case, Cap is citing temperature at the Russian base in Antarctica at Vostok, and he is citing the actual temperature today. Cap wrote:
On the opening day of October, the Russian Base of Vostok logged an astonishing minimum temperature of -79.4C (-110.9F) — this reading is just 0.6C above the world’s lowest temperature ever recorded in the month of October (set at the former Plateau Station, also in Antarctica).”
Would be too much to ask you to actually READ the article before you slag it?

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 2, 2021 9:02 am

Would it be too much to ask that an article that lists a temperature specify WHICH Vostok it is referring to? Forgive me for not being an expert on Antarctica.

The reason I posted this is I’ve been seeing a number of similar posts on the “extreme cold” in places like Colorado, which I’m pretty sure is not in Antarctica, and when I look up the weather report for there, it doesn’t seem to be actually happening. I know all too much about false news, but I really doubt that Yahoo is falsely “changing it’s weather reports” to advance the AGW agenda.

Reply to  Robert Hanson
October 2, 2021 9:11 am

Self-pity, deflection, strawman argument… … All BS!

Poor little you! Get your facts straight. before you slag anyone.

Rud Istvan
October 1, 2021 2:23 pm

Well done, AW. Unfortunately your hard facts rebuttal won’t faze the Greta Thunberg inspired authors of this unscientific nonsense, now echoed all over in places like NPR, MSNBC, and BBC.
The silliness predictably continues to increase in the runup to COP26. We can hope for an early snow and Glasgow blackouts from lack of wind and natgas during the event. Would be something for Net Zero BoJo to deal with.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 1, 2021 3:10 pm

Rud, “fazing” someone requires that their pre-cognitive responses are functioning in a normal fashion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 1, 2021 5:36 pm

“Well done, AW. Unfortunately your hard facts rebuttal won’t faze the Greta Thunberg inspired authors of this unscientific nonsense, now echoed all over in places like NPR, MSNBC, and BBC.”

I bet I have seen six different versions of this story over the last two days. There’s a lot of climate change propaganda echoing, go on out there.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 1, 2021 9:10 pm

Yes, the latest is yet another group claiming that the albedo of Earth, as derived from Earthshine measured from the moon, has declined, leading to a 0.5 W/m^2 increase in forcing, albeit with a poorly constrained and not explicitly stated uncertainty for the measurements. It looks like they have about a 50% uncertainty on their nominal 0.5 W/m^2 decline over two decades.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 2, 2021 6:47 am

The Climate Change Propaganda Corps has also been trying to hype hurricane dangers the last week or so, even though Hurricane Sam is far out to sea and has no chance of hitting the United States, still numerous articles have been published emphasizing the dangerous surf Hurricane Sam might cause. They are desperate to keep it in the news.

This hurricane season must be a disappointment for the alarmists. Mother Nature has given them very little to whine about. And we are on the down-hill side of hurricane season now.

John Larson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 1, 2021 5:51 pm

“..the Greta Thunberg inspired authors of this unscientific nonsense..”

I suggest propagandists are “making” activists, not the other way around (much). Of course the propagandists would prefer that any who begin to realize they are seeing propaganda, believe activists are somehow forcing them to make propaganda, but this seems extremely unlikely to me . .

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 2, 2021 2:45 am

Ordinary people are starting to notice that what we are told by the MSM and what we actually witness day to day don’t jibe. I was speaking with my dry-cleaner the other day and she firmly believes that we are in for a cooler winter again. People who take the time to think about the changing seasons do notice stuff like this.

October 1, 2021 2:27 pm

The imaginary catastrophes of the climate change scam will always be increasing because they are based on hysteria and “the science” but not actual science.

October 1, 2021 2:29 pm

Yet another RCP8.5 scare scenario. At least evangelical preachers who repeatedly name a date for the Second Coming, and miss, eventually shut up.
Greens are not that polite.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 1, 2021 9:11 pm

Or bright?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2021 2:50 am

Green: ignorant, gullible, lacking knowledge and expertise, etc.

October 1, 2021 2:34 pm

Lysenkoism is great. /sarc

Alistair Crooks
Reply to  SMC
October 1, 2021 5:23 pm

My thoughts entirely :
Trofim Lysenko looks down and smiles.

John K. Sutherland
October 1, 2021 2:38 pm

Spell ‘CATASTROPHE’ correctly in the diagram and I might be able to repost it.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  John K. Sutherland
October 1, 2021 3:32 pm

Don’t know if this will work, but I modified it in windows paint.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 1, 2021 3:55 pm

got the “r”, now you need the “i” in “ies”…..

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 2, 2021 9:07 am

I stand corrected…I was SO sure that I didn’t do a reality check before keyboarding….maybe a lesson that should be heeded by journalists writing CC articles….

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 2, 2021 3:04 am

I suspect that all of us rely too heavily on Spell Checkers and just because a word is underlined does not mean that the program underlining it has the correct answer. I see this all the time, the SC says a word is misspelled but the suggested “correct” spelling is frequently the totally wrong word. Sometimes it is necessary to consult a higher authority – there are a lot of them online – pick one you are comfortable with and save the link so you are prepared to answer to critics.

English is a living language with new words and changed usages appearing regularly. My pet peeve is the now-acceptable in formal writing use of “since” to mean “because.” When I see this I automatically change it to “as” in my head. Since should only be used in a time-related sense, i.e. I have not seen Jerry since last October. “Since it is chilly out today I am wearing a jacket,” jars against my brain but it has become acceptable due to common usage.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 6:06 am

Now you have me thinking about the way I use the word “since”. 🙂

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 2, 2021 6:29 am

Yay! I hope you are not the only one.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 1, 2021 9:31 pm

While you’re about it it, how about sorting out the ‘dearth‘ on the vertical axis.
Gotta excuse Bjorn tho, he does try and English is not his native.

What about we have a graph of Soil Erosion dearths per year – the ones caused by being forced to eat a nutrient free diet of mush?
Those would include, deaths from:

  • obesity
  • cancer
  • cardio-vascular (to incl. strokes = nearly me 17 yrs ago)
  • dementia
  • auto-immune fails

IOW: Things that were unknown before the classically designated Climate Year of 1850 – or even just 2 generations ago.

I predict a Hokey Cokey Stik not unlike a Space Shuttle launch = near vertical.

Where would you include suicides (my brother 34 yrs ago) and deaths from ‘drugs‘. How many ‘obesity‘ fatalities are actually (drug) overdoses of Comfort Food.
Likewise cancers = the use of ‘drugs’ to try escape stress and or loneliness
How many 10’s of millions? Annually.

Alzheimer’s alone is counted as sole cause of death for 12.5% of UK folks even now, expected to double inside 20 years

Meanwhile = at last, the BBC latches onto something.
Am not convinced they know what they’ve latched but its a start. Climate haha Scientists hang the blame on La Nina – buck passing muppets that they are.

Headline:”A drought with roots in the Amazon jungle”

It’s not difficult to realise how Rainforests work – is it really necessary to cut the <expletive> thing down to work it out?
Because when you’ve cut and burned it – it will not grow back.
not never ever ever

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 2, 2021 10:37 am

Let me allow some remarks concerning the picture. The title: “Deaths from Climate and non-Climate Catastrophes, 1920-2017”. This wording offers counter-argumentations for the warmunists:

  1. The graph combines the number of deaths from two types of catastrophes. So it is very easy to say that one component (for example deaths from climate catastrophes) can increase while the other component is decreasing causing the curve like in the picture. Please, could it be possible to generate a picture/graph showing ONLY the deaths from climate catastrophes?
  2. Today is Q4 2021. Would it be possible to generate a picture/graph for the time intervall 1920-2020? Otherwise the warmunists could say that the number of deaths from climate catastrophes suddenly were extremely high in 2018-2020 in accordance with their statements that the number of extreme weather events has increased significantly in the last years due to the global warming?
October 1, 2021 2:53 pm

If computer predictions were valid, no scientist would ever say “Its Worse than We Thought”.

Since they frequently do, they have already exposed the fraud they perpetuate with their own mouths.

October 1, 2021 3:19 pm

Climate extremes ? What’s that ? Can’t find any.
Some not-every-day weather, ok, that’s all.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 2, 2021 3:08 am

What, exactly, do these clowns believe is the ideal climate? I really want to know because sometimes I need a good laugh. My suspicion is that they have only the vaguest kind of notion of what “perfect” is when discussing climate.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 4:32 am

The “ideal climate”, as all “ideals”, is an ideologic construct that only exists in the mind of the one who “idealized” it and some of his/her (allow mw to be politically correct once) followers and believers. Everything in nature, as you know, is morally and aesthetically “neutral”; well, not really, because ethics and aesthetics do not apply, are absent, from the natural realm; so, they are not really neutral, they are absent: nature is “a-moral” and “a-aesthetic”. They only exist because of, and for, humans. So, thrying to define/describe an “ideal something of nature” is a metaphysical exercise of the arrogance of some people who think that they are the owners of the whole knowledge, either because they have created it in their thougths or because its was revealed to them by a divine power. And from that position, they think they have the duty to “illuminate” and educate the ignorant mobs even by imposing to them their own values and ideas.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Joao Martins
October 2, 2021 5:06 am

Yes, Joao, these people are operating from ignorance and arrogance, too bad none of them seem to realize it….

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 3, 2021 2:51 am

Dunning Kruger groupthink in action.

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 9:12 am

If politicians controlled the weather, I’m pretty sure the election promises would be to “warm it up a couple of degrees” before every election campaign…..

Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 3, 2021 2:52 am

10x as many die from cold as heat.

Peter Fraser
October 1, 2021 3:35 pm

The great disaster kids are likely to experience in the future is the world facing a global cooling while trying to maintain life relying on “renewable” energy.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 2, 2021 4:35 am

The great disater that kids are experiencing is the propagation ob superstition and the distortion of science that they are now being taught at schools and universities. That makes them weaker to face all the unexpected and unknown thay they will face during their lives.

Reply to  Joao Martins
October 3, 2021 2:48 am

Brainwashed, not educated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 2, 2021 6:12 am

The destruction of Western Democracy is the greatest danger facing kids, and the rest of us, nowadays

October 1, 2021 4:01 pm

More lies and and crap spew from the same liars and crap spewers.

October 1, 2021 4:29 pm

Total BS and lies…the usual.

Zig Zag Wanderer
October 1, 2021 4:30 pm

Propogandising propagandists propogandise

H. D. Hoese
October 1, 2021 4:53 pm

There could be some truth to this because of increased populations, building in lower elevations and especially developers building and pushing politics ahead of drainage considerations. There are studies of drainage hydraulics with some improvements, but there are still new buildings that will be flooded regardless of rainfall and sea level amounts. Ever hear “I’ve lived here (X years) and never saw this before?” Years variable, sometimes reasonable, often short.

Don’t know the stats but press seems to cover more problems with lower rainfall amounts along with more flood warnings. We are making more unintentional wetlands. Can’t even get the abstract, wonder if they consider these situations.

October 1, 2021 4:57 pm

Excellent presentation and strong to the point take-down of yet another piece of garbage modeling fantasy/propaganda. Good to hear from you again Anthony!

Steve Case
October 1, 2021 5:28 pm

With the exception of the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2, everything claimed for The Climate Crisis has happened before, or has been happening right along.

October 1, 2021 5:33 pm

Today’s kids will live through three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, study says.”
…they mean three times as many climate disaster “Headlines” which is different than actual disasters.

Rick C
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 1, 2021 9:31 pm

hmm… there have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of weather disasters in my lifetime. I haven’t experienced any really serious ones directly. Not clear to me what they’re actually predicting, but if it’s just increases in the number of events such as hurricanes and floods, the data available shows no sign of this happening so far. Speculation about what might happen in the distant future is science fiction – not science – even if it is computer assisted.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Rick C
October 2, 2021 3:11 am

“Speculation about what might happen in the distant future is science fiction – not science – even if it is computer assisted.”

Especially if it is computer assisted!

Chris Hanley
October 1, 2021 5:47 pm

It is becoming apparent that the GAT data are not keeping up with the models and with another La Niña on the horizon the gap will likely become too obvious to continue to obfuscate.
The hysterical rhetorical escalation — ‘red alerts’ ‘climate emergency’ and the rest — is motivated by the need to get ‘net zero’ policies and legislation in place before enough people realize they are being taken for fools IMO.

Smart Rock
October 1, 2021 6:16 pm

We’ve seen the graph of area burned by wildfire in the US by year before. It always strikes me as being a bit too lopsided. OK, the 1930s were hot and dry, but were they THAT much hotter and drier? So I went to the source to get the actual numbers, and – guess what? – they no longer give the data before 1983. Of course, 1983 had the lowest burned acreage, so their graph shows an upward trend from 1983 to the 2000s, to satisfy the prophets of doom.

Undeterred, I digitized the graph in the post. Numbers are inevitable a bit approximate, but it shows that – in the 25 years from 1926 to 1950 – the total burned acreage was 780 million acres. Or 1.2 million square miles, or 39 percent of the entire contiguous United States.

I suspect that the pre-1950 numbers are overstated, possibly by a factor of 2 or 3, probably based on data collected without aerial surveillance of fires. So I shrank the pre-1950 plot by a factor of 3, and it looks like this. Still shows the 1930 burned area almost twice the annual burned area in the 21st century. A bit arbitrary, definitely lacking in rigour, and not peer-reviewed.

US wildfires 1926-2019 adjusted.jpg
Robert of Texas
October 1, 2021 6:32 pm

“Advocacy disguised as ‘science’: ‘Intergenerational inequities in climate extremes’”
It isn’t a very good disguise. It isn’t science. I am not sure this even qualifies as journalism.

Clyde Spencer
October 1, 2021 8:56 pm

“Or, to use another word, propaganda, …”

Well, COP 26 is still scheduled for next month! That isn’t a lot of time to get attendees pumped up about saving the world. What better way than to convince the attendees, and the people they are supposed to be representing, that we are being overwhelmed by existential threats.

October 1, 2021 11:18 pm

They are correct. I have lived through no climate disasters. Neither will today’s 6 year olds.

Charles Fairbairn
October 2, 2021 1:17 am

The “Ministry of Truth” is very busy these days in the run up to COP26.

Climate believer
October 2, 2021 1:19 am

“Our results highlight a severe threat to the safety of young generations”

They have no shame.

I can list at least five very real severe threats to the safety of young people which none of these a-holes give two hoots about, “climate change”™ is not on that list.

Doug Huffman
October 2, 2021 2:35 am hops paywalls

Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 3:29 am

Young people are easily duped because they lack the years of experience some of us have. I have lived through some dandy climate emergencies and therefore understand just how rare and UNUSUAL they really are. Once in Pompano Beach, Florida we had a truly amazing downpour, in excess of a foot of rain in an hour. The streets were flooded, phone lines cut out, power went out, and there were some fatalities. Maybe this was comparable to the recent rain event in Germany. Florida is a wet state in general during the summer rainy season and this event was not part of a hurricane.

When I still lived in Appomattox, Virginia, USA, my farm was ground zero -1000 meters or so from a tornado that cut a long swath through the county, killing a good friend. We stood on our deck and watched the funnel cloud following the river on its way to destroying another friend’s biggest tobacco barn. Tornadoes are not considered usual weather in central Virginia but kiddos experiencing this terrifying event won’t soon forget it.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 2, 2021 10:49 am

A remark directly from Germany: It turned out that a military cartographer examined the floodings in the Ahr-walley and he published his results in 1983(!!!). He could identify 74 (seventy-four) documented large scale floodings in the Ahr-walley between ca. 1310 and 1980. He has concluded, that large scale flloodings would be periodic events in the Ahr-walley. However, in 1983 climate change/CO2 was not on the agenda (in the XIV. century also not) yet.

October 2, 2021 4:49 am

Lies, damn lies and statistics. If they lack honesty and morality they will use any means available to control you.
The lies are just what they start with.
The Covid restrictions are an example, at first it was just two weeks.

October 2, 2021 7:29 am

The generational gulf opened wide with Brexit in the UK. Demands for 16 year olds to have the vote were not countenanced. Their future was trashed by the adults, the parents who pay for everything they receive. Their legal guardians who are responsible for them.

The [UK] state is actively undermining the family

The [2019] General Election demonstrated yet again that the most important division in UK politics is between old and young. With climate anxiety playing a large part in that

Whatever the subject it’s future children who matter and anyone aged 30 or over may just as well give themselves up to Carousel

Identity politics is a never-ending race to the bottom, as different identity categories are pitched into battle with one another over which is the most victimised.

Take generational identity, for example. It pitches young against old. Generation Z and the Millennials against Generation X and the Boomers. And, as always, it’s a fight to the death.
Actually, generational wars are a fight to everyone’s death, because – and this may come as a shock to some – we all become the older generation at some point. Roger Daltrey, now an arch Boomer and enemy of the snowflake generation, once famously sang, as a member of his generation – the original cool, working-class Mods – that he hoped he died before he got old.

He didn’t want to turn into the older generations of his father and grandfather, inevitably to be resented by the generations below. But this generational resentment is part of the circle of life. Every new generation believes life is harder for its members than those of any generation before it. And every older generation looks at the younger generations, and says: ‘They don’t know they’re born.’
The real divide is class, not ‘generations’ – spiked (

It’s a nasty cynical political ploy.

October 2, 2021 8:27 am

As quoted in Richet’s excellent paper, the Earl of Buffon in 1749 predicted exactly the dark art of climate modelling two and a half centuries in the future:

Buffon warned of the “difficulties one finds when attempting to apply geometry or calculations to physical subjects that are too complicated.”

He sensed nonlinear chaotic emergent pattern, though did not name it as such. Ahead of his time (his fellow countryman Benoit Mandelbrot would discover this two centuries later).

In making a model, one has “to strip the subject from the majority of these qualities, to produce an abstract being that no longer resembles the actual being”.

And, after much reasoning and calculation, one projects an “ideal result onto the real subject, and this is what produces countless falsehoods and errors.”

Hence, Buffon concluded, “the most … most important point in scientific studies” is “to distinguish well between what there is of the real in a subject from that which we add to it arbitrarily as we consider it: to recognize clearly which properties belong to the subject and which properties we only imagine it to have.”

Can’t put it better than that.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
October 2, 2021 8:28 am

Sorry – wrong thread

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights