By Rud Istvan,
Those who have been at WUWT a long while know my ignominious start here was two years after ClimateGate, to which I was then oblivious. My first 2011 post here was motivated by discovering deliberate misinformation by the NRDC to Congress, based on what then became underlying provable scientific misconduct while doing three years of research for my first ebook, Gaia’s Limits. Was a personal wake up call.
Since then, I have tried various ‘CAGW’ debunking approaches both at WUWT and at Climate Etc. Show measurements are unreliable (e.g. Jason 3 Fit for Purpose here), show conclusions omit crucial facts (Tottam Glacier there), show the climate math does not follow (many mathematical posts here on the inherent deficiencies of climate models, like my first “The Trouble with Climate Models”. Show clear academic misconduct, as with Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Science paper (CE, and then published as essay High Stick Foul in ebook Blowing Smoke), after Science then editor Marsha McNutt acknowledged receipt of my written proof but never replied.
So, now a decade later, I think a different debunk approach is needed. Logic does not work. Science does not work. Provable facts do not work. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5 says Ridicule might work. There is a lot of it to use. Following is a VERY rich example.
Yesterday, the august BBC published an article then widely spread by MSM, (I caught it on Yahoo News (not): Climate Change causing albatross divorce!!!
When you read the article, it studied 15,500 Falkland Island breeding pairs of albatross over the last 15 years. The ‘divorce’ rate went from 1 % to 8%, so disaster follows. Well, maybe not.
Now, it is true that some birds “mate for life’ more than humans; these include Canada Geese, Bald Eagles, and Albatross. Not BoJo.
It is also true that the main reason for a ‘remating’ if ever a ‘spouse’ is lost is rebreeding, like with the avidly hunted Canada Goose.
That means it is also true that the Falkland albatross ‘divorce rate’ the past 15 years per the new alarmist paper is also of no population significance (since ‘divorce’ just means former pairs then just mate with others…shades of humans).
Meanwhile, despite supposed Falkland albatross climate induced divorce rates the past 15 years, it is worth noting there has been no southern Hemisphere climate change (albatross warming stress) during the observational period. NONE. So are albatrosses just emulating human (BoJo) non-monogamy?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the reanalysis site https://climatereanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/
Choose top left for “Dataset” “Gridded Obs – NOAA ERSST V5 1854/01-2021/08”, next for “Variable” “Sea Surface Temperature”, next for “Level” “Surface”, next for “Month” “JJA” (June, July and Aug, albatross breeding period or even “Annual” for the whole year), next to “Region” “Specify Area”, below for “Lower Left” on the left the latitude “-54” and on the right the longitude “-64”, for “Upper Right” as latitude “-50” and as longitude “-57”. Then click on “Update Map”. In the bottom map you will see a red rectangle centered on the Malvinas.
Then click on “Plot”. After three seconds you will see a graph of the ocean surface temperature anomaly around the Malvinas/Falklands. For the period of the study to which it gives space, there were NEGATIVE anomalies of about half a degree from 2006 to 2016 and positive anomalies of less than half a degree from 2016 to 2020: where would there be a “warming of the waters” that caused the albatrosses to divorce?
I wonder where the authors found that SSTs would increase in the area.
I recall reading long ago that swans mate monogamously for life. Then later, that genetic studies indicated ~30% of offspring were not sired by the male partner.
Just how do these clown investigators know one albatros from another? They look the same to me.
Climate? No. I think the albatrosses are watching too much television.
Sure enough, good ol’ NPR picked up the story and ran with it in today’s “Morning Edition” radio broadcast.
I burst out laughing. NPR is sooooo predictable.
I’ve sent them a complaint with a link to this wonderful piece by Rud Istvan.