Facebook Spamming Climate Posts with “Climate Science Center” Propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

For some time now Facebook has been attaching a note to virtually every posted climate change article telling readers to go to an attached link (Explore Climate Science Info) to see how “average temperature in your area is changing” with the inference being that local average temperatures changes are linked to climate change. An example is shown in one of the Facebook articles below.

I have been commenting on many of these articles with the same comment as shown below which addresses the fact that absolute temperatures are not appropriate for use in addressing climate change issues and that temperature anomaly measurements are used for that purpose.  

“Facebook is spamming all climate articles by misleading readers about temperature measurements with absolute temperature changes being driven by weather not climate change. Global temperature anomaly measurements are used by climate scientists to address global temperature climate change issues. There are 5 scientifically accepted global temperature anomaly data measurement systems used by climate scientists worldwide. These systems are NASA, NOAA and UK Met Office surface anomaly measurement systems and satellite anomaly measurement systems RSS and UAH. All 5 of these global temperature anomaly measurement systems have established that global temperature anomaly measured data have declining trends since year 2016 through 2021 with the decline being at a rate averaging -0.16 degrees C per decade (-1.6 degrees C per century). The 2016 global peak measured temperature anomaly was driven by a natural climate El Niño event not climate change. Climate alarmists hyped claim that year 2021 represents a “climate emergency” is unsupported by measured global temperature anomaly data by all 5 global measurement systems with this data declining for the past 6 years. There is no “climate emergency” (as demonstrated by global temperature anomaly measurement declines over the period 2016-2021) and claims otherwise are nothing but scientifically unsupported climate alarmism propaganda that was intended to support the now spectacularly failed COP26 climate confab debacle. See the following for details.”

After commenting the Facebook article would look as shown below.

The circled “i” refers readers to the fact that WUWT is one of those evil “climate change denial blogs that opposes the scientific consensus” with this Facebook claim being the usual climate alarmist propaganda political hype. 

The Facebook “Climate Science Center” provides a listing of about a dozen topics where allegedly climate science information is provided to inform the readers of Facebooks climate alarmism claims. The “Climate science center” is shown (in part) below and a number of these topics are briefly examined in this post regarding the “Facts about climate change” claims. 

Facebook provides an example in the “Climate science center” of the “See how average temperatures in your area are changing” by providing a graph of NOAA’s California average annual temperature data as shown below which is supposed to represent an increasing temperature trend allegedly caused by man-made climate change.

The Facebook California temperature data displays average annual absolute temperatures instead of providing temperature anomaly data that is utilized by climate scientists to address climate change issues.   

The failure of Facebook to understand the scientific difference between absolute versus temperature anomaly data measurements regarding issues associated with climate change is typical of the scientific ineptness of the climate alarmist propaganda political community as addressed in a prior WUWT article below exposing the climate science incompetence of the California Democratic Party.

This article notes the following regarding the critical scientific distinction between absolute versus temperature anomaly data measurements as follows:

“All anyone needs to do is Google “temperature anomaly” to understand the significant difference between “absolute temperature” versus “temperature anomaly” measurement data that climate scientists rely upon to address climate related temperature changes as noted below.

What do temperature anomalies mean?

Temperature anomalies are useful for deriving average surface temperatures because they tend to be highly correlated over large distances (of the order of 1000 km). In other words, anomalies are representative of temperature changes over large areas and distances.

Why do we use temperature anomalies?

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

NOAA measurements of temperature anomaly data across the contiguous 48 U. S. States (Parameter: Maximum Temperature Anomaly; Time Scale: 1-Month; Months: All Months) using its most reliable USCRN temperature anomaly measurement data system establishes that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” as presented and established below using NOAA temperature anomaly data which clearly shows that the nations maximum temperature anomaly measurement data has no increasing trend and in fact has declined since temperature anomaly peaks in years 2006 and 2012.”

“NOAA maximum temperature anomaly data for the 48 contiguous states proves that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” trends and Democrat claims otherwise are unsupported by scientific data. Democrats are improperly politicalizing the use of localized-weather absolute temperature events to define national, regional and global climate temperature change behavior which is scientifically invalid.”

The same lack of increasing trend profile also occurs for NOAA’s average temperature anomaly data for the 48 contiguous states as shown below. NOAA’s temperature anomaly data representing the contiguous U.S. does not support Facebooks climate alarmist claims that man made CO2 emissions are driving increasing U.S. average temperature trends and in addition Facebooks is erroneously using absolute temperatures versus temperature anomaly measurement data.

Facebook also fails to present long standing EPA data (perhaps because EPA attempted to conceal this data as addressed in a recent WUWT post) that clearly shows that the U.S. is not experiencing increased heat waves or droughts since the 1950s period with measured data covering the period between 1895 and 2020 demonstrating the greatest occurrences of heat wave and droughts occurred in the period of the 1930s as shown in EPA data presented in the diagrams below.

Additionally, NOAA’s Palmer-Z-drought index data also shows U.S. droughts declining as shown below.

One of the Facebook “Facts about climate change” addresses the use of climate models and their claim that these models have “accurately predicted” climate change impacts as noted in the Facebook Fact item presented below.

Facebook conceals the fact that the UN IPCC in its Third Annual Climate Change Report in 2001 concluded that trying to develop and utilize computer models to address future global climate change impacts will always be problematic.    

Specifically in Section 14.2.2.2 (Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles) of the AR3 report the bottom line concerning the unresolvable shortcomings of global climate model simulations was articulated and clearly presented as:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles of modal solutions.”

Furthermore, Facebook also conceals the fact that the UN IPCC acknowledged in its Fifth Annual Climate Report in 2013 that the climate model scenarios utilized to “project” climate outcomes are speculative and specifically qualified as such by noting:

“The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)” 

These UN IPCC significant and acknowledged limitations of climate models are clearly illustrated by comparisons of model projections of global climate temperature anomalies versus measured temperature anomalies as presented in the results shown below establishing that climate models grossly overstate global climate temperature anomaly impacts.

Another Facebook “Facts about climate change” area as shown below claims to establish that only humans can be causing climate change temperature change impacts not natural occurring climate events.

This is a completely ridiculous climate alarmist propaganda claim given that NOAA and other climate science organizations global climate temperature anomaly data clearly establishes that natural climate behavior driven EL Nino events significantly contribute to increasing global climate temperature anomaly changes as clearly presented in NOAA’s global temperature data shown below.

As the NOAA global temperature anomaly data clearly shows the peak global temperature anomaly measurement data in 2016 was directly driven by the result of a strong EL Nino event as has occurred on many other peak temperature anomaly measurement data years over the past 70 years shown in NOAA’s graph. 

Another Facebook “Facts about climate change” deceptively notes that sea level rise is occurring because of melting ice and warming oceans that represent a global climate threat, but Facebook conceals the fact that sea levels have been rising driven by natural climate behavior occurring since the end of the last ice age.

It is well established climate science that natural climate events have been controlling ocean sea level rise behavior for tens of thousands of years since the end of the last ice age as shown in the analysis presented below.

What Facebook fails to address is that coastal sea level rise is not accelerating (rate of sea level rise is not increasing) which climate alarmists have been falsely claiming for decades. NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise measurements at hundreds of coastal locations going back for more than a century confirm the lack of coastal sea rise acceleration as shown below from examples for New York (164 years of data measurements, the longest NOAA tide gauge record in the U.S.) and Los Angeles (97 years of data measurements) with stable sea level rise rates of 11.3 and 4.08 inches per century respectively.

Another Facebook “Facts about climate change” item claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 harms earth’s plant life.

Facebook conceals NASA Earth Observatory satellite data that shows greater global atmospheric CO2 is increasing greening of the earth as shown in their analysis below.

Another Facebook “Facts about climate change” claims that climate change is increasing the severity of droughts and wildfires.

Regional and global data confirm that droughts are not increasing in severity or occurrence frequency at either the regional or global level as shown below from both EPA and UN IPCC drought index data.

Additionally, data from NASA’s Earth Observatory satellites shows that there is no increasing trend of global wildfires but in fact there is a measured declining wildfire data trend as shown below.

Another Facebook “Facts about climate change” makes the absurd claim that the cost renewable energy is dropping rapidly.

As the energy and reliability debacle of the UK and EU continues to harshly demonstrate excessive reliance on unreliable, nondispatchable and backup power reliant renewable energy increases electric systems costs dramatically and degrades grid reliability as shown in the analysis below.

Updated EU electricity price data covering the first half of 2021 shows that Denmark and Germany who have the highest levels of renewable energy of all EU countries have electricity prices about 40% higher than the EU average (shown below) and nearly 3.5 times greater than those of the U.S.

So much for Facebooks phony propaganda claim – “The myth of expensive renewable energy is out of date.”

Facebook also has “Facts about climate change” hyping the same old incompetent Al Gore Polar Bear declining population propaganda baloney.

Dr. Susan Crockford has the most up to date survey data regarding Polar Bear populations which directly addresses the Facebook gravely out of date information regarding this subject. A summary of her results are provided below which concludes depending on location these populations are stable and growing despite declining sea ice conditions. 

“Crockford, S.J. 2021. The State of the Polar Bear Report 2020. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 48, London.

London, 27 February: A prominent Canadian zoologist says that Facebook’s information is gravely out of date and 2020 was another good year for polar bears.

In the State of the Polar Bear Report 2020, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on International Polar Bear Day, zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford explains that while the climate change narrative insists that polar bear populations are declining due to reduced sea ice, the scientific literature doesn’t support such a conclusion.

Crockford clarifies that the IUCN’s 2015 Red List assessment for polar bears, which Facebook uses as an authority for ‘fact checking’, is seriously out of date. New and compelling evidence shows bears that in regions with profound summer ice loss are doing well.

Included in that evidence are survey results for 8 of the 19 polar bear subpopulations, only two of which showed insignificant declines after very modest ice loss. The rest were either stable or increasing, and some despite major reductions in sea ice. As a result, the global population size is now almost 30,000 – up from about 26,000 in 2015.

Dr. Crockford points out that in 2020, even though summer sea ice declined to the second lowest levels since 1979, there were no reports of widespread starvation of bears, acts of cannibalism, or drowning deaths that might suggest bears were having trouble surviving the ice-free season.” 

Facebook had announced earlier that they intended to commence editorializing climate change posts as reported in a prior WUWT article here.

The Facebook “Climate science center” is nothing but climate alarmist propaganda, speculation and opinion devoid of credible scientifically supported  data and analysis and just a continuation of its biased and scientifically incompetent climate alarmist political campaign that led to their falsely and inaccurately “Fact Checking” peer reviewed climate science as noted in a prior WUWT article shown below.

Facebooks climate science incompetence completely undermines its editorializing credibility on climate issues as was addressed in a recent WUWT article which appropriately characterized Facebook “Fact Checks” as fake.

The Facebook organization is completely incapable of contributing credible, accurate or noteworthy assessments of climate science information and its “Climate science center” as demonstrated by this essay is simply pure climate alarmist political propaganda trying to disguise itself as “science.”   

4.9 31 votes
Article Rating
49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
January 31, 2022 6:09 am

The Climate Liars lie. Continuously. About everything.

Steve Case
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 31, 2022 8:28 am

Yeah, 97% of what they claim is bullshit. Larry Hamlin covered a good chunk of it above. Apparently Facebook hasn’t, so far, pushed the Globing Warming Potential numbers scam.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 1, 2022 7:11 am

Actually it is a problem with Intelligence and Critical Thinking. The lower the IQ and ability to apply critical thinking, the easier to absorb and believe the Climate Change Propaganda. Liberal Educators discourage Critical Thinking and give lower grades to those that use it.

Chaswarnertoo
January 31, 2022 6:14 am

Fakebook.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 31, 2022 6:30 am

Meta-fakebook

lee
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 31, 2022 5:59 pm

Farceboiok

John Bell
January 31, 2022 6:29 am

The cost of renewable energy has been “dropping rapidly” for so long, one would think it should be competitive now. Not even near! All these climate doomers live in an echo chamber together, always repeating the narratives to each other.

Jeffery P
Reply to  John Bell
January 31, 2022 9:51 am

Someone ‘splain why come free energy from the sun and wind costs so much?

Steve Case
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 31, 2022 10:13 am

Fish are free too, but boats are budget busters.

Rick C
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 31, 2022 11:09 am

Coal, oil and natural gas are also free at least for the owners of the land where they are found. What makes the stuff cost money is the investments required to get it out of the ground and to where it’s used. For example, owners of land where oil is extracted are paid royalties for each barrel extracted. In essence they own the oil and sell it to the production companies, but they paid nothing for the oil they sell (although they are taxed on it).

Wind and solar energy may be free, but the huge investment required to actually produce energy in a useable form from them is far from free. And we are no where near making the investments necessary to make these sources able to meet demand 24/7/365. The engineering issue is pretty straight forward – massive energy storage is required and no economically feasible technology exists to solve the problem.

Last edited 3 months ago by Rick C
observa
Reply to  Rick C
January 31, 2022 3:06 pm

Wind and solar energy may be free, but the huge investment required to actually produce energy in a useable form from them is far from free. And we are no where near making the investments necessary to make these sources able to meet demand 24/7/365.

Yes that thorny overarching problem is addressed here-
Study Examines Durable Energy-Storage Options for Renewable Energy Systems (azocleantech.com)

As they shutter coal and nuclear power and ramp up the penetration of unreliable wind and solar we see gas picking up the insurance tab driving up its demand and price. The alternative is storage and having largely plucked the low hanging fruit of hydro dams that’s fallen to lithium batteries that can make high returns from short run 2-4 hour grid backup and stability.

Unfortunately that short termism is competing with EV battery demand and more of the same as a result-
Monsters of Rock: Pilbara Minerals says carmakers asleep at the wheel as lithium prices continues to accelerate (msn.com)
Essentially the Great Transition is poorly thought out and as a result you get a cascading series of knock on effects and costs showing up. Our ancestors weren’t stupid and when Nikola Tesla et al came along to invent the 20th century you didn’t have to sell them reliable dispatchable electricity over the horse windmill and millstream.

paul courtney
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 31, 2022 12:50 pm

Mr. P: Well, Climate Scientists found that the definition of “free” had historic gaps, and after infilling a bit, they had to adjust “free”. All very scientific.

Joseph Zorzin
January 31, 2022 6:29 am

“The “Climate science center” is shown (in part) below and a number of these topics are briefly examined in this post regarding the “Facts about climate change” claims. ”

I bet it’s the idiots over at the “skeptical science” web site who prepared the “climate science center”.

Coach Springer
January 31, 2022 6:44 am

Second time I’ve seen that Ministry of Truth emblem just this morning. Maybe people are catching on. Maybe not. Look – a squirrel virus.

Tom.1
January 31, 2022 7:09 am

It does amaze me how often you can go straight to a government web site and find actual data that contradicts the alarmists’ claims.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom.1
January 31, 2022 11:46 am

And the same government, ignoring their own data, shouts climate disaster. This exemplifies one of the many reasons our Founders included the 2nd Amendment: Counter governmental tyranny. Woe should the Leftists ever push it that far; individual members of the U.S. military would have tough choices to make. Let’s Go Brandon!

bonbon
January 31, 2022 7:22 am

FaceBook tried to launch a crypto currency, Libra, since renamed Diem, which is rumored to be FedCoin in-the-wings.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/11/20910330/mastercard-stripe-ebay-facebook-libra-association-withdrawal-cryptocurrency
Image taken from theverge :

bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
January 31, 2022 7:25 am

I guess that sums it up?

inzuckwetrust.jpg
John Bell
January 31, 2022 7:50 am

One thing that gets me: the way a certain motor journalist near Detroit (John McElroy) keeps pushing EVs as if they are rising fast and will be dominant in the near future. I think he is told what to push and has no say in it.

January 31, 2022 8:33 am

It is a FACT that Fakebook pushes its left wing radical viewpoints. Zuck looks like a villain to me.

Olen
January 31, 2022 8:34 am

Facebook, where people can communicate freely except when they do not agree to your point of view. And especially where science is involved. Freely with the right opinion.

MarkW
Reply to  Olen
January 31, 2022 8:41 am

I will defend to the death your right to speak, but only so long as you say what I want to hear.

The ACLU’s handbook for new attorneys now says that they will defend free speech, but only so long as that speech doesn’t offend any protected minorities.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2022 12:39 pm

“I will defend to the death your right to speak, but only so long as you say what I want to hear.”
That would be Herr Justin of Canada except that his defense is to run and hide.

Ron Long
Reply to  Olen
January 31, 2022 9:34 am

CBSNews reported, in June, 2021, that “Facebook is overwhelmingly used by traffickers to recruit victims in active sex trafficking cases…”. Where does Facebook get any moral authority to censor anyone?

Gunga Din
January 31, 2022 8:47 am

For some time now Facebook has been attaching a note to virtually every posted climate change article telling readers to go to an attached link (Explore Climate Science Info) to see how “average temperature in your area is changing” with the inference being that local average temperatures changes are linked to climate change.

Well, I don’t do Facebook or Twitter.
But I have paid attention to the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe. I have the lists of the records taken from several different years.
I compared some of the list.
For example, between 2002 and 2012 about 10% of records the have changed.
I don’t mean old records broken. I mean old records changed.
The record high for a date in 2012 is lower than the record high in 2002. The same for record lows. Sometimes it’s the year that has been changed.
Perhaps Facebook should “FactCheck” stuff like that?
PS All the list I have are from NOAA via NWS.

Last edited 3 months ago by Gunga Din
michael hart
January 31, 2022 8:55 am

Using temperature anomalies has some usefulness, especially for those who have incomplete data sets and those who won’t or can’t do arithmetic addition and subtraction.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  michael hart
January 31, 2022 2:40 pm

Temperature anomalies are useful for deriving average surface temperatures because they tend to be highly correlated over large distances (of the order of 1000 km). In other words, anomalies are representative of temperature changes over large areas and distances.”

This is either a bare-face lie or a complete lack of knowledge of physical reality. It doesn’t even require anything more than high school trigonometry to refute this.

The daily temperature profile is approximately a sine wave. For our purpose let’s assume that it is very close to a sine wave. The temperature at station 1 will then be T = k1 * sin(t). The temperature at station 2 will be T = k2 * sin(t + a) where “a” is the phase difference between the two stations, e.g. the sun rises at different times for different locations – a phase difference.

The correlation between the two sine waves works out to be cos(a), It works out that somewhere around a 50 mile vector difference between the two stations (a vector addition of latitude and longitude) gives a correlation less than 0.8 – a correlation that most physical scientists would consider to be too low to consider the temperatures to be correlated. Now, it turns out that “a” is actually a function – a(distance, elevation, humidity, terrain, etc). A difference in elevation negatively impacts correlation. Humidity differences negatively impacts correlation. Terrain negatively impacts correlation (e.g. the sun rises later on the west side of a mountain than it does on the east side of a mountain). Distance negatively impacts correlation.

I have records going back several years for a station on the north side of the Kansas River Valley and for a station on the south side of the Kansas River Valley – a distance of about 20 miles. The temperatures hardly ever match. There is usually a difference of 1F or more for Tmax. This is because of distance, elevation, terrain, and probably other factors that I can’t identify (e.g. a large body of water between the two stations).

This makes anomalies almost useless, especially over large distances.

Meab
January 31, 2022 9:12 am

The solution to censorship and propaganda is to stop using the GooFace Twits and Yahoo!s. I did. I switched to Duck Duck Go and stopped going to Yahoo! after they suspended comments. I don’t miss the GooFace Twits and Yahoo!s even a tiny little bit.

michael hart
January 31, 2022 9:27 am

Temperature anomalies?

Using temperature anomalies has some usefulness, especially for those who have incomplete time-series data sets and those who won’t or can’t do simple arithmetic addition and subtraction.

But it is also a great way of disguising continuous, ongoing, improper adjustments to the data. It ignores the compounded cumulative error that sooner or later would become obvious to anybody taking only a passing interest.
Thus, the last time I checked, water still freezes at the absolute temperature of ~273 K, whatever a climate “scientist” armed with a bunch of anomaly measurements may tell you.

By analogy, day-to-day you can manage your bank account by only looking at anomalies of money-in vs money-out transactions, making the assumption that you never make an error or get scammed.
But the Bank will quickly let you know, in no uncertain terms, when you become overdrawn in absolute numbers. And it is the Bank’s calculations that matter, not yours.

Allan MacRae
January 31, 2022 9:40 am

Facebook = Falsebook. See below re connections to Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum and its Marxist Agenda. The uber-rich looking down at all the poor peasants.
Traitors! Poverty and Dictatorship.

More “Global Warming”… Told you so 20 years ago…
 
RECAP OF EAST COAST’S HISTORIC SNOW
TOTALS–WITH INTENSIFICATION DUE THIS WEEK; SAUDI ARABIA LOGS LOWEST TEMP IN 30 YEARS; MOROCCAN PROVINCES SEE SNOW; + EGYPT ON FOR ITS COLDEST WINTER EVER
January 31, 2022 Cap Allon
While the exact timing & severity of N. America’s NEXT Arctic blast remains uncertain, meteorologists have warned that it could compare to 2021’s deadly event. As a result, people –particularly Texans– are being urged to prepare now “while the weather is still good.”
 
IMPORTANTKLAUS SCHWAB IS SAYING HE HAS INDOCTRINATED LEADERS AND PLACED THEM IN POSITIONS (BITCHUTE.COM)
In this recent Video interview with Klaus Schwab, he is bragging about all the people who have has graduated from the WEF’s Young Leaders (or similar) programs who have infiltrated into positions of power. Canada is prominent in his claims – “Over half the Cabinet” are on board …   Traitors!

Looks like the Biden and Boris Cabinets are on board too. That is the only explanation for their gross mismanagement of the Covid-19 flu and their slavish adherence to Global Warming mania. No rational person can be this 100% wrong for this long.
 
Facebook = Falsebook! The leaders at Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, CDC, NIH, etc are all connected to the World Economic Forum’s Marxist Agenda – Poverty and Dictatorship.

bonbon
Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 31, 2022 12:05 pm

The Davos WEF Great Reset is actually Prince Charles’ baby, whose mum is after all Canada’s Head of State, so thy WEF subjects are not technically ‘traitors’ .

The US otherwise is much more servile, ‘traitor’ is likely what Franklin or Washington would term their behavior.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  bonbon
February 2, 2022 2:15 am

bonbon:
Our elected leaders are traitors. We stopped being an absolute monarchy long ago.
Do not beat up on Queen Elizabeth II – she will be 96 in a few months and she has carried out her duties with strength and dignity – and she’s a good auto mechanic.

However, Prince Charles, the village idiot of Westminster, is fair game. He’s a global warming nutcase. Also, how any rational man could screw around on the lovely Diana with Camilla is beyond comprehension. “Gadzooks Sir! What a cad!”

Charlie’s sister Princess Anne got all the brains in that generation – she knows the warmist narrative is false propaganda. They should have Anne ascend the throne instead of Charlie. She could be Princess Regent until Wills is old enough and his children are grown. Prince Charles can return to converse with his plants – really!

AleaJactaEst
January 31, 2022 9:41 am

Facebook lies. Who knew.

News at 11.

ResourceGuy
January 31, 2022 9:43 am
Allan MacRae
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 31, 2022 10:14 am

Apparently, these kids think that Alaska is too warm. Who knew?

Redge
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 31, 2022 11:04 am

The interesting part about your link is the case, called Sagoonick v. State, was brought by 16 young Alaskans, represented by an attorney from Our Children’s Trust.

Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit, receive their funding since their website doesn’t mention where the money comes from.

Redge
Reply to  Redge
January 31, 2022 12:12 pm

So I emailed “Our Children’s Trust” and they responded:

We have blended revenues from a number of sources. Roughly 70% our funding comes from a large and wide array of individuals and donor advised funds, including grassroots donors contributing just a few dollars, to major donors contributing substantially more. The remaining approximately 30% of our funding comes from institutional funders (foundations). The bulk of our donors are U.S. based, but we have several from all over the world as well.

So that’s how they can afford to front these cases

DHR
January 31, 2022 11:48 am

The charts showing Climate Reference Network data are incorrect. The charts show CRN data in red beginning about 2013. In fact CRN data begins in 2005 when the network was fist placed in service as the NOAA CRN site shows.

LdB
January 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Griff and Ghalfrut are claiming global warming equals more snow so it’s the summer olympics that are in danger 🙂

tygrus
January 31, 2022 3:13 pm

The climate catastrophizing smooths over climate history pretending the climate means = weather of the day. Then they pretend any current weather event that deviates from the mean is climate change not just the weather.

A snow storm requires 3 things: A source of cold; a source of moisture; and for it to take a path to your location. A blizzard also requires wind speed above a certain amount.

The CC believers think the warming will decrease the source of cold but increase the source of moisture. Fewer days of cold but when you do get a snow storm it will be worse. The problem is their is no significant data to support a claim of current weather events being outside of long-term natural variation. Creating computer models to show possible outcomes have so many unknown variables which they fiddle with, the results prove their assumptions not reality. They give themselves such a wide error range their results have little value.

Nick in Vancouver
January 31, 2022 3:38 pm

Google is equally sneaky – lying about its “independence” by omission.

Try typing GWPF or any variation of the Global Warming Policy Forum and it sends you to in this order Wikidedia, Desmog Blog, netzerowatch, sourcewatch, infowatch or just about anywhere on the propaganda front apart from the GWPF.

How is that not editorialising?

How come Google is not obliged, and answerable under the law, to be accurate and transparent like any other editorialsing media?

RickWill
February 1, 2022 12:24 am

I had to laugh at the NASA statement that climate models are based on the laws of physics.

NASA must have its own law book. I am yet to see anything that approaches physical reality in a climate model.

The dimwits who create these models actually think oceans can be warmed by surface radiation. Tell me how that is physically possible?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
February 1, 2022 8:09 am

Not only surface radiation, but CO2 radiation. The last I knew the absorption spectra of H2O barely overlapped with CO2.

Jim Gorman
February 1, 2022 8:00 am

“This article notes the following regarding the critical scientific distinction between absolute versus temperature anomaly data measurements as follows:

“All anyone needs to do is Google “temperature anomaly” to understand the significant difference between “absolute temperature” versus “temperature anomaly” measurement data that climate scientists rely upon to address climate related temperature changes as noted below.

What do temperature anomalies mean?

Temperature anomalies are useful for deriving average surface temperatures because they tend to be highly correlated over large distances (of the order of 1000 km). In other words, anomalies are representative of temperature changes over large areas and distances.

Why do we use temperature anomalies?

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.”

Two cautions about this.

Anomalies as being used to obtain averages ignores the realities of the temperatures and consequent enthalpy of all the locations. This means you are assuming that everywhere temperatures are a perfect proxy for the heat contained in the atmosphere. An example is the averaging of NH summer temperature anomalies with SH winter temperatures. The enthalpies can not possibly be the same due to the differences in insolation.

Daily and monthly temps are being averaged between locations with significant statistical variance of the absolute temperatures. Again, when averaging absolute temps the variance between NH @ 100F and SH @ 30F data would give a standard deviation that is very large. These variances should be carried over to anomalies to accurately depict the actual variance.

Lurker pete
February 1, 2022 10:12 am

#DeleteFacebook

I did, it’s cost me personally in terms of business, and personal contacts who would rather stay in their various groups.

Minds could replace it, Signal replaces messenger, both are privacy focused rather than metadata gathering to sell you shite you don’t need, while censoring science and propagandising a gazillion different ways.

We have to make a stand, hurt them in the pocket.

Mr. Lee
February 1, 2022 11:17 am

In some Western countries, where there is no Bill of Rights, some factual viewpoints are illegal to publicly state or publish. Deplatforming and spamming is how the same forces of censorship try to emulate in the US what they have accomplished elsewhere.

Some people have difficulty understanding that once censorship of factual debate is allowed in one sphere, it paves the way for censorship in all spheres. The Ministry of Truth has existed for quite some time, it is only attempting to expand its scope.

Pieter A Folkens
February 1, 2022 6:22 pm

The alarmists are finetuning their propaganda devices and techniques rather than improving their science.

John Culhane
February 1, 2022 11:50 pm

Lets consider Facebooks business model. Who is paying Facebook to promote this? There is a development and overhead cost to what they are doing, there must be a financial incentive.

Barry James
February 4, 2022 5:56 pm

Note the ubiquitous references to NASA as the climate authority. This is NOT the Space agency. This is GISS which once concerned itself with space research.

At the end of President Carter’s reign he granted James Hansen, an environment activist, his dearest wish by appointing him as director of GISS. With GISS’s enormous budget behind him, Hansen quickly repurposed GISS as a propaganda machine to push his irrational hatred of fossil fuels, using CO2 emissions from them as his main tool for opposing them.

With tentacles into Colorado University at Boulder and Caltech’s JPL, Hansen’s principal propaganda production unit was set up at Columbia University where its media department publishes its slick pseudo scientific climate articles using NASA’s good name. Gavin Schmidt has taken over from Hansen, but is totally faithful to Hansen’s original cause.

The bottom line is that this “climate NASA” is the worst possible source for climate science information. Unfortunately, it is widely cited and used as the principal reference for climate education in our schools.

%d bloggers like this: