The climate mafia recently renewed its pressure campaign on social media companies to to silence online dissent. I’ve noticed a pattern. Maybe you’ll spot it, too.
That’s the renew campaign, as reported by Bloomberg.
I first noticed what was going on with this August 26, 2022 Reuters report (Web | PDF).
The article focuses on some tweets of mine where I use the alarmists own temperature data against them.
Then there was this Agence France Press (AFP) report on October 6, 2022. (Web | PDF)
Again, the article featured a tweet of mine. Note that AFP actually drew an “X” over my tweet!
The tic-tac-toe move came today with this AP report. (Web | PDF)
Here, the AP spotlights my tweet but can’t bring itself to mention my name. An image of the tweet is below.
My guess is that the climate mafia is trying to amass “fact-checked” wire service articles that they can take to Twitter to have me deplatformed.
JunkScience.com readers know that the Washington Post has already tried and failed to do that earlier this year.
Finally, I would just like to point out there is nothing honest about these wire services or their “fact-checking.”
First, read the “fact-checking” articles and make up your own mind. They’re just lame.
Next, these wire services are all part and parcel of the climate mafia. The AP has, for example, received an $8 million grant to do climate advocacy “reporting.” Reuters is all-in on climate alarmism. And AFP is as well.
1. Congratulations! If they had any good, data-based, arguments to counter you, they would not have to resort to snuffing you.
That is, they prove by their desperate actions that you have won the debate. (Heh. THAT is why it is “over”)
2. Edit: [Human-caused “climate change”] is a hoax.
(climate is not a hoax)
I disagree. Human-caused climate change is not a hoax. It is real, measured… and very BENEFICIAL:
NASA measures it from satellites:
More CO2 improves crop yields through “CO2 fertilization,” and helps crops to endure moderate droughts & remain productive with less water. That is long-settled science, and common knowledge among agronomists, but most “climate scientists” seem to be ignorant of it.
The benefits for some of the world’s most vulnerable people are nothing short of spectacular:
Even National Geographic noticed (though they subsequently scrubbed this article from their website):
The climate propagandists are just plain lying about storms:
Lin & Chan (2015), Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.
Klotzbach & Landsea (2015), Extremely Intense Hurricanes: Revisiting Webster et al. (2005) after 10 Years. Journal of the American Meteorological Society, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0188.1.
…and the effect of human CO2 emissions on temperature is modest, and benign. The roughly 1°C of warming since the 1800s is less than unnoticeable hysteresis or “dead zone” [programmed temperature variation] in your home thermostat.
But the effect of additional CO2 on the Earth’s ecosystems is large and very positive, as is the effect on mankind. It has increased global crop yields by about 20%, and also helped mitigate drought impacts, by improving plants’ water use efficiency and drought resilience.
Rising CO2 availability is one of several important reasons for the dramatic improvements in global crop yields and food security.
Love your work.
Trends in weather are not evidence of human causation. CO2 levels and greening are not climate. You are confusing the issue.
^^ This ^^
Can someone explain these “this” comments?
Another short form of agreement.
Interchangeable with exactly in this context.
like “ditto” – – agree with what is just above
Climate is much more than temperature. It is all the “outdoor” conditions which affect living things. That includes temperatures, humidity, precipitation, wind, cloudiness, CO2, etc. Thus it is as correct to refer to a “humid climate” or a “high-CO2 climate” as it is to refer to a “warm climate.”
In places (like nearly the entire Earth!) which are starved for CO2, higher CO2 levels represent an improvement in climate, just as increased rainfall constitutes an improvement in arid climates:
EXISTS THAT A
THE TWIN TOWERS
AT NEAR FREEFALL
THAN DOES FOR
Does your keyboard have a Caps Lock key!?
Or perhaps a Caps Unlock key?
Here’s a video which demonstrates the principle:
I disagree with your disagreement. It is pretty obvious the planet is (mildly) warming. Hence you need 0.0056 degrees Kelvin for our oceans to release ~100ppm atmospheric CO2.
To say it with Clinton (pun intended, no disrespect intended): It’s all about the Sun, stupid.
That is incorrect. Oceans are not net outgassers of CO2.
The oceans and atmosphere are continually exchanging CO2. If they were in equilibrium then the rates in both directions would be equal. That is to say:
ocean→air CO2 transport
would be at the same rate as
air→ocean CO2 transport
Climate changes (both temperature and CO2 level) over the last couple hundred years have affect both of those transport rates — but not equally:
1°C of ocean surface warming would accelerate ocean→air CO2 transport only about 3% (via the temperature dependence of of Henry’s Law). We’ve actually had a bit less than that.
The 50% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration accelerates air→ocean CO2 transport by 50%. (420 ppmv / 180 ppmv = 1.5)
That’s why the oceans are net removers, not emitters, of CO2.
You can learn more about it here:
c02 is a trace gas it cant possibly green the planet.
Poor steve, so desperate to remain relevant.
stop humping my leg mark.
mods can you house train your puppies
Mosh, your snark here while well delivered, is just too inside baseball for most of the commenters here and they have no idea where you’re coming from. And you’re too arrogant to communicate with people who don’t get it and then these flame wars start.
Behave. Your comments attacking another user are in violation of blog rules.
Did you learn that in the biology class you took as part of your English degree? If it is just a trace gas and can’t contribute to greening, how can the concentration be high enough to keep the trillions of plants on Earth alive and thriving?
Much less have any effect on the earths temperatures! His ‘logic’ escapes me!
Impressive array of datasets and well argued Dave
You have not cited evidence of human-caused climate change. Your evidence for the beneficial effects of all CO2 (human or outgassed by the ocean or other natural sources) is not evidence for a shift in the CLIMATE ZONES of the earth.
1. Congratulations! If they had any good, data-based, arguments to counter you, they would not have to resort to snuffing you.
how do you respond to the fact that milloy didnt use data. he used output from reanalysis.
not temperature data, but model output.?
how do you counter his complex lie, you deplatform him until he proves he can post without lying
Using data to show that the climate alarmists are lying is not using data.
And once again, steve is forced to dredge new depths of irrelevancy.
Mr. Mosher: I understand, his “complex lie” is just too hard for you to explain and debunk. Pretty complex, huh?
yes explaining that reanalysis data is not data but rather output from a weather model is something more complex than you understand.
he fooled you!
he fooled markW
now you guys go ahead and make personal attacks while i point out he used models not data
When in history have those who wanted to silence others been the good guys?
Whenever socialists don’t like those being silenced.
First answer I’ve ever gotten to that question. Seems about right.
its a consensus huh?
I notice you didn’t answer my question, Mosher.
If Mosh had any data he would be able to put up an argument against Steve Milloy.
But he doesn’t.. Just a limp lettuce leaf.
“you deplatform him until he proves he can post without lying”
I suggest Anthony does this to Mosh.
how do you argue with an idiot who doesnt know the difference between reanalysis and observations
especially in front of a crowd of sheeple
So, you’re pushing for censorship. Hope you’re proud of yourself champ.
jail time might help
Now you’re just being daft.
You’re a wind-up merchant. That’s me done with you
Jail for wrongthink? You must love Big Brother.
Mosher, whatever happened to you?
what happened to you guys who used to say models arent data or evidence until junk milloy posts reanalysis
@Mod – “deplatform him until he proves he can post without lying”
Sounds like a good idea. For Mosher.
I’m sorry, not being a brainwashed goon I don’t quite have the symbolism down: Does the giant X mean that your tweet is the subject of today’s two minutes hate?
Propaganda, to be effectively dispersed, must rely on collaboration between participating channels where absolutely no departures from the dogma are detectable.
Hence, dogma creators / coordinators like “Covering Climate Now”.
The peak solar intensity is gradually shifting north. The centennial scale trend for the Northern Hemisphere is greater extremes – hotter and drier spring/summers on land with monsoon moving northward. More ocean surface reaching the 30C limit before monsoon sets in. Wetter autumn/winter with more precipitation as snow.
Climate change is ever present. CO2 induced climate change is a fantasy of incompetent minds.
I dunno about that. ‘Climate change’ implies that the weather patterns are altering into new and unpredictable patterns. The real truth is that weather is a repeating, cyclical pattern and we’ve seen this pattern before – heat spikes in summer and cold spikes in winter as outliers are more common when stepping up from a cool phase of the cycle or stepping back down from a warm phase of the cycle. We should expect more of the same for the next few years as temperatures (outside of UHI at least) continue to fall and the weather continues to be unsettled until we stabilise in the cool phase of the cycle.
I did state the centennial scale trends.
The Nino 34 region is significant for global weather and it is approaching the bottom of the 11 year cycle while still in La Nina phase. Both contributing to cooler conditions globally.
However the long term trend in average surface temperature will continue to be upward due to land being a higher proportion of the NH than the SH and land responds over a wider temperature range than ocean surface for a given change in solar intensity.
“Cycles” imply change. Climate Change is real. The climate changes cyclically. The unpredictability is merely an artifact of our short lives (and attention spans). The majority of climastrologists do not grasp how the seasons come about, they think we move further away from the sun. The same sun they assure us is so constant, it has no real effect on the climate.
I have decided we cannot win against people who just redefine every term until it means what they want it to. There is no logic there, anti-logic, if you will.
Now I slap them with the dictionary.
Then they quote Mirriam-Webster at me… the end is nigh….oh deary me, please, the end!
Cycles do not “imply change”!
Cycles define a period where a phenomena completes a repeating natural period.
Claiming a trend by man’s artificial time periods that are far too short to cover a complete natural cycle is irresponsible.
That is, mankind’s arbitrary time periods are mankind hubris, not valid periods of time to track historical weather.
The censorship of scientific debate on any side of any subject must be fought vociferously. We run the very real risk of being plunged into a new Lysenkoism, one covering not just a small aspect of science but whole fields of study where no theory but “the consensus” will be tolerated. Lysenkoism in Russia and China went a long way towards the famines that starved millions in the 20th century. They appear to want to starve billions this time around.
Scientific consensus is an utterly false state. True science must relish scepticism and challenge, and meet it with rigorous evaluation and critical (not in the post modern sense) evaluation.
Good comment, MarkH, and I would add “introspection” to your list of scepticism and challenge, as what we think we know but are wrong about gets us off the track. I recently had to admit that the “Dolly Parton” structure marking certain levels in the Ordovician Vininni formation was in fact stromatolite mounding. I felt better getting that off my chest.
the hilarious thing is milloy using a model to argue about temperatures
mosher a sphincter says what
Might need an interpreter.
She is so good at making difficult English phrases clear, she should offer her services to the Biden team. That way we might understand what he is saying when he goes of cue, or maybe he is just off piste…again.?
“All models are wrong, but some are useful”
Another empty comment from the worst STOOGE !
Tell us where you think Milloy is wrong, Steve.
steve is just pissed that we don’t pay as much attention to him as he wants.
Will there ever come a day when steve knows what he is talking about?
not any day soon !
You’re very bitter, aren’t you Steve?
These “fact Checks” are hilarious in their desperation. They don’t even try to present contradictory evidence.
The AP fact check even admits that Atlantic Hurricanes are no more frequent nor violent than in the past.
Climate scientist – noun – a person who holds the rank of priest in the Church of AGW and Latter Day Fools.
Climate science – the dogma and scriptures pertaining to the faith. (No dissent will be brooked.)
“Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature journal, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.
It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.
“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident,” reads the summary of the 20-page study.
Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study – of which they had been unaware – grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.”
Leading scientists say ‘fundamentally flawed’ climate study should be withdrawn (thejournal.ie)
They can never point to a specific error, probably because it’s beyond them if it deviates from the script. Freedom of thought is, after all, a bit of a no-no with the faithful.
RIP the scientific method.
Maybe we need to start a new environmental campaign. This will show how concerned we are with maintaining the present and preventing climate change.
I propose we begin a world wide campaign to ‘save the Sahara’.
We all know how crucial the Sahara is to so many nomadic tribes. Its loss and shrinkage due to excess green growth is a challenge for the nomad industry.
“Save the Sahara, No More Greening, Save the Sahara”….
Ice Cold In Alex
“I made a lot more when they turned it into an advert for Carlsberg”
Ice Cold in Alex – Wikipedia
Ditch Google search, go with Neeva search
Switching throttles Google revenue streams
$5/ month ??
you can use it for free too unless you need the added extras
Here’s one that slipped under the weather radar, but Willis liked it:
A more relevant way of looking at the data.
We’ll just slip $2500 out of your account if we deem you’ve been spreading ‘misinformation’ deplorables-
PayPal Reverses Course on $2,500 ‘Misinformation’ Fines After Massive Pushback (legalinsurrection.com)
and you can whistle dixie for it back.
Moved my money out, closed my PayPal account. Told them why.
The power to influence false claims is the power to silence truth. Obviously the climate crowd have no credibility and don’t want public argument.
Two can play this censorship game. How about calling out a mass of other subjects as misleading and false on these sites and demand equal treatment?
Whatever people think of Martin Luther, he sought to be ruthlessly honest. When he criticized the Qur’an he published this with his criticism attached. He did the same with various other publications of his opponents.
It is a shame that the media and the climate experts are too cowardly to do the same. It would allow readers to read the counter arguments and decide which was alarmist and which calm reasoning. Either total censorship or no censorship with the law dealing firmly with slander and promotion of anarchy and the likes. Neither wrong thinking nor suspected motives are provable crimes.
As Feyman said, “I’d rather have questions with no answers than answers that cannot be questioned. ” These greentards are disregarding the proper method of science.
It’s not just the green mafia, socialists in general are using the power of government to silence anyone who would disagree with their agenda.
It’s not just climate skeptics that are being censored, it’s everyone and anybody that ‘dares’ to counter the Marxist narrative. We’ve given control of the media over to the Marxists and they are using it for propaganda instead of news and using the courts which we also relinquished (while we were sleeping) to punish non believers in their ideology.
you’re free to speak your mind my friend
as long as you agree with me
don’t criticize the father land
or those who shape your destiny
cause if you do
you’ll lose your job your mind & all the friends you knew
we’ll send out all our boys in blue
they’ll find a way to silence you
Steppenwolf 1968-69 “The Ostrich”
It seems that Climate Skeptics favor the phase “data shows” while Climate Alarmists prefer “scientists say”.
The challenge is to get the brainwashed to understand they are being lied to. Empirical data is being treated as misinformation while blatant propaganda is presented as unquestionable fact.
They have been clamping down hard on any contrary information to the climate and vaccine narratives. I’ve been suspended by the Seattle Times twice for referencing official VAERS data.
The lesson here is that face book has lost about 70 % of it’s value because it censers. Likewise Twitter people are moving to platforms that do not censer (like GETTR ) telegram and others You tube is loosing ground to the likes of Rumble the more the listen to the nutters the more there customers go elsewhere.
PayPal’s stock plummeted today after it briefly floated a plan to fine any account caught spreading anything PayPal management considered “misinformation”.