The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Ten pieces of climate propaganda from February 2023 exposed and debunked. The full PDF version (needed to click through to the links) is here.
Climate change to blame for a deluge of snow in California.
Only by an ignoramus or two, who don’t follow someone called ‘vuk’ regularly posting on the WUWT 🙂 🙂
I am pretty sure the comment from Curious George was posted with an implied /sarcasm tag.
To the contrary, I was deadly serious 🙂 🙂
“I am pretty sure”
And that means?
It’s only sarcasm when the author(s) identify it as sarcasm.
Otherwise, they mean the words.
You sure know your sarcasm. 🙂
Are you being sarcastic “?
I’m never sarcastic on the internet.
Climate change is to blame for question mark journalism.
I bet Climate Change is responsible for hemorrhoids
You’d get a standing ovation for that at the Hemorrhoid Sufferers Conference.
But we were told Climate Change was responsible for the demise of the Dina soreass
The AGW/mosquitoes/malaria canard can be traced to a ‘serious’ 1996 JAMA article, purely speculative. It’s OLD, even if the WaPo echo is new. I tracked it down in essay False Alarms in ebook Blowing Smoke and showed that in fact the opposite is the case. Malaria has been declining everywhere, and increasing nowhere.
even if the WaPo echo is new
I guess that’s always a problem when dealing with an echo chamber. A tiny input signal keeps bouncing around, become louder and more distorted. We keep dealing with the same incorrect sound bites again and again. I recall how the “97% consensus” claim kept showing up (often with a 98% or 99% value) and exactly what the consensus agreed to kept broadening. It went from “the climate is warming and mankind has something to do with it” to “the oceans will boil, the sky will burn, and it’s all mankind’s fault.” And we keep hearing faint echos to this day. Trying to knock it down is just a game of Whack-a-mole.
Is it possible that it’s not possible to get rid of such misleading information because of the stranglehold of the Global Public Private Partnership(G3P), wherein the Washington Post is merely a misinformation, disinformation, propagandist publication tasked with convincing the people that the BIS, the central banks and their corporate partners are justified in setting their policies?
There’s a detailed chart circulating that shows the underpinnings of the G3P, but I’m not able to attach it in this comment.
People need to see how how they’re being manipulated.
The chart of the G3P’s control scheme is in a comment to this tweet.
And temperature is less of factor than being pushed.
From 1800 to 1870, there were at least 5,431 death from malaria in Finland. During this period the Finnish population grew from 832,700 to 2,032,700 people . In a few epidemics, the mortality can be estimated to 0.85–3.0% . The number of deaths from malaria increased when the number of malaria cases increased and thus a change in virulence of the Plasmodium is not to be assumed. The total number of malaria cases in the middle of the 19th century may tentatively be estimated to be 100,000–300,000 or about 7–20% of the whole population.
And there were major outbreaks in Sweden and Russia for years. They only lowered the outbreaks with spraying waters.
Climate change was seen on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.
Shouldn’t that now be the “dusty” knoll?
Dallas is not in the new “dust bowl”.
But with climate change, everywhere is changing more than everywhere else.
My God! We’ve solved the crime!! Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository AND the grassy knoll at the same time.
Or bad editing.
No PCR test needed.
Not when I went there. Didn’t find Lee Harvey Oswald either.
Manila has a sea level problem somewhat akin to Jakarta, sinking a a rate of about 12 mm/yr beginning about 1960. Prior to 1960, Manila sea level change was nearly flat. Inland from Manila, GPS elevation gauges suggest that that area is rising. It seems that Manila may be on the downward end of a geologic teeter totter or perhaps it is water withdrawal as seems apparent for Jakarta.
The links don’t seem to work here. Or at least, they all lead to the same, not very helpful, place. I tried to follow the NY snow story, but it all came back to the same page, with links going nowhere.
That page itself didn’t give any refuting facts. It amounted to just NYT says this, we say no. The only “argument” offered seems to be that somewhere in the troposphere. Jan 1988 was warmer than Jan 2003.
The scientific consensus (96.837% agreement I believe) holds that New York gets a lot of snow, except when it doesn’t. Confidence = “Irrefutable”.
This should help which is prominently posted already:
I will increase the emphasis shown in the bolding.
OK, so now there the link does go somewhere. But it is not to Milloy trying to put some substance in his argument. It is an article on Tony Heller’s site, which is about, well, something about ice ages, I think.
No, it is a 4-page PDF here is the link for your use which is the same one at the top of the article:
The links in the PDF report goes to various sources.
You would know this if you just went along with it.
Thanks. Sorry if I was unclear, but I was actually working from the pdf. I was commenting on how the “Read More” link on NY snow lead not to an explanation by Milloy, but to a Tony Heller article, which bore little relation to this NY Times article on the current warm winter.
There is no accounting for your continued incompetence, is there!
Sorry you can’t counter the facts posted by Tony Heller
Would you care to explain what Tony Heller is saying. It is, as usual, far too laden with sarcasm to make sense.
We don’t have a problem with Tony’s work !!
Could be your lack of understanding (which you regularly display here) .
Sorry you can’t understand what so many others do!
And don’t forget wolves. I see wolves. Yes I know, they‘re never there when others show up but I swear, there are wolves and the sheep are in danger.
Oh, there WILL BE wolves. I seen it in a movie oncet.
More trouble with links. I clicked on the India story, but it took me to the Antarctica story. That concerned the undercutting of the Thwaites glacier. But the only text I could actually read from Milloy was about irrelevant stuff about sea ice. And of course the “read more” link just lead to the same page.
OK, so now I’ve been told that only the pdf has working links. So I clicked on the “Read More” of the Thwaites Galcier story. Again, no more text from Milloy to substantiate his “refutation”. Only a Kenneth Richard article at NTZ, giving his usual misreading of scientific papers to claim that there was cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula. Which had nothing to do with the Mooney story on the Thwaites Glacier.
Its good the article calls out the usual Thwaites bullshit. Thwaites is going nowhere for many centuries. It is essentially landlocked. And it has about 1700 meters more “overburden” of ice than it takes to keep it’s bottom at the bottom of the ocean. Yeah… a mile of ice more than it needs to stay “grounded”….but a great trip of a lifetime for bullshitters to impress those in eco-awe of their value to humanity.
“Its good the article calls out the usual Thwaites bullshit”
But it doesn’t. It barely says anything about Thwaites, and the “Read More” says even less. Your comment was more substantial than that.
?? Obviously you didn’t read the article and missed the point of a “fact check”. The whole WaPo article was the usual scare stories about Thwaites…sea level rise if it breaks up, blah, blah, except it can’t even move, “warm” ocean washing it away from underneath, what bullshit…it has enough ice above water level to maintain an underwater grounding zone for at least a thousand years. Even if it started to float like the ice on a spring pond, it can’t go anywhere…..Governments need to put an end to these free trips of a lifetime at taxpayers expense for these climate scuzzantists….especially if they are freeloading off the Thwaites nonsense. Yes, it moves fast, hundreds of km wide moving to a 100km sea face, 1800 meters high ice pushing, but as far as “Doomsday” well, no…I gave you enough info to start you on a journey of discovery….
“Obviously you didn’t read the article and missed the point of a “fact check”. “
I read the article, and I understand the point of a fact check is that you should say something about the facts you claim to be checking. Mooney wrote about the Thwaites Glacier. The linked article by Kenneth Richard has many problems, but for present purposes the main one is that it says absolutely nothing about the Thwaites Glacier. There is stuff about the Antarctic Peninsula, and about ice fringing East Antarctica. But nothing about Thwaites.
If you think I’ve missed something in the article, would you like to say what it is?
Trying to put me to some work, Nick ?
I refer to this article of the post:
GLACIER MELTING TO CAUSE SEA
which links to
I didn’t have to look too far to find someone else besides myself who has wasted time fact checking Thwaites bullshit
Yes, I know the WP was talking about Thwaites. The article that I was referring to was the one by Kenneth Richard, which Milloy cited as his refutation. But it doesn’t mention Thwaites at all.
I’m sure you have arguments about Thwaites, and others too. I am commenting on Milloy’s “refutation”. He just doesn’t offer anything.
alarming loss of ice from West Antarctica? Except where is isn’t.
From 2004 Climate Variability in West Antarctica Derived from Annual Accumulation-Rate Records from ITASE Firn/Ice Cores
The ice cores from this study were analyzed to look for recent changes in accumulation rates. The period 1970–present was chosen due to numerous previous studies reporting changes in accumulation during this same time period. Mean accumulation since 1970 for each site was compared to the long-term mean and, due to the different time period covered by each record, the mean from 1922 to 1991 (the period of overlap between records) (Table 2). Results for cores 01-5 and 99-1 are disregarded because of the possible need for topographic corrections (see previous section). The results indicate a slight decrease (1–4%) in accumulation at sites 00-4, RIDS C and Siple Dome, and a larger decrease (9%) at site 00-5. Accumulation increased (5–10%) at sites 01-3, 01-2 and 00-1. The geographical clustering of these sites suggests that there has been an increase in accumulation since 1970 in the western sector of the Pine Island–Thwaites drainage system (00-1, 01-2, 01-3) (Fig. 2; Table 2).
So they compare average accumulation 1922 to 1991 against accumulation 1970 to present. Since there was growth 1922 to 1991, it would take a 100% decrease between the two before any ‘Alarming loss’ is seen. So far only one core has 9% less growth than average and the whole group showed growth not melting.
“he whole group showed growth not melting“
Nitpicking aside the WaPo deceptive claim that “rapidly warming oceans are cutting into the underside of Antarctic’s Thwaites glacier” fails to mention that “geothermal heat flow in the polar regions plays a crucial role in understanding ice-sheet dynamics and predictions of sea level rise … rapidly retreating Thwaites and Pope glaciers in particular are underlain by areas of largely elevated geothermal heat flow”.
Geothermal flows are only slightly above average, and that means very small. The highest flow mentioned is 230 milliwatts/m2 (cf average sunlight 240 W/m2, 1000x greater). That isn’t going to melt much ice, though it might help create a lubricating layer at the bottom of the ice. But geothermal is at the end of a long diffusive pathway. It isn’t going to change on a century timescale. It has always been there.
Poor Nick still thinks you can’t heat water from below!
Stokes probably heats his bathwater by shining an infra-red light on it from above.
I think you’re getting some “automatic” down votes.
Try this. It goes back to the source.
(If it doesn’t work, just trying to help.)
In my Peterson Field Guide to wildflowers, which I purchased when I graduated from U. Mass. forestry school in Jan. of ’73- in it, I always dated when I found another species. I have notes for having found several species of wildflowers on March 7, 1973 and the notes say it was a very warm day. As of this minute, there’s a foot of snow on my lawn.
Going to be hard to find wildflowers under the snow.
Kudos to Steve Milloy, something like this needs to be available to everyone. It needs wide distribution, all we have to do is get the average person to start asking questions and this nonsense will end.
Cilo this is the kind of stuff I am talking about.
rule #1 every time someone claims they debunked X, you can be sure they havent
January 2023 was cooler than January 1988, according to NASA satellite data. That means that all the greenhouse gas emissions since the January before James Hansen’s infamous June 1988 Senate testimony launching global warming hysteria — about 50% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere — failed to make January 2023 warmer than January 1988.
jan 1988 from the linked DATA SET OF anomalies
1988 1 0.00 -0.07 0.03
2023 1 -0.04 -0.06 -0.04
RULE #2 ambiguous wording always hides something
failed to make January 2023 failed to make warmer?
rule# 3 skeptics dont understand that satellites dont measure temperature directly
they INFER it or ESTIMATE it using models.
rule#4 if someone hides his link 2 steps away, he’s lying
the Anomaly in jan 1988 was 0 for the globe
the anomaly was -.04 for 2023
rule#5 skeptics dont understand the limitations of satellite data
“The precision and accuracy have been discussed in previous publications. The key quantity for our research is not the absolute accuracy of the measurement, but the precision over time, i.e. the error in trends. There are up to 1 K differences in the different instruments that have been launched, but once these intersatellite biases are removed, the measurements show a high level of agreement on departures from their respective mean values over time. From research publications previously we anticipate a precision value for annual global anomalies of ±0.1 K
jink science from milloy
Junk comment from Smosh
Doesn’t realise the surface temperature is MEANINGLESS because its data is corrupted from the very start.. and when in the hands of BEST, GISS etc.. get corrupted even further,
You do realise that you just confirmed that Jan 2023 was no warmer than Jan 1988, don’t you .
How many hols can your feet stand before you fall flat on your face again!
Rule #6: English Majors who think they’re smarter than everyone else, can’t spell or use proper punctutation.
How would you know what sceptics do or do not understand? Some of us understand very well.
As for January 2023 being cooler than January 1998: January 2023 is in the third dip of a triple dip La Nina, and January 1998 was during one of the two greatest El Ninos since the one of 1877-1878.
“As for January 2023 being cooler than January 1998″
It’s a meaningless statement, borne out of averaging things that shouldn’t be averaged.
They lied to us about Trump hiring Hookers.
They lied to us about Russian Collusion.
They almost certainly lied to us about the origin of COVID 19.
They lied to us about the effectiveness of alternative existing and inexpensive drugs in the treatment of COVID 19.
They lied to us about the effectiveness of masking, lockdowns, and social distancing.
They are still lying to us about the effectiveness of the experimental “vaccine”.
They lied and told us that the experimental “vaccine” would stop transmission.
They are still lying to us about injuries and deaths caused by the experimental “vaccine”.
They have lied to us about what happened on Jan. 6th.
They have lied to us about one catastrophe after another that was supposed to occur due to “climate change”.
They have lied and are still lying about the effectiveness of the measures being taken to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2.
And so why would any person of reasonable intelligence and integrity continue to believe that what they are saying about the causes and effects of CO2 on the climate still not only claim to believe them, continually strive to propagate their propaganda?
You must be logged in to post a comment.