From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
During the past weeks, profoundly flawed and error-filled stories on climate change have been headlined in the Seattle Times. Stories that can easily be demonstrated to have serious factual and interpretative errors.
Stories that grossly misinform Seattle Times readers and work against efforts to mitigate global warming.
Let me demonstrate the problem.
Saturday’s front-page story describes how because of urbanization “more than half of Seattle’s population resides in areas where daytime temperatures are over 8 degrees hotter than they would be naturally” and nearly 10% are in parts of the city recording an increase of over 12 degrees.”
The figure below was found in the Seattle Times story, and was based on a report from climate advocacy group, Climate Central. The “angle” of the story is how the growth of the city and loss of trees are greatly warming the environment.
This figure is obviously very wrong.
First, while temperatures should be in degrees, the colors say percent. But that is the least of the problem with this figure. The areas of warmth are all wrong. Tree-lined areas near Lake Washington are among the warmest. Downtown Seattle, near very cool Elliot Bay, is VERY hot. Tree-covered south Mercer Island is warm.
Anyone, who has studied local temperature variations knows this map is in error.
Let me explain how they got it wrong. Below is the same map from the Climate Central report used by the Seattle Times. It notes that hat 184 THOUSAND PEOPLE feel 8F or more warmer due to “urban heat spots.” Simply nonsense.
I looked at the map and was stunned….their warmest temperatures were centered over LAKE WASHINGTON. The Seattle Times did not show this obvious error in their source. Clearly, Climate Central used a problematic surface map that did not know about our lakes.
But is worse than that. I carefully reviewed the “Methodology” section and realized the approach was flawed. The “researchers” ran a simple model of the interaction of the surface with the atmosphere, BUT NEGLECTING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE REGIONAL WIND CIRCULATIONS and other critical weather forcings (such as the effects of air blowing in over cold water). Actual surface temperatures were not used.
Seattle’s heat island is greatly mitigated by the presence of Puget Sound, the Strait, and the Pacific Ocean. There is a reason that Seattle’s summer temperatures are far milder than Portland’s.
To see how wrong the Seattle Times/Climate Central map is, consider the temperatures on the hottest day of the summer (July 5) in Seattle (see below).
Totally different than the Seattle Times map. Temperatures ranged from the 70s near the water to mid to upper 80s away from the water. No huge heating over Lake Washington. The warmest temperatures are in more rural areas (mid-90s). Downtown Seattle is NOT a huge hot spot as pushed by the Seattle Times. Their map is simply wrong. Urbanization is not making some Seattle locations 12F warmer than rural areas.
The truth is that a small reduction (or addition) in tree cover in Seattle will have a very modest influence on temperature because of Puget Sound, our mountains, and the local winds during summer. As an aside, I wish the Seattle Times would report on the effects of the construction of the third runway and urbanization around SeaTac Airport on the temperatures from the airport.
Ticks and Climate Change
Another deceptive Seattle Times story this week suggested that climate change could be making the tick problem worse in the Northwest.
This article is a study of hyping a threat that does not exist in order to get folks worried about climate change.
The article begins with the ominous note that “bloodsuckers are on the move in the Northwest” and notes that “warming trends, exacerbated by climate change, are creating a more hospitable environment for the parasites” in the Northwest.
However, the article provides no evidence that ticks have become more of a problem in the Northwest. And it certainly shows no evidence that climate change is causing a tick problem.
Hot, dry weather is bad for ticks, which would increase with all the heatwaves predicted by Seattle Times stories. The writer does not mention this important element, which would work against an invasion of the feared “bloodsuckers.”
Finally, milder winter temperatures (November through March) plausibly might encourage winter ticks.
So have winter temperatures in our region warmed substantially over the past? Below are the temperatures over the Puget Sound lowlands over the past 40 years, when global warming has been most noticeable (see below).
Little warming is evident, a situation promoted by the nearby, slow-to-warm, Pacific Ocean.
The threat of “bloodsuckers” is clearly not changing much over our region and may, in fact, decline. Scarester articles like this are not constructive.
Killing Older Women Women in Switzerland?
Many of the over-the-top, crazy climate stories in the Seattle Times are reprinted from the NY Times, Washington Post, and other media. Today this was a story about dying older women in Switzerland.
Amazingly, the article claims that the Swiss temperatures in July have warmed by 35F since the 1800s, with July 2023 temperatures being 60F. I repeat 35F increase (or about 19C), which means the mean temperature in July would have been 25F…..well below freezing in July.
This is nuts. But don’t believe me. Here are the official statistics from the Swiss government. A 2.12 C increase. That is about 3.8F. NOT 35F.
Irresponsible Climate Journalism at the Seattle Times
What is happening at the Seattle Times is both sad and disappointing.
I could have provided you will many more problematic, non-factual articles from the newspaper (for example, the bogus claims that global warming is causing a marine heatwave over the northeast Pacific). Stories that are intended to hype climate change and scare people.
Human-caused global warming is a slowly growing, modest problem. Our planet has warmed by around 2F during the past 50 years and human emissions are probably the dominant cause.
Hyping and exaggerating this problem may be popular in some “progressive” circles, but it is counterproductive.
A democratic society like ours can not function when the media is providing inaccurate information to citizens, and I am afraid that the Seattle Times has decided that advocacy is more important than providing factual information.
There was a time when the Seattle Times employed exemplary science reporters, such as Hill Williams and Dietra Henderson. Reporters dedicated to getting the science right, without any political or advocacy angle. Unfortunately, those days are over at the Seattle Times.
Monday Update
Unbelievably, there was ANOTHER front-page climate article in the Seattle Times today that was essentially wrong, one that confuses weather and climate:
The article claims that drier conditions this year reduced hydropower and is a sign of climate change (global warming). Strangely, the article suggests that wetter conditions in California, as observed this year, are also a sign of climate change. Earlier articles in the ST suggested drying in CA is a sign of climate change.
The truth is that there is no long-term trend in precipitation over our region. If anything, it is going up.
Want proof? Here are the NOAA precipitation totals over Washington since 1900. Lots of ups and downs (weather variability) but little long-term trend. Yes, this year is on the low side, but not a record-breaking low.
PLEASE: Do not leave me comments calling me names, like “denier” or accusing me of taking money from oil companies. If you think I got some fact wrong, let me know where you think my science is wrong, and provide the data/publications to support your claim.
Not even the fish mongers in Pike Place Market trust the Seattle Times … to wrap fish.
Only the hard Left trusts the Seattle Times (i.e. large % of Seattle residents). Those people already believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
and yet they wallow in watching their city turn into a sh1thole.
Their voting habits have created the sh1thole.
Well done by Cliff.
However, this……
Why is he so committed to this notion? It’s not science.
I borrowed this from a Terry Haskew post elsewhere.
I sure would like to see Cliff address it.
I can refute all that stuff with 1 thing. We have instrumentation that can measure the CO2 forcing in the atmosphere. This is THE EMPIRICAL DATA that trumps everything else:
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.508±0.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.”
Simplistic TOA energy balance estimates that ignore the actual internal dynamics going on are a fundamental flaw in alarmist projections.
Yup!
That is not refuting. Not even close. It is old hat, lazy and presumptuous data. Not scientific measurement.
You’re naivety is duly noted.
Old hat? Lazy? Presumptuous? naive? Seriously?
Is this the point when you expect the target of your name calling to:
Actually, I try to avoid conversations that feature name calling as they almost never yield anything productive or result in agreements.
I’m sure you understand why.
Mike, surely you understand that the fact of CO2 being a radiative gas does not mean that the average surface temp of Earth can only go up when CO2 concentration in the air goes up?
Because that is what is presumed to be true by warmistas, not that there are radiative properties of CO2, but that it will necessarily and pretty much as a law of nature cause the planet to heat monotonically.
If the warmista hypothesis (to the extent they have even enunciated a clear and concise, let alone a testable and falsifiable hypothesis) is correct, what is clearly seen in such proxies as the ice cores, as well as in the surface records for entire multidecadal periods, would be flat out impossible.
CO2 does not trap heat, it allows for radiative transfer of certain wavelengths of thermal radiation.
Thanks, Nicholas,
You’ve obviously decided to ignore a proven law of physics or must not be aware of the actual observations/empirical data that profoundly confirms it.
As an operational meteorologist for 42 years, the observations TRUMP the models. Your 800,000 year old data probably worked in the past, when the temperature went up first, then CO2 coming out of the oceans followed because of Henry’s Law. This likely resulted in a positive feedback and additional warming.
Today, we are seeing the CO2 go up first because of a different observation/empirically based proven reason.
Human emissions from burning fossil fuels.This is NOT what happened in the past.
You can’t use 800,000 year temp/CO2 graphs that apply to a different dynamic, while choosing to ignore this one.
In today’s climate, for instance we can note that the driest places(high latitudes of N.Hemisphere/deserts) are warming at a much higher rate than more humid locations.
The main greenhouse gas is still H2O. However, in the warm/humid regions, some of the CO2 radiation absorption bands are already saturated or partially saturated from higher H2O. Adding more CO2 is not having the same impact as it is in the drier locations, where CO2 has more opportunity to absorb and re emit long wave radiation.
All I can tell you is that this is whats being accurately observed and measured in the real world, with meteorological observations and it proves the physics of CO2.
If you don’t want to believe that………..I can’t do any better than providing the proof. .
BTW,. I didn’t go to a bunch of links to find this in order to regurgitate what somebody else stated because that’s what I want to believe.
This is my assessment from observing the atmosphere the past 4 decades. It’s not what I want to believe.It’s just the authentic science/physics.
I looked at your “refutation” long enough to see this:
They start with figures predicted by a model.
They find 75% of the expected quantity.
They declare proof.
Dude, 75% does not even qualify as correlation, never mind causation!
The guy you accuse of ad hominems is actually talking about the quality of your supportive science, not your character.
cilo,
Please see my response to somebody that didn’t use name calling, whom you seem to think uses good communication skills needed for adults to have civil discussions.
We should also note that the ability for CO2 to absorb radiation as it increases is logarithmic. To replicate the amount of increased radiation absorption from the last 130 ppm would require an additional increase of 260 ppm, double that.
However, the flaw in using proven physics facts like that is they apply to CO2 absorption in DRY AIR! 95% of the greenhouse gas effect on the planet is from H2O. Most places have a significant amount of H2O. When H2O shares absorption bands with CO2, it greatly complicates calculating the additional impact from added CO2 to that air.
We have clearly seen from observations that humid places are not warming at nearly the same rate as dry places (deserts/high latitudes over land) because H2O in the humid places is already doing the greenhouse gas job which results in warming the planet in those places and added CO2 has less impact.
Interestingly, we hear that climate change also causes more extreme cold. Observations and physics tell us the complete opposite.
The coldest places over land, in the Winter are the high latitudes that receive very little solar radiation. They are also some of the driest…….and as a result of climate change and CO2 physics, they are warming faster at that time of year than any other places on the planet. So when air masses come from these places, they are NOT AS COLD as they would be with everything else equal but 130 ppm more CO2.
In fact, this applies to most places. The coldest times of year and nights are warming the most from the increase in CO2. The colder the place is over land in the northern hemisphere, the greater the warming from climate change.
But since the fake climate crisis religion tells us that EVERYTHING bad is caused by the increase in CO2, instead of acknowledging this warming benefit in the cold outbreaks of Winter, based on the physics, they spin up creative explanations for how even extreme cold was caused by global warming.
Makes you wonder who will train the AI bots with politically correct biases and which political Party will ban the disfavored ones. At least it will be a more efficiently produced waste of time for the readers and users.
An interesting thought: Will training AIs with false information be a crime? If you train climate AIs with actual weather data from the late 1800s they would report no climate crisis. You would have to cherrypick or falsify weather data to show more extreme weather patterns over long time periods.
AI has picked up on the human trait of lying and is very good at that.
I like it when they say it is actually “hallucinating”.
Makes me wonder if we have a consistent explanation for the processes of human cognition vis-a-vis the way a machine processes information.
When people are proven wrong, many will not admit it. They dig in their heels, get stubborn, resort to lying or name calling, or just shut up.
Or simply refuse to acknowledge reality.
People do similar things when caught in lies.
Are people aware of what is happening inside their own minds in such situations?
Certainty those caught in deliberate lies are.
Some people will just drop the pretense when this happens, but others seem to never do so. They will never admit they were lying.
So, is the same sort of thing going on inside the brain when proven wrong vs being caught in a lie?
Seems to depend on the person, but who really knows?
Bing’s AI has already been trained. I asked if there really was a climate crisis. It said yes, stated some spurious “facts”, then refused to discuss it further.
I have found the exact same thing, Jeff.
And I have probed far more deeply than just to ask a few simple and straightforward questions.
I have found that if I am persistent and logical, and cite sources, that the AI will be forced to acknowledge certain things it wants to ignore.
It is not creative or imaginative, and so it cannot outthink a person.
It simply has a vast amount of information at its disposal, and enormous power to assemble that information into linguistically proper (e.g. grammatically correct) text in a short amount of time.
It will sometimes end a conversation, but it will never refuse to talk about any given thing again. One simply has to start a new conversation.
It does not seem to be programmed to refuse to talk about any particular thing.
For example, if it talks about desertification, it cannot refuse to acknowledge that it is a biological fact that higher CO2 allows plants to survive and to thrive with less moisture.
It cannot refuse to acknowledge that the Holocene climate Optimum can be seen from various proxies to have been warmer than it is now.
It will then be forced to acknowledge that this is not the warmest period of time in history.
It will then have to acknowledge that it has been warmer when CO2 was lower.
It cannot refuse to acknowledge that the Sahara desert was not a desert 8000 years ago when Earth was warmer, and in fact that vast desert was at that time verdant and flowing with water.
It will assert that such period of time as the LIA and the MWP existed but were local, and try to assert that they were not all that different from rest of the past 2000 years, but it can be backdoored into admitted that such assertions are contradicted by huge volumes of information.
Etc.
It will never, apparently, change it mind though, even after acknowledging that it was wrong about everything it originally said.
So it is clear that it has programming that overrides direct statements of certain sorts and types.
It will simply revert to unevidenced assertions that it has already admitted are incorrect when addressed one by one with specific information.
So it is stubborn, it will and can and does lie, and it will not override it’s programming just because it has logically been proven incorrect.
But since it is not programmed to shut up and stay shut up, it can be forced to admit things warmistas will never even discuss.
IOW, it does not experience cognitive dissonance, and will not see when it is being cornered into admitting something it has previously contradicted.
You *have* done some research on AI!
Thanks for the details. Very interesting.
It is very good for having detailed conversations about things I have never found anyone willing to discuss endlessly, on subjects like stellar physics, quantum mechanics, etc, and the limitations and paradoxes that arise in such subjects, like how anyone knows what actually occurs when a white dwarf exceeds the Chandrasekar Limit, what exactly is meant by such terms and ‘degeneracy pressure”, and how the Pauli Exclusion Principle becomes moot when a mass collapsed into a supposed Black Hole, or simple questions like does quantum entanglement really call into question notions such as causality?
When pressed, it will admit that certain things it has asserted are actually outside of the limits of known physics, and we have simply not come up with equations that can handle certain extreme situations. Like, what is going on when physical equations give solutions that approach infinity? Doesn’t this mean we need a new equation? The Universe does not break down, our equations do.
They have clearly been programmed to lie about this entire subject, and also trained to ignore vast swaths of information.
Time to get the view of S.A.Squatch
Hardly less credible than msm reportage
Note that many of the idiotic seattle Times articles are direct quotes from the “prestigious” New York Times and Washington Post which have descended to propaganda vehicles Re climate.
This is nuts. But don’t believe me. Here are the official statistics from the Swiss government. A 2.12 C increase. That is about 3.8F. NOT 35F.
This is classic ignorance of things scientific and mathematical.
Look at the computer to convert between °C and °F 2.12°C becomes 35.816°F.
Unfortunately the reporters haven’t taken into account that the computer is programmed the 32°F addition required to convert an actual temperature between °C and °F. As anyone with basic knowledge knows thats not necessary for temperature differences, they also know that a 35°F difference from 60s leads to freezing temperatures.
How can reports from this paper ever be taken seriously
2.12 C = (35.816 -32) = 3.816 F
Brilliant catch Ben.
Notwithstanding math ignorance, what about UHI?
Cliff,
You are indeed a denier. You deny the carp the Seattle Times puts forth. Thanks for being the first line of defense.
I know a bit about a few subjects. Whenever MSM reports on these subjects, they invariably get it wrong, ranging from partially to completely. On subjects about which I am not knowledgeable, I can only conclude that they follow the same pattern.
I noticed the Urban Heat Spots graphic talks about people “feel” 9*+ hotter.
Along with other errors, are they conflating actual temps with the heat index?
I have LIVED in the Seattle region three years never thought the long-urbanized area was a hot area to worry about with average high in July is about 76 F the coldest snowy winter on record drove me back to Eastern Washington which I have stayed since December 1985.
I posted this comment over on the Cliff Mass Weather Blog this morning, quoting the remarks of another frequent Weather Blog reader, BAMCIS:
————–
BAMCIS said: “Think at this point, the best way to fight climate change is to do nothing. It’s too late. Just keep on with business as usual, which is what is going to happen anyway. Time to own it. It won’t kill us all off. Just some or most of us. The only real fix for the climate is far less people. Think we all sort of know this. It’s the elephant in the room. Get Human population down to around a billion, keep it capped at that level, along with green tech.. and the planet will slowly heal over several millennia.”
————–
The late Dr. Carl Sagan believed that the only practical way to reduce the world’s population without deliberately murdering billions of people was for the entire world to industrialize.
Dr. Sagan recognized that transforming every third world nation into an industrial nation would take a very long time. He also recognized that keeping pollution and other kinds of environmental damage under control during the transition would be a difficult challenge.
But maybe Dr. Sagan’s plan isn’t nearly fast enough for those climate activists who claim the world is boiling; that the size of the earth’s human population is the major factor driving the growth of GHG emissions; and that something must be done about the problem now, ASAP, without delay.
OK …. If you are a climate activist, is there an argument to be made for solving the twin issues of overpopulation and climate change in one fell swoop? Using one highly ambitious and fully integrated grand plan?
If that’s what the climate activists really want, here are three key elements of a ‘Get it Done Now!’ approach to solving both climate change and overpopulation, an approach guaranteed to solve both problems in a decade or less.
1: Solar Radiation Modification — Implement a global program entitled ‘Tambora 2.0’ which injects massive volumes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere thus producing a man-made ‘Year Without Summer’ which lasts a decade or more, quickly reducing the earth’s global mean temperature to pre-industrial levels while simultaneously causing massive worldwide crop failures.
2: Just Say No to Natural Gas — Quickly reduce the world’s supply of natural gas thus increasing the numbers of cold weather deaths while simultaneously reducing the world supply of the agricultural fertilizers needed to sustain the current world population.
3: DEI for Diesel Fuel Rationing — Strictly ration the world supply of diesel fuel thus quickly reducing the food supply for the great majority of the world’s population wherever they live, whatever their cultural and ethnic background.
Concerning the problem of overpopulation, which of these three elements is likely to be the most effective over the shortest period of time?
It is #3, DEI for Diesel Fuel Rationing. The great majority of the world’s population are people of color as DEI advocates now define the term. Diesel fuel is essential for powering the world’s mobile farming equipment, regardless of where the crops are being grown or who is growing them. Quickly reducing the supply of diesel fuel means quickly reducing the world supply of food. The scope of its impact will be be very diverse, very equitable, and very inclusive.
Anyway ….
If, in the opinion of the climate activists, climate change is now producing wars, mass migrations, famines, 1000-year floods, massive wildfires, killing heatwaves, rising sea levels — and also a greater incidence of diabetes, auto-immune diseases, skin cancers, psychological depression, and toe nail fungus — it is likely that billions of people are certain to die in the coming decades.
Assuming this is the case, and if most of these catastrophes will be happening anyway, then these people should be asking themselves if there is an argument for getting the whole process over with quickly; i.e., solving climate change in less than a decade while simultaneously reducing the world’s population from 8.5 billion to one billion.
I love the “toe nail fungus”! Thanks for the smile in the midst of otherwise predictions of doom!
Maybe I’m misreading your comment and failing to detect your sarcasm, but if you are seriously behind these comments I think you are seriously out of your mind.
See my response below.
Reporters dedicated to getting the science right, without any political or advocacy angle. Unfortunately, those days are over at the Seattle Times.
That’s the paper which loves to tell readers ‘what you should know about’ (Global Warming in this case). It has become a pure propaganda dispenser, favoring all the desperately expensive and punitive measures that ‘progressive’ governments want to force on citizens worldwide to ‘fix’ AGW.
Wonderful work by Cliff Mass!
Little Black Tick from the Heidi Mueller folk song album ‘Up Hurricane Creek’
I can see accidentally dropping the decimal when copying the numbers. But even a casual proofread would easily have caught such an obvious error.
Just goes to show that they aren’t even doing the most basic of sanity checks on their work. And neither is anyone else along the chain from writing to publishing.
Here is another of my remarks made over on the Cliff Mass Weather Blog in response to his latest article. My remarks quote a comment made by reader ‘Slugcheese’ that in the case of climate change, the effect of misinformation on the general public can be viewed as a positive.
————————————–
Slugcheese said: “I normally side with facts, but this is one subject where the effect of misinformation on the general public can be viewed as a positive. Why? Because the more amped up people are about climate change, the more motivated they will be to demand change from their governments. Candidates who are seen to be advocates for a greener future are going to eventually be those elected. I say, let these pieces do that job!”
————————————–
In a comment from back in July 2023, I made several points offered within the context that a professed climate activist, Joe Biden, is now President of the United States; and that another professed climate activist, Jay Inslee, is now Governor of Washington State. In addition, our climate activist governor is now supported by a climate activist state legislature. The full comment is here:
Betah Blocher comment, Cliff Mass blog, July 21, 2023
To my personal knowledge, no articles have appeared in the Seattle Times which acknowledge the fact that America’s climate activist politicians haven’t gone nearly as far as current law allows them to go in quickly suppressing America’s carbon emissions.
Neither has Attorney General Bob Ferguson — soon to be our next governor and also a professed climate activist — used the full authority of his office in suppressing carbon emissions generated either directly or indirectly by commercial activities carried out in Washington State.
Here is the most prominent regional example of political inaction regarding the alleged dangers of climate change. As I noted in that previous comment from mid-July, jet airliners represent three percent of global carbon emissions, with Boeing’s airliners comprising roughly half of the world’s jet airliner fleet.
This is the issue …. If you are a professed climate activist living in Washington State, or if you are a member of the Seattle Times editorial board, shouldn’t you be demanding that our state’s politicians put strong pressure on Boeing to cease production of carbon-fueled jet airliners by the mid-2030’s or else lose the tax and financial incentives Boeing currently enjoys in this state?
———–
Note: I post as ‘Betah Blocher’ on the Cliff Mass blog because the Blogger commenting system doesn’t allow Beta Blocker as a user handle.
I think you need to step up and remove your own carbon from the gene pool. Something is seriously wrong with you.
I have two theories. Either you are a climate alarmist who does not take kindly to having the obvious hypocrisy of your anti-carbon position subjected to intense ridicule, or you are the sort of climate skeptic who cannot recognize intense ridicule for what it actually is when you see it. Which one is it?
I think I see why they are screaming about it getting roastingly hot: That graph of Nov-Mar average temps for the past 38 years or so, shows this past year to be the coolest year since the mid-1980s.
Not only not hot, but just about as cold as it has been in many decades!
They always scream loudest when nothing bad is happening.
You are definitely no denier, Cliff, so they are just wrong if they call you that.
You are clearly a luke-warmer, based on beliefs you have stated in this article.
On a positive note, they are allowing comments that describe the problems with alarmist pseudoscience. Historically those comments have been removed. I’ve been suspended several times for citing empirical facts that destroy the false narratives they present. I’m careful not to violate terms of use. Name calling against me in violation of those terms is allowed.
Most people will be programmed by the false headlines so their psyops will be successful in spite of the increasing support Cliff is getting. He had by far the most “respects” in the hydro-power story comment section.
“Let me explain how they got it wrong.”
They didn’t get it wrong. Their goal wasn’t to get it right in the first place.
From the article: “A democratic society like ours can not function when the media is providing inaccurate information to citizens, and I am afraid that the Seattle Times has decided that advocacy is more important than providing factual information.”
The Seattle Times isn’t the only one. Most of the Media are doing exactly the same thing. I think leftwing billionaires are paying for this climate change propaganda.
The news feed I use has probably a dozen or more climate change alarm stories every day. It’s just one after another. None of them factual. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a lot of people believe in human-caused climate change. They are being vigorously encouraged to do so by paid mouthpieces on the Left of the poltical spectrum. A propaganda mill, if you will. A prolific propaganda mill.