Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
A website called Counterpunch.com ran a story on January 31st saying that we must solve climate change or disaster will befall us. The story is titled, “Solving Climate Change…or Else!” by Stan Cox. As we’ve written time and again on Climate Realism, these sorts of claims about worsening disasters are easily proven false simply by looking at historical data. The story cites other sources such as the New York Times but has no new information itself.
The story leads with this claim:
In December, the New York Times reported that “Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years and very likely the past 125,000.” (Though it’s not the Times’s style, that latter figure should have had a couple of exclamation points after it!) Furthermore, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s chief scientist, “Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record — it was the warmest by far.”
Then after establishing what they believed to be a record warm year, they immediately go towards trying to link catastrophes to the warmth in 2023 without any real evidence to support it.
And you don’t have to wait for the distant future to see the impact of such accelerated heating. Just look at current global data. Comparing 2023 to 2022, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported a worldwide rise of 60% in the number of deaths from landslides, 278% from wildfires, and 340% from storms.
First, the landslides claim. Landslides aren’t a direct result of climate change, but rather are a symptom of weather events, such as excess rainfall saturating the ground and weakening it. Put simply, weather events are not climate. The following table is from Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Page 90 of Chapter 12 Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment. It essentially charts the UN IPCC’s assessment of the odds that each type of extreme weather is due to climate change.
Second, the increased wildfires and storms claim made by counterpunch.com are also addressed by the IPCC in the table below.
As can be seen from the table, there is no evidence of any increase or decrease, globally or by region, in the frequency, severity or extent of frost, mean precipitation, river floods, heavy precipitation and pluvial floods, landslides, aridity, hydrological drought, agricultural or ecological drought, fire weather or wildfires, mean wind speed, severe wind storms or tornados, tropical cyclones or hurricanes, sand and dust storms, snow glacial or ice sheets, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, relative sea levels, coastal floods, coastal erosion, marine heatwaves, ocean acidity, or air pollution weather.
In addition to no increase in landslides or wildfires, the IPCC states there’s no increase in storms overall.
So, the “increasing disasters” claim made by counterpunch.com is completely nullified because there’s no evidence to support it whatsoever.
As for the claims of the hottest year ever in 2023 going back 125,000 years, that too is false. A study in 2013 by Marcott, et al. reconstructed temperatures from the present back to 11,300 years ago. Figure 2 shows clearly that temperatures about 9500 years ago known as the Holocene Climatic Optimum were warmer than present-day.
Clearly the author Stan Cox has no significant comprehension of climate data and climate history but prefers to simply regurgitate claims made in other publications as if they were fact. This lack of attention to detail and facts might explain why even after being online since 1993, counterpunch.com remains virtually unknown.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The claims of “increasing disasters” made by Climate Alarmists are under heavy pressure from the reality exposed in the real statistics on the Alarmists’ greatly desired disastrous climate-related events. There’s no evidence to support the alarm, only Alarmist hot air.
Every time they push those increasing disasters lie, they lose credibility since it has been well shown among climate realists that there is NO climate crisis developing thus their incessant lies are clearly propaganda.
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
This was posted right here almost 3 years ago, have yet to read of a warmist/alarmist address the content of the article.
Only “CLIMATE BENEFICIAL” in the last 150 years.
Warmer, so more crops and crop growing areas.
More CO2, so increased crop growth.. Looks like a new cereal crop harvest record in 2023.
Everyone living longer.
Has to be a better wording than “Climate Beneficial“..
One that resonates more.
Open to suggestions… one we can push out into the wider community.
Not catastrophic climate change, cheerful climate change. (The slogan sounds better when exclaimed with a smile than when viewed on the printed page).
We must remember that the climate alarmist crowd will try to link any adverse natural event as being attributable to human activity and especially fossil fuel consumption. So when they include earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, and epidemics as part of the mix, they undermine what little credibility they have even further, particularly when we find that neither governments, businesses, industries consistently show they don’t intend to make any operational or lifestyle changes to combat the “problem”.
Jane Fonda came to town yesterday, and today the falling snow is as heavy as we’ve seen in recent years.
Fonda probably attended some event with Al Gore.
However, I did not realize that the “Gore Effect” was a communicable disease.
It’s an STD – Socially Transmitted Disese. Elites have particularly vulnerable immune systems.
Having never heard of Counterpunch, did some quick looking. Based in California (of course). Country site rank 27838. Topic category rank 476. Total site visits since inception 705k. All of which means almost ‘nobody’ outside LA reads it. And AW’s post explains why.
BTW, the uptick at the end of Marcott’s 2013 temperature proxy reconstruction was created via proven academic misconduct (easily done by comparing his PhD thesis to his paper in Science based on it—there is even a smoking gun chart). It isn’t real. Exposed Marcott in essay ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Shrill voiced shills for the billionaire Clim-illiterati are always making unfounded claims about the state of the weather! In reality the Modern Climate Optimum is part of a geological era with some of the lowest CO2 levels and temperatures in ALL of geologic history!
Looking at Figure 1, a thinking person might conclude that CO2 levels began to creep up from Earth’s near death experience, during the last glacial period, as the oceans warmed and the Gas of Life came out of solution so that the biosphere could once again flourish. A KrazyKlimateKook will hurl anathemas and doomsday predictions while the Earth grows greener and more biodiverse; it’s almost as if the carbon they call a pollutant are the life forms most REAL environmentalists love!
The Marcott, et al reconstruction ends in the mid-20th century, year zero in the series represents the year 1950. So you need to append the instrumental temperature record to bring temperatures up to present day and align it with your CO2 series:
I’m sure that since this was a simple oversight you will amend the post and correct the error.
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW, Marcott himself said it wasn’t statistically valid thus that red line which doesn’t show up in his thesis paper doesn’t belong there and they have wildly difference resolution values another reason why it is invalid.
Typical WUWT. Marcott is invoked to prove something, and then what he really said is pointed out, scorn is poured on the recent hero. So where does that leave the post?
But in fact the red line isn’t in any Marcott publication. Someone has added it to show the extent of recent warming. Marcott only went up to 1950 at most.
You must read in a hurry as you missed this:
Oops!
My dispute was over the redline at far left of the chart Alan posted.
I meant far RIGHT edge of the fake chart Alan posted.
Nick, Marcott committed scientific misconduct in his reconstruction. Unfortunate that AW did not know that, Equally unfortunate that you didn’t either. Shows the corruption of journals as August as Science.
backstory. I wrote then senior editor of Science at the time (Marsha McNutt) providing the incontrovertible proof of scientific misconduct, requesting retraction. Her assistant acknowledged receipt, then nothing. Such is the corruption of ‘climate science’
“Unfortunate that AW did not know that,”
And odd, if true. But if true, then where does it leave his post?
Of course, it isn’t true.
Nick again CONDONING scientific corruption, as is his way.
Marcott did not commit scientific misconduct in his reconstruction.
He acknowledged that splicing that red line is is completely inappropriate and did not expect the red line to be used.
His reconstruction was on a far lower resolution, over thousands of years.
A bit like saying you can easily cheat the ASDA self check out by weighing Avacadoes as carrots but I don’t want anyone to do that.
It’s why ASDA shoppers eat a couple of stones of carrots per week, nobody is cheating on the checkouts.
Yes, this is the correct Marcott graph. Fig 2 in the text shows a much greater range; I don’t know where it came from.
I have tracked down where Fig 1 here came from. It was an Andy May post of about 8 years ago. He said the plot could be found on a page called Knownothung’s bucket, now dead link. But the Liu paper referenced makes clear that the Marcott plot is not global, but region 30N-90N.
You forgot to post the link to his post.
OK, it’s here. Andy says he got it from Javier’s book, and doesn’t seem to care much what it represents. But he references Liu’s paper, where it is Fig 3B, 30N-90N.
And the stupid mathematician has a yap.
You cannot splice hi-res instrumental data on the end of proxy data… unless you are mathematically illiterate.
Marcott has a resolution of maybe 100-200 years.
That means we have either none or one dots in the instrumental record
And that dot would be the average of the last 100 years.
The red part of your graph is total nonsense, just like everything else you put forward.
The instrumental data is smoothed to the resolution of the proxies as you can clearly see. Regardless, the point is that the Marcott reconstruction as shown does not encompass the modern warming period, whatever you think of the approach of plotting instrumental temps alongside the reconstruction.
LOL,
You don’t even realize what you stated here is utter nonsense.
Here is a quote from Marcott himself:
The stated resolution of his proxies is over 300 years while there isn’t more than 175 years of that red line, how stupid can you be?
LINK
“how stupid can you be?”
At the moment, AlanJ is only capable of being INCREDIBLY STUPID.
But he is constantly striving for more.
He is likely a teenager as he was completely unaware of Marcott statement about that redline which was posted TEN YEARS ago!
WUWT addressed it 10 years ago and I was there to read it while he was in late toddler stage.
LINK
“and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions”
It isn’t the basis of any conclusion here either. Marcott shows a LIA. The red curve shows how much measured temperatures have risen since the LIA. That really happened.
The redline is highly misleading as it is tacked onto a Proxy only baseline which is posted as >300 years resolution thus not a valid measure.
No one here disputes that it has been warming since around 1700 and that warming trend started nearly 200 years BEFORE CO2 started going up.
Don’t you warmist/alarmists ever pause to think of the forest instead of a stupid dishonest red line?
The red line shows no such thing. It is faked GISS data.
It also should never be tacked onto ocean proxies.
That is manifest and deliberate misinformation.
And you, even as a pretend mathematician, should be up in arms about it, not condoning it.
“The red line shows no such thing. It is faked GISS data.”
Yeah, the “red curve” is not “measured” temperature data, it is made-up data, used to fool people into thinking we are living in the hottest times in human history.
It’s the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science.
Actually since MArcott is mostly ocean temperatures, and whole-of-ocean temperature change, even using faked agenda-driven models of OHC, is probably well less than 0.1C,..
… it certainly DOES show that most of the Holocene was warmer than now.
No counter to the facts??
OK, expected. !
one wonders where Marcott got his data for ocean temperatures thousands of years ago?
I bet I know where he got his data: From the same place Phil Jones and the other temperature data mannipulators, who rigged the instrument-era temperature record, got their bogus sea surface temperature data.
You do seem to insist on missing the point. The point is that Marcott does not show the modern warming period. Thus the claim that Marcott shows that the early Holocene was warmer than the modern warm period is categorically false. Marcott shows no such thing.
Showing that Marcott did not think the 20th century portion of the reconstruction was particularly robust reinforces this point, it does not detract from it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Your backtracking is funny!
Actually, the chart at the top of the post shows it was indeed much warmer according to Marcott based on his proxy data that show even the RWP was warmer than now.
Not only that it shows that while CO2 was rising for thousands of years the planet was cooling for thousands of years…… at the SAME TIME and for the last 6,000 years it has been this way according to the two papers listed on the chart.
You need to see an ophthalmologist.
Marcott doesn’t show “now,” it shows data prior to the mid-20th century. How can it show that anything was warmer than now? This is the singular point raised in my initial comment, a point which you all have done anything but address.
Yes, these folk are just too angry to remember which side they are on.
And you are too senile. !
LOL, you again make people wonder if you are self-aware.
So even the up-tick at the end is a fantasy, based on non-robust data.
Ok, thanks for that AlanJ.
And of course we know how current OHC compares to the rest of the Holocene..
Get a magnifier and see the little red squiggle at the end
No , You are missing the point.
What you have done with the red line is manifest mathematical and scientific maleficence.
Only person being FOOLED by your constant garbage, is YOU.
“correct the error.”
Yes, your farcical anti-mathematics error has been corrected. !
Marcott proxies are main tree rings, constrained by a deficit of CO2.
Many real proxies from around the world show the Holocene Optimum being a few to several degrees warmer.
Maybe you would like to figure out how peat bogs grew, where now they are frozen in permafrost
…and how much warmer it must have been for trees to grow where now there are glaciers.
Don’t be a climate change DENIER.
Ends in 1940, ? So where is a cooling of 0.4C from 1940-1970?
Your graph is a TOTAL FAKE !
Your graph is a fake. You have no NCAR source.
Many years ago, I got actual information that the chart was indeed real and was posted by NCAR in 1974.
I forgot the man’s name who worked there the one who tracked the temperature data for NCAR at the time.
It says it is from NCAR at the bottom of the chart.
Plenty of other temperature data from the period to back it up.
Only thing FAKE around here is YOU.
Here’s one showing about a 0.8C DROP from1956-1975
Here’s one that shows a simliar cooling from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s, the U.S. regional chart (Hansen 1999):
And Hansen showing a drop of over 1.2C in the Arctic.
And another showing a drop of 0.6C from 1958 to1963
Well if it aint the miniMannster replicating Mikeys trick.
” Figure 2 shows clearly that temperatures about 9500 years ago known as the Holocene Climatic Optimum were warmer than present-day.”
No, it doesn’t show that. The graph goes up to 0 BP, which is 1950. GISS has 2023 1.17°C warmer than the 1951-80 average, so 2023 was warmer than the smoothed HCO maximum. Whether individual years at that time could have been warmer is speculative, unassisted by Matcott.
You cannot use GISS , it is FAKED and maladjusted non-data.
You also cannot use a single point graphed against low-resolution proxy data.
It is totally meaningless.
You, being a PRETEND mathematician should know that..
… so we can only assume that your comment is deliberate and deceitful fakery.
There is plenty of evidence from all around the world that the Holocene optimum was from a few to several degrees warmer.
Don’t be a climate change DENIER. !!
You treat anomalies like they are real temperatures. They are not. You have no idea what the baseline temperature was from the proxy and therefore no way to align them. We could be 10 degrees warmer or colder that the baseline temperature of the proxy and no one know for sure.
As bnice200 says, even the time frames are totally out of whack. Trying to make a case that ΔT can tell you what was warmer or colder is grasping at straws.
The real issue is looking to see what ΔT does with CO2.
“ You have no idea what the baseline temperature was from the proxy and therefore no way to align them.”
Each proxy is known as a real temperature, just as thermometers are. Anomaly formation pre averaging is done in the same way, relative to 1510-1450 BP. The Marcott average is relative to 1961-90. The realignment is done via a calibrated proxy average over 2000 years.
Oh my god!
You used an annual averaged based baseline (1961-1990) to couple with posted >300 years proxy baseline data points this means they are NOT real temperature data but an inferred temperature value that isn’t connected to an annual value.
You really believe your bullshit, Nick?
Not only that, but Nick is well aware that the GISS fabrication is totally fake as well as being manifestly infected with urban warming…
.. and he is saying it is OK to splice this hi-res crap onto what are mostly very smoothed ocean based proxies.
That is mathematical IDIOCY.. and I suspect Nick is well aware of that fact.
.. but cannot allow himself to be honest enough to say so.
Yeah, they almost disappeared the cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s thus I have zero confidence in their ever-changing datasets.
“You used an annual averaged based baseline (1961-1990) to couple with posted >300 years proxy baseline data points”
Not me. The diagram (Fig 1 above) was posted by, I believe, Anthony Watts.
===
The 1961-1990 baseline came from Alans fake chart, LINK
Anthony never mentioned a 1961-1990 base line or such chart anywhere in the post.
You have been making a lot of elementary errors in the comment thread are you drinking heavily tonight as you are clearly reading poorly.
Seems Nick’s dementia is getting worse.
Although he has never been able to keep his LIES and MISINFORMATION straight.
“Anthony never mentioned a 1961-1990 base line”
So what do you think the baseline is? He said it was Marcott’s data, and Marcott used 1961-90.
It’s actually not global but NH region 30N-90N. But whatever.
“NH region 30N-90N. “
So it can be put against the huge number of NH proxies showing much warmer period through the Holocene..
… and be shown to have temperature values that are a fraction of what most proxies show..
Here’s one showing Baltic sea bottom temperatures being some 8C+ higher during the Holocene Optimum.
Oh dearie me, another pathetic red thumber with no data and no argument..
Wonder which loser it is this time ?
Well that’s got the red thumber struck DUMB, hasn’t it !!
Oh wait.. it was always a dumb ***k !!
You should stop dishonestly covering your backtracking errors it looks really bad.
Actually, tommy, its daytime down here.
… and its pretty warm..
… so Nick is probably in his air-conditioned study gulping down scotch or something similar.. at least half a bottle down. !
Home truths, Nick ?
They can really get you, can’t they !
No, Nick, it was your fellow AGW cultist that posted the graph with the idiotic red line on it.
And you have been trying to protect him since then.
Are you now prepared to respond to AlanJ telling him that his graph is mathematical malpractice??
Or will you just slither away and hide.
So, Nick has made other posts, but has NOT lectured AlanJ about his mathematical malfeasance.
Why is that do you think !! 😉
Is that you Nick.. giving the thumb, then running away !!
How can you combine the two instrumental series on a single graph, treating them as if they can be compared and assessed with equal significance?
If the temperature shown is an anomaly, it is not a real absolute temperature. It is a ΔT from a baseline. Show us what the baseline temperature is for the proxy!
Do you really think tree rings can tell you absolute temperatures? They can only tell you how temperatures CHANGED many moons ago and even that has a large uncertainty. Do you know what Marcott’s uncertainty is for the time resolution used?
They will ignore this because that spoils their climate crisis delusion they fight hard to defend since they are unable to think for themselves.
That is why they keep using that fake Marcott chart AlanJ used here all over the internet despite that it was exposed to be invalid 10 years ago.
Somehow the climate scientists and the statistics support have fostered the mistaken assumption that anomalies are real temperatures that can be compared wily only as if the have a common baseline.
You can compare rates of change as here, but you have no way to know if their base temperatures compare at all.
I have no faith in universities south of the Equator based on the crap coming out of you folks in New Zealand and Australia. Maybe all the blood pooling in your heads down in the antipodes is the issue.
Nick, would you please show us your solar panels on the roof and yard, your bicycle, or horse, and how you are the very model of a modern major stone age man? I bet you use fossil fuels every day.
Stone Age – Wikipedia
Living in central Victoria, as he does, he probably has a big SUV or Ford 1500 style work truck.
He couldn’t exist where he is without copious amounts of fossil fuel use, himself and for food supply etc etc.
House is most probably a large spacious farm-house with wood heating in winter, and air-conditioners run off the Victoria grid, which during the evenings is mostly powered by brown coal. (84% last night).
Nick is probably nearly as big a hypocrite as John Kerry, who he undoubtedly worships.
Again, red thumb no counter.
Too close to the facts, hey Nick !!
Yep ,Nick or one of his cowardly AGW comrades.
bnice2000,
I disapprove of this tactic of inventing a scenario attributed to a person. Please use some respect and write about fact rather than imagination when on a science topic on a science blog.
You can use supporting info, in this case a photo of the said ute and of the said home. If you do not have such evidence, best not to imagine. Geoff S
“No, it doesn’t show that. The graph goes up to 0 BP, which is 1950. GISS has 2023 1.17°C warmer than the 1951-80 average,”
Yeah, but GISS doesn’t show the warm Early Twentieth Century or the significant cooling that took place after that from 1940 to the late 1970’s.
You are describing a climate alarmist fantasy world. Computer-generated lies about the Earth’s climate and weather do not trump actual data, and the actual data does not show that today is hotter than anytime in the past. You, and your fellow travelers are making it all up, and presenting it as facts.
The insturment-era temperature record is the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science. You perpetrate a BIG LIE by advocating for the bogus, bastadized instrument-era temperature record. The written, hitorical temperature records from around the world refute your bogus Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. No unmodified, written regional temperature record has a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile. So how do you put that kind of data into your computer and come out with a completely different temperature profile? Answer: Data Mannipulation.
Alarmist Climate Scientists are lying to the world when they claim that we are living in the hottest times in human history. All the actual evidence shows otherwise. The actual evidence shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and that current warming is not unprecendented.
A little cadre of dishonest temperature data manniplators have fooled almost the whole world with their bogus temperature profile creation.
How do you get a Hockey Stick profile out of non-Hockey Stick temperature data? Answer; You can’t, legitimately. And the only data available to these data mannipulators was non-Hockey Stick data. So they cheated and lied about the temperature profile, and are still doing so, costing us TRILLIONS of dollars and possibly our personal freedoms.
The BIG LIE has BIG, DIRE CONSEQUENCES! It has turned our world upside down.
Out of sick fascination, I subscribe to CounterPunch. I cannot tell if the editorial position is Trotskyite or Maoist, but they are definite unapologetic Marxists.
On climate change, they have much the same position as the Democratic party. Which says quite a lot about the Democrats.
Nice that the global temperature reconstruction by Marcott et al., 2013 got past the IPCC censors during the first year of Obama’s second term. Thereafter graphs that fail to match the corrupt climate agenda became verboten for lack of peer review approval.
Tree ring derived graphs are nonsense, because CO2 levels were the constraint on growth for most of that period…
.. that is, until humans started using COAL in earnest (and elsewhere) and saved the planets biosphere from near starvation.
Most of Marcott’s reconstruction was ocean cores interpreting various carbonate composition ratios, not tree rings.
So they are of ocean sediments, which of course would show much less range than land due to the oceans being one massive heat sink.
How much has “whole of oceans” warmed since 1950….. as if we really know.
Also, near surface ocean plants are also affected by low-CO2 levels, as shown by the increased growth now they have sufficient CO2.
But it now makes even less sense to be hacking hi-res GISS fakery onto the end of it.
“How much has “whole of oceans” warmed since 1950….. as if we really know.”
Yeah, like we know the temperatures.
In my estimation, sea surface temperatures are about 99 percent made up out of whole cloth, from the fevered imaginations of climate change alarmists.
Using Bogus sea surface temperatures is the technique the Temperature Data Mannipulators used to cool the past in their instrument-era reconstruction and erase the Early Twentieth Century warming and the significant cooling afterwards, from the temperature record, making it appear that today is the warmest period in human history. In other words, this is how they created the bogus, bastardized “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart.
They couldn’t get a Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile out of the available land surface temperature data because the land surface temperature data does not show a Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” profile. Instead, the written land temperature records show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. No “hotter and hotter” there.
So, in order to change this benign temperature profile into a scary, hotter and hotter profile, the Temperature Data Mannipulators added in bogus sea surface temperatures that cooled the past and made the present look super hot.
The bogus, hotter and hotter, Hockey Stick temperature profile is the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science.
The truth is it is no warmer today than in the recent past. There is no unprecedented warming today, even though there is more CO2 in the air.
The obvious conclusion is that CO2 has had no discernable effect with regard to increasing the Earth’s temperatures because the Earth’s temperatures have not increased compared to the Early Twentieth Century.
A BIG LIE has been perpetrated about the Earth’s climate and CO2, and the aftereffects are about to destroy Western civilization as we know it.
A VERY BIG LIE.
We need less tree ring studies, and more tree stump studies.
Tree stump studies show it was warmer in the past than it is today.
We have evidence for trees growing in the past in areas where it is too cold for trees to grow today. What better evidence can there be that it was warmer in the past than it is today? Who can deny this?
Nick can deny it. And with a straight face.
Maybe through luck, perhaps otherwise, the evidence of academic fraud at every level has suddenly been exposed, plagiarism, contrived evidence, statistical fabulism and bogus computer models are beginning to appear everywhere. The best use for AI large language models might be to authenticate or dismiss scientific studies if the AI itself can be proven reliable.
The latest startling revelations from academia mean that these institutions must collectively clean house or suffer the consequences. Meaningless elections could actually result in government funding of institutional fraud coming to an end, since the funds disbursed are public funds. An individual running for office on a platform of tying government largesse to academia to its integrity could attract voters that are only just becoming aware that there is as much rot or more in the educational/research world as anywhere else. At the moment, the universities seem to be united in standing up to the scrutiny they deserve. Maybe the option of serious jail time would change someone’s mind. It wouldn’t take many.
I used to be proud of having three degrees (and almost 4—long story with short summary, could not afford another year even though had undergrad summa thesis accepted for the PhD) from Harvard. No longer.
It is OK Rud, we know your academic creds are from a time before Harvard turn into a socialist anti-science cesspit !
So just another current-day Western “education” institution?
It’s an indoctrination center now.
All sorts of Bad Characters are giving money to all sorts of American universities and colleges to promote their particular political propaganda, which is mostly marxist or radical islamist.
So we get a lot of marxists and radical islamists out of our univerisities and colleges now.
The biggest bad character is the federal government and Marx has nothing to do with it. It’s all about money, money for reinforcing bogus research, money for media click-bait, money for government, money for renewable business. Despite being based on mendacity, it couldn’t be more capitalist. Like everything in the post-modern world, if there isn’t any money involved it doesn’t happen.
Arab countries and the Chicoms and numerous leftwing billionaires are paying American schools to promote their radical ideologies.
That’s a fact.
lts impossible to make any claims that 2023 has been the hottest year with any confidence.
When the post 1980 temp trends have been turned into overcooked garbage due to the lack of care about the switch over from glass to electonic thermometers.
Seriously am amazed that its had the amount of credibility its had over the years. When it looks so obviously fake and unreal.
The one COUNTERPUNCH article, seems to say…”We gonna soak the rich!” The favorite motto of Marxists.
l find it really telling that in the “heat and cold” block in the table above.
That its only Frost that has shown no climate trend, that’s exactly as l would expect when the recent warming trend has been based largely on incorrect data. As the other trends are based on man made data.
To be fair to Stan Cox, the author of this hysterical alarmist crap, is a crop breeder. I would expect him to understand weather as well as he would understand any other complex system, not very well at all. When your entire career and income is based on securing grants, you’re chicken little with your hand in the public’s pocket. Basically a cry-bully.
Speaking of punching back perhaps the XY chromosomes are beginning to-
Sky News host demands defunding of ‘stupid universities’ churning out ‘woke idiots’ (msn.com)
Even the women are noticing the pendulumn has swung too far but be careful mentioning it-
Woman receives ‘pile on’ after complaining about lack of ‘positive male lead characters’ – YouTube
OTOH faced with an inculcated growing generation of self-entitled narcissistic princesses supercharged by toxic social media rational young men avoid them and leave them to their own devices-
Modern Women RUINED The Gym For Everyone (youtube.com)
This is not building the good society leftys and speaking of that step outside feminazis and what do you see? All around you is what men largely build as their part of the biological bargain. Traditional conservatives understand it well and enjoy the fruits of that powerful partnership but only if both genders have the right values that work.
Deforestation also contributes to landslides. Like when people cut down trees for fire wood when fossil fuel based energy sources are denied them in order to save the planet.
meanwhile, from Tony Heller’s latest:
Living The Green Dream
“Fifty years ago today, the lead story in the New York Times was people lined up for hours to purchase gasoline.”
I remember that well, trying to get through NYC that day low on gas.
I understand the claim about a one-in-125.000 years event comes from the standard deviation calculated for last year, but that is only true for random data series that follow the Bell curve, which is not probably the case of chaotic weather events, accrfing to the temperature graphs constantly presented. The claim would thus arise from misunderstanding basic statistics math.
I seem to recall an initiative to start a website/page akin to Epstein’s “Energy Talking Points.” The point was to collect a bunch of demonstrated, essentially proven points that could be used to counter claims made by alarmists. As an example, the claim that EVs contribute less carbon might be countered by adding up the CO2 used in the mining, refining, transport, and shaping of the various parts needed and including the CO2 released in the generation of electricity used in the charging of the batteries (don’t forget the battery farms necessary to keep the grid going when wind and sun aren’t available) not to mention the energy needed to build out the grid to transport the electricity and the replacement of the local transformers for the individual charging stations.
Maybe I am wrong and that wasn’t an initiative of this site. If anyone knows where I might find such a site, I’d appreciate a direction sign.