The Associated Press (AP) recently published an article, titled “From Deluges To Drought, Climate Change Speeds Up Water Cycle, Triggers More Extreme Weather.” The article is false. Evidence clearly indicates that no changes in extreme weather trends are found in the data and, as such, no changes can be tied to climate change.
“Scientists have warned for decades that rising global temperatures would juice the water cycle, leading to more intense storms, worse droughts, and more chaotic shifts between the two,” says the AP’s article. This tired trope assumes climate change drives individual weather events, a point factually refuted repeatedly in rebuttals at Climate Realism.
Examining actual data blows down the AP’s extreme weather “juicing” fantasy faster than a house of cards in a windstorm.
Let’s start with floods. For example, the Climate Realism piece “No, Reuters, Climate Change Is Not Increasing the Impact of Floods”, cites NOAA’s historical flood records to prove these events have ebbed and flowed naturally for centuries—long before SUVs roamed the earth.
Then there’s drought: Climate at a Glance: Drought lays out the U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index, showing no long-term trend toward worsening conditions over the past 120 years, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, often the go-to for climate alarmists, even admits low confidence in linking extreme weather shifts to human CO2 emissions—a nuance the Seattle Times, which carried the AP’s story, conveniently skips.
But it doesn’t stop there. The AP’s obsession with a “juiced” water cycle glosses over natural climate drivers like El Niño and La Niña, which have dictated weather swings for millennia.
Strong evidence for this comes from the study “Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch”, published in Nature. This research analyzed a 10,000-year sediment record to reconstruct variability over the Holocene (the last ~11,700 years). The study found that El Niño and La Niña (ENSO) events—marked by changes in precipitation and sediment deposition—have occurred for at least 10,000 years, with their frequency and intensity fluctuating naturally over decades, centuries, and millennia.
“ENSO variability has been a persistent feature of the tropical Pacific climate system throughout the Holocene,” state the authors of the study. They link these cycles to significant weather swings, such as flips from wetter to drier conditions.
The Seattle Times uncritically republished the AP article. What about the Pacific Northwest’s wet-to-dry cycles affecting Seattle? Historical records—detailed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011, titled “Drought variability in the Pacific Northwest from a 6,000-yr lake sediment record,” analyzed a sediment core from Castor Lake in Washington to reconstruct 6,000 years of deluge/drought history in the Pacific Northwest. It found that wet and dry cycles have fluctuated naturally over millennia, with some dry periods lasting decades, driven largely by natural climate patterns like El Niño/La Niña.
Getting back to the AP’s article, it also claims:
Oceans absorb most of the planet’s extra heat. That causes the water to expand and ice to melt at the poles, raising sea levels. The warmer water also provides fuel for larger hurricanes and cyclones that can dump massive amounts of water in a short time.
Those claims are easily refuted. Data presented in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes demonstrates definitively that global cyclone activity has remained stable, with no climate change fingerprint to be found. Also, Sea levels have been naturally and gradually rising long before “climate change” was ever a twinkle in the eye of the media.
Other data reveal that wilder swings in extreme weather occurred during the early 20th century, and before, like during the 1930s Dust Bowl, when CO2 levels much lower than at present. Floods in the past, like the devastating 1911 Green River Valley inundation, or the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, dwarf many modern events, yet we’re supposed to believe this is all new? The AP also ignores inconvenient truths, like how improved infrastructure, better forecasting, and improved warning systems have reduced weather-related deaths by more than 90 percent over the last century. A 2021 World Health Organization report confirms deaths from extreme weather have declined dramatically.
“Thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold,” reported the WMO.
Above the AP’s article, next to a donate button, is the statement: “AP SETS THE STANDARD FOR POLITICAL REPORTING. SUPPORT INDEPENDENT, FACT-BASED JOURNALISM.”
Yet the evidence is clear that while the AP is hyping claims of a ‘juiced” water cycle based on unsubstantiated, vague experts claims, the agency ignored government studies and peer reviewed reports that undermine such a conclusion. For example. NASA’s Global Precipitation Climatology Project, examined global precipitation trends and determined that current variability is well within historical norm; no water cycle juicing is in evidence. Also, Climate Realism has published dozens of articles citing real-world data which demonstrate that neither wildfire nor hurricane nor tornado trends are worsening at all, much less worsening in response to purported climate change, here, here, and here, for example.
“Fact based?” Hardly, since the agency routinely, as its “reporters” did in this story, ignores mountains of easily found data that undermine claims the world faces a climate crisis. Shame on the Associated Press for this journalistic malpractice.
The Fourth Estate is supposed to inform, not indoctrinate. In this story, the AP gets an “F” for false reporting.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

But the AP is reporting on a higher truth, i.e. a story one can only believe if high.
AP = Always Propaganda.
The article is false because AP journalists refuse to use the accepted definitions of climate and weather when writing stories.
Climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given area.
Therefore, the weather must change for 30 years before the climate can change.
Reversing the cause and effect results in circular reasoning.
Such is the level of excellence that the AP is claiming in journalism today.
They never will learn it, or they lie.
They learn to lie better as time marches on.
Practice makes perfect
May they rot in hell!
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
So much so, that it is impossible to isolate any CO2 caused warming in the last 45 years of reasonably untainted satellite data.
And certainly the surface data is totally unfit for any CO2 attribution.
If there is any, its basically immeasurable.
Shula, and several others, say that the actual physics shows there is zero warming from incremental CO2
It may well be that increasing CO2 causes a trivial minor cooling.
The jury is still out on that.
No, it has no warming effect at all, if you are defining warming as being an increase in temperature. The atmosphere cools at night. Adding CO2 to air does not make the surface hotter.
Rather the opposite, as Tyndall’s experiments demonstrate.
I accept reality.
They never will learn not to lie.
…. which is obvious from the post-Trump election mainstream disgusting media. You would think they would have a choice other than to be miserable and violently angry but no, it’s in their nature.
In 1983 climate went from ice age to global warming.
Seems those 30 years went by in less than 12 month.
Probably the most relative time ever.
I was taught many years ago that there were 5 different climates on Earth which were the polar, the Tropics, the rain forests, the deserts and the temperate climates. Very few articles mention that now “climate” means 30 years of weather.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of differentiated climates all around this planet.
All daily influenced by their geography, their latitudes, their seasonal cycles, their atmospheric peculiarities and of course the urbanity, vegetation and water bodies proximity.
There is no such thing as a “global climate”.
The number of defined ‘climates’ depends on the classification system being used. The most commonly used modern system, Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification, has more than 3X the categories that you remember, albeit your 5 super-categories are the foundation. Classification, in general, usually tries to create categories that are unambiguous and serve some functional purpose. The Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification is strongly dependent on temperatures, precipitation, and types of vegetation. Köppen was a botanist and was driven to develop a classification system that explained or predicted what types of plants grew in different areas. Because plants can take years to grow, and the mix of different types of plants can change over the years, it is obvious that climate implies reasonably consistent weather over a period of time that is somewhat arbitrary, but still longer than a year or even decade.
Or even 3 decades.
The “30 years” is entirely arbitrary, meaningless and WAY too short.
There are ocean cycles that last twice that long, and you would need more than one to measure the variability *just* from those.
The 30 year definition was chosen approximately 30 years after the first satellites were operational.
Speculative, of course, as correlation does not imply causation.
This is a completely arbitrary number, pulled whole from someone’s fundament. It has absolutely zero scientific basis.
Indeed, choosing a 30 year interval for a system that quite clearly demonstrates a roughly 60 year cycle (among other cycles), is a sure way to deceive people by pretending that a 30 year trend will continue indefinitely, when it’s only half of the cycle. It’s a bit like predicting tomorrow’s temperature as 20K higher than today’s based on the 10K increase since midnight.
Don’t fall for their bullshit.
And 30 years is nowhere near long enough.
The novel definition of climate change is any time weather is different than the 30 year average, which occurs pretty much every second 24/7/365. Any time the weather is different than the average the average changes, so climate is constantly changing. Climate is a 30 year running average, so any deviation today from the same instance 30 years ago effects climate change.
Very nice Anthony. The purpose of the AP is to indoctrinate the average guy into believing what the AP believes. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with science or climate. It’s not just the AP all of the mainstream media are guilty, public education is guilty, international organizations are guilty, NGOs are guilty and our own government is guilty. We need to reach the common guy, the other side knows how important it is to convince them but I don’t think we have accepted what needs to be done. We know the CAGW clowns have no proper science to back up their claims, getting them to change their minds is a waste of time. Concentrate on the average guy just like the AP and the others do.
First step is to teach or instill critical thinking. Just from TV advertising, for decades, the public has been taught to not think and to have a 13 second attention span.
Another example of leftist-funded alarmism. Chances are excellent that the various organizations attempting to profit from such propaganda consistently pay under the table various media organizations to publish or air climate-related doomsday scenarios that are nothing more than exaggerated or fake news. This one’s another example and fortunately WUWT is right on top of the action to refute the claims.
BBC reports that AP is ‘beyond fake news’. Says it all.
Do you have a link to that Rud? I wanna use that one. When thieves fall out, eh?
Meanwhile, knock me over with a feather – I was 99.9% sure the author was going to be Seth Goebbelstein.
Why do we call these people leftists? Leftism used to be really about the poor and working people (I was one before I (and they, the real ones, not these elitist a-holes) helped pay my way to a higher degree, a legal immigration to Canada and the USA.
I suppose we could call them what they are – lying, cheating, parasitic pigs – but I guess “leftist” is now the catch-all term for them (especially now that liberal and progressive have also become a joke).
It is interesting that “leftists,” and especially “progressives,” think that if a word is associated with undesirable or pejorative characteristics, such as behavior, that all one has to do to eliminate bias is to invent (or more commonly, re-define an existing word with an established positive reputation) a new word. What they don’t realize is that the word associated with behavior that is generally not approved of, isn’t responsible for the negative opinion of the word. The word and the behavior come to be associated. Use a new word for the same behavior, and it won’t take long before the new word is similarly associated with the undesirable behavior. Part of the process usually requires that the use of the original word that has become pejorative be banned in ‘polite company,’ or otherwise censored as politically incorrect.
You nailed it.
A liar calling another liar a liar?
It’s a bit like the denizens of some US Federal Govt Departments now calling the DOGE crew to tip them off about the crap that goes on in their depts.
Or the scene in Life Of Brian at the stoning of the Jehovah blasphemer where all the disguised women pointed the finger at each other.
Desperate times require desperate measures, hey?
Alarmist media hyperbole increases exponentially.
More rain AND more drought? Opposite effects from the same cause? Leftist religion.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
“The children aren’t going to know what snow is” (when a winter with little snow occurs)
“Heavier snowfalls are ‘consistent with’ global warming” (when a winter with record breaking snowfall occurs)
And those quotes if my memory serves me correctly were less than 5 years apart. Without the slightest embarrassment among those preaching about the ‘crisis’ that doesn’t exist.
Sea level rise is accelerating…Montana’s glaciers will be gone by 2020…kids won’t know what snow is…the thing is, they’re only supposed to make bad predictions that don’t come true only until long after they’re gone, or forgotten.
“kids won’t know what snow is”
… a case of mass hysteria.. !
Snow mass is way above the 1982-2012 mean… maybe even +3SDs
Ocean levels will be up 20 meters. A.Gore, The Inconvenient Truth.
He now has a mansion on the beach.
Ooh, that settles it.
If ‘Climate realism’ says it’s so then it must be so.
Who funds Climate Realism, by the way?
We are not told – but we can guess.
You don’t have to guess – you can go to AI and ask. Took me about 30 seconds:
The Climate Realism website (ClimateRealism.com) is funded and operated by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for promoting climate change skepticism. The Heartland Institute has received funding from various sources, including:
Show us some science and your maths, appropriately named final nail.
Meanwhile Associated Press has morphed into a Berkeley-style left-wing cesspool with Trump Derangement Syndrome and they are so much more believable 🙂
Phil,
I found the claims from your AI experience to be suspect and went out to MSN’s Copilot, and asked in particular about tobacco companies contributing to anthropogenic climate change skepticism.
It started out with a reference to Dr. Fred Singer (deceased) accepting money 30-years ago for research on tobacco, before he got involved in the climate issue. When I challenged it, it readily admitted that its answer was innuendo and non-responsive to my question about amounts of money from tobacco companies and when. It then repeated itself and when I complained it was being un-responsive, it wrote the following:
I think that if you were to be a little more aggressive with the LLM you were using, with respect to how much was spent and on what, it would probably back down. The Heartland Institute does a lot more than just support anthropogenic climate change skepticism. Note that the claimed contributions by ExxonMobile was 20-years ago.
I think you missed my point Clyde. I barely even read the list and I’m sure you’re right. This was perplexity.ai , a compilation of the sh!te on the internet.
My point was that who gives a rat’s ass? This nitwit was trying to make some kind of argument that funding changes the actual data, and that would be because he or she can’t argue the actual data.
Automated Idiocy is not a good source for “information.” It has been shown to make things up.
Considering the political bent of those behind most such “tools,” it’s output is even more suspect.
Go on, tell me that you can make air hotter by adding CO2.
If you want something easier, give me a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE.
How hard can it be?
I don’t care if it’s funded by the Ferengi, either it’s right or wrong, and if it’s wrong, demonstrate that it is with facts and data.
(BTW, why are leftists always so obsessed with who funds something? It’s a non-argument, designed to introduce doubt without actually providing anything substantive…or did I just answer my own question)
When you read who funds the leftista, it leaves you cold.
Cold? But the oceans are boiling and the planet is burning up!
/s
Unable to counter the facts and truth, you go down the loser “funding” route.
The Climate agenda funding is magnitudes more than Heartland gets from anywhere.
So you are saying that the whole climate agenda is dishonest and fake because of funding…
… a fact we are already aware of.
Why does it matter WHO says something.
It’s only WHAT they said that should matter, and be investigated / checked / challenged.
(Of course, some utterances of serial bullshitters don’t warrant a New York minute of consideration.
That becomes obvious after a while, and this post about AP is a good case in point.)
I left a reply above that strongly suggests that at least Copilot violates is own prohibitions:
I am still trying to fathom what the World Health Organization knows about weather and climate CAUSES.
So typical, you can’t refute the arguments, so you make up lies about the messenger.
Ad hom, much?
Try a real argument, if you actually can. Rebut the Climate Realism rebuttals!
Amazing how immune you are to figuring out how the trillions thrown at climate propaganda (in no small part by constituting the majority of funding of so-called “science”) taints the product laughingly referred to as “climate science” (because the quickest way to see your “grant money” dry up is to dare to contradict the latest pet “crisis” being pimped on behalf of the government).
Apparently trillions from governments are free of any potential to induce bias, but a few hundreds of thousands from the producers of energy (actual useful energy, that is) somehow taints whatever you don’t agree with. That other-than-goverment money in your mind must have some special power that somehow magnifies its influence.
Eisenhower saw science being turned into a political football before I was born – preciselybecause of how much of it was funded by the government. He was a prophet.
Also amazing that your argument isn’t about what the data says, because (paraphrasing Jim Carrey) that would be DEVASTATING TO YOUR CASE.
And now for the good news doomsters. The CO2 is leaving the planet-
Scientists Confirm Earth Is Losing Atmosphere to Space | Watch
Also, seawater is being subducted into the mantle. Sea levels getting lower, atmosphere thinner, it’s a win-win.
It took them this long to realize this? Earth has been losing atmosphere to space for as long as there was an atmosphere on earth. Fortunately the magnetic fields deflect a lot of solar effect on atmospheric loss.
Has been known for about 80 years and didn’t need any confirming it was well known and all planets do it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape)
Do not underestimate the power of THE CARBON.
If it were not for carbon, we would not be alive and we would not be posting.
Carbon is the power of life on Earth.
Eh, methane in a few ecological niches, too.
The onset of more frequent El Nino conditions from 5500 years ago caused the Sahara desert to form. During the Holocene Thermal Optimum there was a dearth of El Nino conditions, while during glacial maximum there are near permanent El Nino conditions, and far larger deserts than currently.
And as I always like to emphasize, the “THERMAL OPTIMUM” was THE WARMEST PERIOD DURING THE CURRENT EPOCH.
So to summarize WARMER IS BETTER.
WHAT “crisis?!”
It’s good that you keep fact checking the hysterical nonsense written by the legacy media
For years they were funding so called “fact checkers” (paid hacks) to try to silence or cancel anyone who dared go against the narrative
until recently, they’ve been impervious to careful analysis and critique because of the grip they have on access to information and shaping the public view through repetition and suggestion in collaboration with all sorts of financial and political interests
I think this is changing, at least I hope so
I think a lot of people in the public have lost confidence and/or lost interest in what the media, IPCC, “scientists”, politicians and the rest have to say on this and other topics
Covid played a part in this. The lockdowns and other measures were suddenly abandoned when the politicians realised they’d lost the trust of the public.
I believe enough people’s eyes were opened to the possibility that so called “scientists” and science itself is not necessarily the oracle it is claimed to be
There are of course many other factors, such as rising energy bills, increased poverty, the push to get people into EVs, attacks on farming, the wasteful and corrupt EU bureaucracy, and unhinged climate protesters
This rapid unravelling of net zero has been coming for a while. It seems to have been catalysed by the election of Trump
A lot has been invested in net zero, so I doubt the main players will give up without some sort of fight to try to extract the last bit of profit or recover as much as they can
It will take a while, but I’m pretty confident we are in the final days. If you look at the EU, they seem to have made plans to replace net zero with defence spending as the new way to transfer wealth.
This will be a lot easier for them to justify (“national security”) and therefore a much safer bet in the long term, and they don’t have to rely any longer on all the climate activists, whom they can’t fully control
Looks like a fun and interesting paper..
Microsoft Word – SCC-Grok 3-Review-V5-1c3.docx
Particularly like this line, for the climate model shills…
You know Anthony, that old adage to the affect that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes considered as truth. That’s exactly what’s going on here.
I’d give you 10 stars for this post if I could, Anthony.
Scientists have warned for decades
And every single one of those warnings were sky is falling and did not correlate to anything except to a tsunami of media climate alarmist headlines.
Which scientists? When such a generic claim is the lead in, it is a pointless waste of time to read further.
One has to wonder if AP was given this by the international climate propaganda organization (I forget the name) that writes these lies and distributes them to the media. It may be the AP writers are guilty of anything but laziness and complacency and a desire for elevated ad clicks.
If I had ever doubted I was on the wrong bus, this punches my ticket and I will find a seat and enjoy the ride.