Numbers of my exceedingly well-informed friends — including highly distinguished current and former faculty at prominent universities — lament transparently false and provocatively sensationalized climate-related media claims.
They wonder, for example, why major print and broadcast reports fail to note that, other than two El Niños (which have nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases), no statistically significant global warming has occurred since the time most of today’s college sophomore students were born.
Regarding ballyhooed melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, shouldn’t more journalists report a well-known cause that this expanse is situated directly above a chain of active seabed volcanoes?
Why don’t more “scientific” articles highlight that even if this floating attachment breaks off into the sea, it won’t raise ocean levels, just as melting ice cubes won’t change the liquid level in a glass? (Try it.)
Incidentally, the continent of Antarctica has actually been gaining net ice mass.
And what about breathless “news” coverage of Al Gore’s 2008 warning that the North polar ice cap would be gone in five years? Wouldn’t you expect to see at least a small update notation that satellites show that winter Arctic sea ice is now growing faster than occurred decades ago?
Shouldn’t the mainstream media want you to know that the constant sea level rise of about 7 inches per century hasn’t accelerated a bit since the little ice age ended through entirely natural causes in the mid-1800s? And wouldn’t it be appropriately comforting to inform caring souls that those “threatened” polar bear populations they had previously reported are actually growing and thriving?
With all the constant trumpeting about human-caused climate change (both warmer and colder) causing “extreme weather” events to become more frequent and severe, shouldn’t there be at least a tiny toot regarding true history? Like maybe an occasional passing reference to the fact that no Category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a more than century-long record lull?
Perhaps it might even be whispered that NOAA and the IPCC have both admitted that there have been no increases in the severities or frequencies of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades.
My theory on all this, admittedly being merely a rocket scientist, is that perhaps the reporters and their sources really don’t want you to know facts that don’t fit their narrative agendas.
But don’t take my word for this. Let’s hear directly from some experts with the real inside scoop.
Consider the genesis of the Paris Climate Agreement for example, a time back in 2000 when former French President Jacques Chirac was explaining the real goal of the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol carbon-capping agreement.
Chirac said, “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
Leaving no lingering doubt on the matter, IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarified in November 2010 that, “. . . one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . ”
Virtually all contrived climate hysteria and human CO2 shaming is based upon consistently failed alarmist theoretical model predictions. As Kevin Trenberth lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters candidly admitted in a 2007 journal Nature.com “Predictions of Climate” article,” None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”
Some climate modeling data is bogusly biased. As Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office wrote in emails released in the Climategate scandal, “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
Thorne also prudently observed, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Another scientist concurred, “I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”
Still another observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
One researcher foresaw very troubling consequences, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably. . . ”
On the other hand, if global Socialists and their American “Green New Deal” agenda counterparts win out, they’re more likely to be awarded public hero medals.