Climate Hysteria Propaganda

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

They don't care about their arguments. They care about getting, keeping, and wielding institutional power. To that end, their claims and arguments will change when and as needed, no matter how contradictorily.

They need constant near-term peril in order to continuously impel their agenda - but the problem with the near-term is that it keeps expiring, so they have to keep renewing their peril "subscription", so to speak (but never for too long at a time).

They keep doing it because it keeps working:

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...23890191442229


https://twitter.com/cloverhogan/stat...88111296225452
to: https://twitter.com/cloverhogan/stat...88117055025232

There doesn't need to be any facts or evidence to support anything. Heck I bet a man could put on a dress and call himself a woman and people would call him a woman.
Heck a burly dude with a huge beard could get all pissed off at a clerk for calling him sir and tell the clerk he is a woman. If the clerk doesn't comply the clerk gets fired or arrested.
No proof of facts needed.

[acptulsa]

[Brian4Liberty]

https://rumble.com/v4pmi02-evita-duf...evolution.html

[acptulsa]

We finally found some man-made climate change. And it is harmful. It also has nothing to do with carbon, and is being done on purpose by government.

https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/...37181652840479

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/st...22496153026909

[acptulsa]

[Occam's Banana]

//

From the Department of the Quiet Part Out Loud:

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16559853748351
to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16563938955298
[thread archive: see hidden matter below]


[additional matter hidden to save space]

 

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16555844035045
to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...18089281573092
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...844035045.html
{@PatrickTBrown31 | 05 September 2023}

Last week, I described our paper on climate change and wildfires:

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...10491786858571
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...786858571.html]

I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.

For climate research, I think the crux of the issue is highlighted here in my thread:

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...10508924776791
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...786858571.html]

I mentioned that this research looked at the effect of warming in isolation but that warming is just one of many important influences on wildfires with others being changes in human ignition patterns and changes in vegetation/fuels.

So why didn’t I include these obviously relevant factors in my research from the outset? Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change?

Well, I wanted the researche to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.

Put simply, I've found that there is a formula for success for publishing climate change research in the most prestigious and widely-read scientific journals and unfortunately this formula also makes the research less useful.

1) The first thing to know is that simply *showing* that climate change impacts something of value is usually sufficient, and it is not typically necessary to show that the impact is large compared to other relevant influences.

In the paper, I focused on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior but did not quantify (i.e., I “held constant”) the influence of other obviously relevant factors like changes in human ignitions or the effect of poor forest management.

I knew that considering these factors would make for a more realistic (and thus useful) analysis, but I also knew that it would muddy the waters of an otherwise clean story and thus make the research more difficult to publish.

This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, they calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture.

ARTICLE: Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO₂

However, that paper does not mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: temperature-related deaths have been declining, and agricultural yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change.

ARTICLE: Human Deaths from Hot and Cold Temperatures and Implications for Climate Change

2) This brings me to the second component of the formula, which is to ignore or at least downplay near-term practical actions that can negate the impact of climate change.

If deaths related to outdoor temperatures are decreasing and agricultural yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. It is then valuable to study this success so that we can facilitate more of it.

However, there is a taboo against studying or even mentioning successes since they are thought to undermine the motivation for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Identifying and focusing on problems rather than studying the effectiveness of solutions makes for more compelling abstracts that can be turned into headlines, but it is a major reason why high-profile research is not as useful to society as it could be.

3) A third element of a high-profile climate change research paper is to focus on metrics that are not necessarily the most illuminating or relevant but serve more to generate impressive numbers.

In the case of my paper, I followed the common convention of focusing on changes in the risk of extreme events rather than simpler and more intuitive metrics like changes in intensity.

ARTICLE: Turning Down the Temperature on Extreme Claims About Extreme Weather

The sacrifice of clarity for the sake of more impressive numbers was probably necessary for it to get into Nature.

Another related convention, which I also followed in my paper, is to report results corresponding to time periods that are not necessarily relevant to society but, again, get you the large numbers that justify the importance of your research.

For example, it is standard practice to report climate change related societal impacts associated with how much warming has occurred since the industrial revolution but to ignore or “hold constant” societal changes over that time.

This makes little sense from a practical standpoint since the influence of societal changes have been much larger than the influence of climate changes on people since the 1800s.

Similarly, it is conventional to report projections associated with distant future warming scenarios now (or always) thought to be implausible (RCP8.5) while ignoring potential changes in technology and resilience.

A much more useful analysis for informing actual decisions we face would focus on changes in climate from the recent past that living people have experienced to the foreseeable future - the next several decades - while accounting for changes in technology and resilience.

In the case of our research, this would mean considering the impact of climate change in conjunction with proposed reforms to forest management practices over the next several decades. This is what we are doing in the current phase of the research.

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...10510812242228
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...786858571.html]

This more practical kind of analysis is discouraged because looking at changes in impacts over shorter time periods and in the context of other relevant factors reduces the calculated magnitude of the impact of climate change, and thus it appears to weaken the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

So why did I follow this formula for producing a high-profile scientific research paper if I don’t believe it creates the most useful knowledge for society? I did it because I began this research as a new assistant professor facing pressure to establish myself in a new field and to maximize my prospects of securing respect from my peers, future funding, tenure, and ultimately a successful career.

When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here…

https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...66260679487488
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...679487488.html

…my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.

To put it bluntly, I sacrificed value added for society in order to mold the presentation of the research to be compatible with the preferred narratives of the editors and reviewers of high-profile journals.

I am bringing these issue to light because I hope that highlighting them will push for reforms that will better align the incentives of researchers with the production of the most useful knowledge for society.

I write more about this today in a piece in The Free Press:

ARTICLE: I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

I also have more thoughts on my personal blog:

ARTICLE: The Not-so-Secret Formula for Publishing a High-Profile Climate Change Research Paper.

I wonder if this guy learned something from Boghossian and Lindsay?

That (or something like it) is my guess.

Given that the "Grievance Papers" were concerned with social "science" (LOL), Boghossian, Lindsay, & Pluckrose had a great deal of leeway when it came to cranking the absurdity up to 11. The pro forma pretense of "objective" data and "rigorous" analysis in The Science^TM doesn't afford such broad latitude.

[Voluntarist]

Research paper for anyone interested:

Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates

If they're reducing climate sensitivity estimates today, I think that means that the science from last week was not settled.


Article summarizing the research:
Ice age data analysis offers good news for Earth’s current climate woes

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Research paper for anyone interested:

Last Glacial Maximum pattern effects reduce climate sensitivity estimates

If they're reducing climate sensitivity estimates today, I think that means that the science from last week was not settled.


Article summarizing the research:
Ice age data analysis offers good news for Earth’s current climate woes

If a consensus cannot be had on things in front of our eyes that we can feel and touch, how can we believe what they say about 20 million years ago?

[acptulsa]

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/st...07197217837104

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1783738055549239562

[Occam's Banana]

https://www.indiewire.com/news/gener...dy-1234978078/

[Brian4Liberty]

Somewhat related. The final solution:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...62520575500625

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...62520575500625

//

https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/st...46677436317795


14 U.S. Cities Sign WEF Treaty To Ban Meat, Diary, Private Cars by 2030
https://www.planet-today.com/2023/08...ty-to-ban.html
Planet Today (20 August 2023)

The WEF-infiltrated U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40).

The C40 has established a “target” to meet the WEF’s radical depopulation goals by the year 2030.

[...]

[Brian4Liberty]

And here's their solution. Destroy the natural environment.

Carbon credits, mitigation credits, follow the money. It's another monetary/securitization scam.

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1787511834179965028

[acptulsa]

And here's their solution. Destroy the natural environment.

Carbon credits, mitigation credits, follow the money. It's another monetary/securitization scam.

A dangerous one.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/...24785170190752

[acptulsa]

[acptulsa]

[Brian4Liberty]

The hypocrisy of the hysterical left is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of the upper levels of the kleptocratic plutocracy.

[CaptUSA]

Leaked AI graphic of a climate change modeling calculator...



Note that once all three levels of BS are forcibly mingled, twisted and intertwined, it becomes a huge spinning pile of BS.

[Brian4Liberty]

...

This man did his homework.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1803281726300627392

Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX
Thankfully, I always bring data to the table. ��

Cincinatti, Ohio has daily temperature data going back to 1872. Using this data, I plotted the number of days per year with daily TMax ≥90°, ≥95° and ≥100°. There has been ���� ��������������-���������� ���������������� in the number of hot days; in fact, the trend is slightly down.

So, right away, this blows a hole in your theory. Like, it really blows hard. A Kamala Harris blow. ��

That's got a bad picture in my mind. Scratch that.

But, let's continue, shall we?

�������������������� ������ ���� �������� �������� ≥����° ���� �� ��������:
1. 1936: 64-days
2. 1944: 58-days
3. 1913: 56-days
4. 1934 and 2007: 54-days
5. 1953: 51-days
6. 1874, 1914, 1954 and 1959: 47-days
7. 1881, 1983 and 1988: 46-days
8. 1908 and 1952: 45-days
9. 1964 and 2012: 44-days
10. 1930 and 1931: 42-days

Of the 19 total years that made the cut, 14 were prior to 1960, and only two have been in the last 35-years, and none in the last decade.

�������������������� ������ ���� �������� �������� ≥����° ������������ ��������:
1. 19-days in 1933 (This was FDR's fault)
2. 17-days in 1874 (what the heII was going on then?)
3. 15-days in 1913, 1934 and 1988
4. 14-days in 1944 and 1952
5. 13-days in 1914 and 1954
6. 12-days in 1925, 1936 and 1953
7. 11-days in 1894 and 1966
8. 10-days in 1890, 1921, 1964, 1994 and 2005
9. 9-days in 1901, 1931, 1943, 1969, 2007 and 2018
10. 8-days in 1888, 1895, 1899, 1908, 1910, 1923, 1949 and 1971

Of the 33-years that made this cut, 24 occurred prior to 1960 and 30 were before 2005.

It has also been 4,346 days since Cincinnati last hit the century mark; the most recent 100° day was on July 25, 2012 (100°). This is the third longest stretch on record that a reading of 100° hasn't been set. There were a total of 12 days ≥100° in 1936, 9 days in 1934, 7 days in 1988 and 6 days each in 1881, 1930 and 2012.

������ �� �������������� �������� ���� ��������������������:
1. July 21 and 22, 1934: 108°
2. July 25, 1934: 107°
2. July 24, 1934 and July 14, 1936: 106°
3. July 22, 1901; July 20, 1934; and July 10 and July 12, 1936: 105°
4. July 10, 1881; July 23, 1934; July 11 and 15, 1934; and July 6 and 7, 2012: 104°
5. July 7, 1874; July 12, 1914; July 28, 1930; July 8, 9 and August 22, 1936; July 14, 1954 and July 9, 1988: 103°

������ �� �������������� �������� �������� ���� ��������������������
1. June 27 and 28, 1944; and July 25, 1988: 102°
2. June 28, 1934; and June 28 and 29, 2012: 101°
3. June 27, 1914; June 29, 1934; and June 29, 1944: 100°
4. June 27, 1931 and June 18, 1944: 99°
5. June 8 and 28, 1874; June 28 and 30, 1913; June 24, 1914; June 23, 1930; June 20 and 21, 1933; June 27, 1934; June 29 and 30, 1936; June 17, 1944; June 28 and 29, 1952; June 30, 1953; June 26, 1954; and June 30, 2012: 98°

������ �� �������������� �������� �������� �������� ≥����°:
1. 17-days (July 14-30, 1934 and July 17-August 2, 2011)

2. 15-days (June 18-July 2, 1933; June 22-July 6, 1966; and July 30-August 13, 2007)

3. 14-days (July 3-16, 1881; August 22-September 4, 1953; and June 28-July 11, 2012)

4. 13-days (July 15-27, 1934; July 19-31, 1940; and July 12-24, 1983)

5. 12-days (August 3-14, 1918; July 17-28, 1930; and July 6-17, 1936)

�������� ���������� ��������������������:
• The earliest 90° day occurred on April 11, 1930 (90°); the latest occurred on October 9, 1939 (90°).

• The earliest 95° day occurred on May 26, 1911 (95°); the latest occurred on October 1, 2019 (95°).

• The earliest 100° day occurred on June 25, 1988 (102°); the latest occurred on September 8, 1939 (100°).

So, in conclusion, [man-made] climate change is ������ making heatwaves like this week's more frequent in Cincinatti. This is just summer sugar muffins. Summer.

I rate your propaganda 0.0 stars.

[Brian4Liberty]

This guy needs a hysterectomy...

https://x.com/tomselliott/status/1808500954028744774

[Brian4Liberty]

We're all going to die!

https://x.com/CNN/status/1815801197745287488

[Brian4Liberty]

Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by IPCC

A close read of Chapter 7 in the Working Group I Contribution to the 2021 IPCC Report reveals that, not only was the measured albedo-controlled solar forcing ignored as a climate driver in the Report’s conclusions, but Section 7.2.2 in Chapter 7 contains Figure 7.3, which shows opposite trends of reflected solar and outgoing thermal flaxes to those observed by CERES. This article presents the results from our investigation of the IPCC’s Fig. 7.3.

After examining the IPCC data repository at GitHub.com and communicating with two lead authors of Chapter 7, we found that the CERES global anomalies of reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation have been multiplied by -1 in the computer code employed to generate Fig. 7.3. This caused inversion of the long-term trends of these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email message that this trend inversion was intentionally done, but failed to provide a convincing justification for it.

The results from the trend inversion of CERES radiation data in the IPCC AR6 are highly consequential. Thus, Fig. 7.3 creates a false impression that the solar forcing played no role in recent warming and the rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases caused a retention of heat in the climate system by impeding the outgoing LW radiation. The truth is that the solar forcing explains the entire tropospheric warming since 2000, and there is no sign of “heat trapping” by greenhouse gases. Had the IPCC acknowledged the increase of Earth’s sunlight absorption in the 21st Century, this would have invalidated the Report’s central assertion that human carbon emissions were the main driver of climate in recent decades. In conclusion, it appears that radiative flux anomalies in Fig. 7.3 were manipulated and a discussion about long-term CERES trends in Section 7.2.2 was intentionally omitted, because the actual observations present a significant empirical challenge to the UN’s political Agenda set by Resolution A/RES/43/53 in 1988 to promote Anthropogenic Climate Change.
...
The problem with IPCC’s Fig. 7.3 is that the plots of reflected solar and outgoing thermal radiation show opposite temporal trends compared to those found in the actual CERES observations.
...
More: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024...-data-by-ipcc/

Figures at link...

[Occam's Banana]

Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by IPCC

[...]

Figures at link...

Why do you hate science, comrade?

[Brian4Liberty]

Why do you hate science, comrade?

Science is always better when multiplied by -1.

[Occam's Banana]

Science is always better when multiplied by -1.

Multiplying by -1 is how science is transcended into The Science^TM.

[acptulsa]

Multiplying by -1 is how science is transcended into The Science^TM.

Negativity is The New Positive.

[acptulsa]

[Brian4Liberty]

Kerry claims that everything that his "scientists" have predicted has come true...

It must really be helpful for these global elites to completely divorce themselves from truth and reality.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status...71295864611278