Archives par mot-clé : Alarmism

climate-debate

Decades of Crying ‘Fire!’ in the Climate Theatre Have Left the BBC with Net Zero Credibility

by C. Morrison, Nov 13, 2025 in WUWT

Let us travel back to April 2012 and revisit an important milestone in BBC climate reporting – what is thought to be the last recorded sighting of genuine journalistic inquiry. Richard Knight noted an extremist claim that up to 150 mostly animal species are lost every day, but then went on to observe that if the claim was really true, should we not expect the International Union for Conservation in Nature to list more than 801 extinct species in the last 512 years. Fast forward 10 years and Esme Stallard was honking without any alternative view that “the extinction of species is now happening between 1,000 and 10,000 times quicker than scientists would expect to see”. Humans could be causing the “sixth mass extinction”, scientists are said to have warned. Over the last two decades, climate science reporting at the BBC has been reduced to cherry-picking the worst ‘scientists say’ clickbait remarks to promote the hard-Left Net Zero fantasy. Debate has been abolished, the scientific inquiry process trashed and the intelligence of the British public insulted on a daily basis. It’s almost as if the BBC decided to convince everyone that a woman can have a penis.

In the wake of the BBC’s decision to mark its own homework by referring climate change reporting to its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, we would do well to acknowledge the sheer enormity of the crime against investigative journalism that has been perpetrated for over two decades. It is an appalling story of journalists kowtowing to a prevailing narrative. They have been willing and able to take a central role in inducing a mass climate psychosis in the general public that has been designed for purely political purposes.

…

climate-debate

Physician: Adaptation, Not Alarmism, Is The Most Effective Climate Solution

by G. Wightstome, Oct 30, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Real public health threats versus climate hysteria.

Relying on human ingenuity to coexist with a changing climate – either warmer or cooler – and tending to long-recognized public health threats are the best ways to ensure the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants, according to an Australian physician and expert in climate and public health. [emphasis, links added]

“The ingenuity of Homo sapiens at adapting to climate has permitted people to populate almost the entire globe from the freezing Arctic to the steamy tropics, notes Dr. D. Weston Allen, lead author of a paper supporting a proposed repeal of a federal designation of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant.

“If we stick to doing what we do best – adaptation – we will continue to thrive.”

Citing nearly 400 references, the paper was filed as a formal comment by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in support of its proposal to rescind the regulation known as the Endangerment Finding.

Dr. Allen says that civilizations did well in past eras of relative warmth during Minoan and Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period.

And, he says, cool periods often brought suffering, the most recent being the Little Ice Age, which experienced “frequent widespread crop failures, mass starvation, disease and depopulation.”

“The Black Death of 1346-1353 wiped out 30%-60% of Europe’s population and up to 200 million people across Eurasia,” he writes.

However, natural changes in the climate and industrialization that spread in the 1800s and accelerated in the 20th century fostered unprecedented prosperity and health.

“Global rewarming since the 18th century, associated with increasing prosperity, better housing, sanitation, food and water supplies, has greatly benefited human health and wealth,” says Dr. Allen.

“Deaths from typhoid and tuberculosis declined dramatically during the pre-antibiotic 20th century warming (1910-1945). Mortality from all causes fell as temperatures rose. From a billion people in 1800, the global population doubled by 1927, doubled again to 4 billion in 1974, and again to 8 billion in 2022.”

Fuels for new technologies and industry – first coal, then oil and natural gas as well – made modern living possible.

…

climate-debate

New Study: Great Barrier Reef Coral Cover ‘At Its Highest Since Monitoring Began In 1985’

by K. Richard, Oct 28, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Another alarmist narrative debunked by observations.

Coral coverage was supposed to be existentially devastated by the modern tenths-of-a-degree increases in sea surface temperatures and recurring bleaching events.

However, a new study points to assessments of coral cover percentages in the Great Barrier Reef and concludes is “at its highest since monitoring began in 1985.”

Further, the analysis reveals there is “no consistent correlation between rising temperatures and reduced coral cover,” and that “most corals [are] demonstrating rapid recovery” from bleaching.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Bill Gates Retreats From Climate Doom, Tells Activists To Focus On Urgent ‘Social Issues’

by T. Catenacci, Oct 29, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Gates, who spent a fortune warning about ‘climate disaster,’ now says it ‘will not be the end of civilization’.

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, who spent tens of millions of dollars funding far-left climate initiatives and authored a book warning of “climate disaster,” is now changing his tune on global warming and urging activists to divert their attention to other progressive causes. [emphasis, links added]

In a lengthy blog post published Tuesday morning, Gates said climate change remains a serious issue, but that “it will not be the end of civilization.”

Gates then bluntly said the money that has been designated for climate is “not being spent on the right things.”

“Sometimes the world acts as if any effort to fight climate change is as worthwhile as any other,” Gates wrote. “As a result, less-effective projects are diverting money and attention from efforts that will have more impact on the human condition: namely, making it affordable to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions and reducing extreme poverty with improvements in agriculture and health.”

In other words, leaders need to focus less on fighting long-term global warming and more on near-term economic issues.

That means Gates is prepared to divert millions of dollars in funding from climate issues to other social issues, a shift that could have significant reverberations across the American climate-advocacy ecosystem.

…

climate-debate

New Study Contradicts The Alarmist Narrative That Says The AMOC Is Catastrophically Collapsing

by K. Richard,  Oct 16, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Alarmists claim that, due to anthropogenic climate change (AGW), the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening to the point that it’s on the verge of collapsing. It’s claimed this will lead to abrupt cooling and extreme weather in the North Atlantic region.

But the author of a new study points out that changes in sea level trends are a useful proxy for detecting AMOC variability over time.

Interestingly, from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or, specifically, from the coasts of New York to the coasts of France, mean sea level rise has been stable, not accelerating, since 1960.

This affirms the stability of the AMOC and contradicts the narrative that the AMOC is on the cusp of collapse.

“…a negligible difference in absolute sea level rise between these locations [The Battery, New York, and Brest, France] reinforces the stability of the AMOC within the period 1960 to 2024. These findings challenge claims of AMOC weakening.”

…

climate-debate

The Guardian Is Wrong: Cities Are Hotter Because of the UHI Effect, Not Increased CO₂

by A. Watts, Oct 6, 2025 in WUWT

In The Guardian’s op-ed, “World’s major cities hit by 25% leap in extremely hot days since the 1990s,”asserts that global warming has caused a sharp rise in the number of extremely hot days in cities worldwide, citing an International Institute for Environment and Development analysis that claims urban residents from London to Tokyo now experience 25 percent more hot days each year than they did in the 1990s. The claims are highly misleading if not outright false. While cities worldwide have in fact gotten warmer, carbon dioxide increases from the burning fossil fuels are not to blame, rather data strongly suggests that the significant rise in measured temperatures in and around major cities is Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in response to population growth and development.

The article quotes scientists as saying, “Global heating caused by fossil fuel burning is making every heatwave more intense and more likely. Extreme heat is likely to have caused the early death of millions of people over the past three decades, with elderly and poor people in fast-growing cities most deeply affected.”

One telling moment comes in The Guardian article itself, where researchers concede that “failing to adapt will condemn millions of city dwellers to increasingly uncomfortable and even dangerous conditions because of the urban heat island effect.” Precisely. It is the UHI effect, not CO₂, that drives the city heat trends.

The Guardian’s narrative collapses under scrutiny, because it ignores the UHI effect. Cities are not thermometers for the planet. They are microclimates dominated by concrete, asphalt, and glass which trap heat and bias local temperature readings upward. Peer-reviewed research by John Christy, Ph.D. and Roy Spencer, Ph.D., published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology shows that urbanization is a major driver of observed warming at city weather stations. Their research found that UHI contributed to 22 percent of the raw observed warming trend on average, and up to 65 percent at suburban and urban stations. When examining rural stations, the effect nearly vanishes. This demonstrates that much of the increase in urban temperatures is the UHI, not global climate change. This is vividly illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Amazon’s “CO₂ Problem”? Turns Out the Trees Love It – So Does the Media

by A. Watts, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

For decades, we’ve been warned that the Amazon rainforest—the so-called “lungs of the planet”—was on the verge of collapse. Headlines screamed about tipping points, mass die-offs of giant trees, and irreversible climate catastrophe. Yet, buried in the data, something rather inconvenient has been happening: the Amazon is getting bigger, fatter, and taller.

A new Nature Plants study, covering 30 years of field data from 188 permanent forest plots across Amazonia, shows that the average size of Amazon trees has increased by more than 3% per decade . In plain English: the forest isn’t shrinking in stature, it’s bulking up.

The researchers found:

  • Mean tree size up 3.3% per decade
  • Largest trees (>40 cm diameter) increased 6.6% per decade
  • Biomass increasingly concentrated in the biggest trees
  • No evidence of large-scale die-off from climate stress

In their words:

“We find that tree size has been increasing across all size classes… The observed patterns match the expectations from increased resource availability, particularly from rising atmospheric CO₂.”

So much for the “large trees are doomed” hypothesis.

…

…

My Final Thoughts

The real takeaway is this:

  • Rising CO₂ is not just a “pollutant”—it is also a powerful plant fertilizer.
  • Amazonian forests are currently benefitting, not suffering, from this change.
  • Predictions of imminent collapse have once again run headlong into inconvenient data.

When climate modelers assure us that “the science is settled,” it’s worth recalling just how often field data overturns the narrative. The Amazon was supposed to be collapsing. Instead, its trees are thriving.

That doesn’t sell headlines or funding proposals, but it’s what the evidence shows.

So, next time someone calls CO₂ “pollution,” remind them: without it, plants—and by extension, we—wouldn’t exist. And with a bit more of it, the world’s largest rainforest seems to be doing just fine.

climate-debate

“But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”

by Gavin, Sep é&, 2025 in RealClimate

Almost two decades ago, some scientists predicted that Arctic summer sea ice would ‘soon’ disappear. These predictions were mentioned by Al Gore and got a lot of press. However, they did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community, and were swiftly disproven. Unsurprisingly, this still comes up a lot. Time for a deeper dive into what happened and why…

It is unsurprising that climate contrarians bring up past ‘failed predictions’ to bolster their case that nothing need be done about climate change. [It is equally unsurprising that they don’t bother to mention the predictions that were skillful, but let’s not dwell on that!]. For a long time, their favorite supposed ‘failed prediction’ was that there was a consensus about the imminence of a new ice age in the 1970s (a topic we have covered many times), but more recently it has turned to the supposed prediction of Al Gore that “Arctic summer sea ice would disappear” in a short number of years. This has everything – the ‘But Al Gore!’ knee-jerk, a conflation of Al Gore with the scientific community, it’s sounds suitably apocalyptic and, of course, Arctic summer sea ice has not disappeared (it’s only down 40% or so):

Arctic summer sea ice extent anomalies from NSIDC, with the exceptional years of 2007 and 2012 highlighted (data through July 2025).

What did Al Gore actually say?

If we go back to Dec 2007, in the immediate aftermath of the shocking decrease in sea ice that summer, Gore gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize he’d received jointly with the IPCC. In it he said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

What was he reporting on?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Lomborg: Environmental Doomsday Predictions Collapse As World Becomes Richer And Greener

by B. Lomborg, Sep 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Fearmongering climate change forecasts keep falling apart.

Climate protest
Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. [emphasis, links added]

We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.

This summer, headlines about the Great Barrier Reef painted a dire picture of climate-driven devastation, with environmental journalists claiming the reef was on the brink of collapse.

In reality, data shows the reef has its fourth-highest coral cover since records began in 1986, revealing these alarmist narratives to be vastly misleading.

Truth and Scares

Sensible, life-improving environmental policies over recent decades were rarely sold with fearmongering. Rich countries have dramatically reduced air and water pollution through technological advances and then through regulation.

Poorer countries are starting to do the same thing, as they emerge from poverty and can afford to be more environmentally concerned. Forests have expanded globally, with this growth clear in rich countries and increasingly across the world.

This isn’t the scary future environmentalists promised us.

A recent peer-reviewed study counts almost a hundred environmental doomsday predictions that environmentalists have made over the past half-century.

Two-thirds of them predicted doom before August 2025, and all of these have turned out to be false.

…

climate-debate

Koonin: DOE Climate Report Finally Brings Clarity, Challenges Alarmist Narrative

by S.E. Koonin, Sept 09, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Empirical data shows CO2 boosts growth, extreme weather events are overblown, and policy costs outweigh any benefits.

Protest on a dead planet
A recent Energy Department report challenged the widespread belief that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a serious threat to the nation. It likely soothed Americans irked by forced energy transitions, but you would be wrong to assume it reassured many alarmed by hypothetical climate catastrophes. [emphasis, links added]

There is a disconnect between public perceptions of climate change and climate science—and between past government reports and the science itself.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright understands this. It’s why he commissioned an independent assessment by a team of five senior scientists, including me, to provide clearer insights into what’s known and not about the changing climate.

Collectively, our team brought to the task more than 200 years of research experience, almost all directly relevant to climate studies.

The resulting peer-reviewed report is entirely our work, free from political influence—a departure from previous assessments.

It draws from United Nations and U.S. climate reports, peer-reviewed research, and primary observations to focus on important aspects of climate science that have been misrepresented to nonexperts.

Among the report’s key findings:

■ Elevated carbon dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.

■ Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.

■ Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.

■ While global sea levels have risen about eight inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.

■ Natural climate variability, data limitations, and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions.

■ The use of the words “existential,” “crisis,” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data.

■ Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends.

Our report is the first from Washington in years that deviates from the narrative of a climate headed for catastrophe. That these findings surprised many speaks to a governmental failure to communicate climate science accurately to the public.

…

climate-debate

Meteorologist Debunks False Stories On Climate Change Fueling Western Washington Megafires

by C. Mass, Aug 14, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

NY Times and Seattle Times falsely claim Western Washington megafires are rising; history shows only one since 1902.

Western Washington State fire
[Last week], The New York Times ran a blatantly false story, with The Seattle Times featuring it as well. [some emphasis, links added]

The claim: that Western Washington will experience more “megafires” due to human-caused global warming (climate change).

Unfortunately, the writer of this story (a Washington State stringer for the NY Times) failed to examine the historical record or the best science, getting the essential facts wrong.

How do I know the writer got it wrong?

Because for the past two years, I have researched this very issue and just published a paper on this topic in the peer-reviewed literature (here). I have read every paper and report on this issue.

So exactly what did the NY Times (and the Seattle Times) get wrong?

The article defines megafires as ones that involve hundreds of thousands of acres.

How many such fires have occurred since 1900 in western Washington?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Die Welt’ Journalist Axel Bojanowski: Apocalypticism Is “A Code Of Belonging” Among Journalists

by P. Gosselin, Aug 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

The world is better than what the media think.

‘Die Welt’ science journalist Axel Bojanowski was recently interviewed by the online “BauerWilli” (BW) and discussed his recently released book

“33 Amazing Glimmers of Hope – Why the world is better than we think,”

 

Bojanowski argues there is an overly negative and apocalyptic style of reporting in the media, particularly concerning climate and environmental issues.

Cult-like behavior

According to Bojanowski, predicting the end of the world has become a sign of belonging among journalists. He sees this as a counter-movement to the post-war prosperity.

…

climate-debate

Scientists Warn About Scientists’ Warnings

by W. Eschenbach, Aug 19 2025, in WUWT

Only a journalist truly committed to the ancient art of panic-clickbait could squeeze all the world’s existential dread into a headline like, “A Giant, Destructive Volcanic Eruption Is Set to Shake the World in the Coming Months, Bringing About the End of Mankind, Scientists Warn.” They’ve accompanied it with the following graphic, in case you weren’t adequately terrified.

…

…

The dead giveaway? “Scientists Warn.” Whenever you see those two words sandwiched together above the fold, you know you’re about to step into a wonderland of wild extrapolation, qualified maybes, and models run so far into the future they boomerang back with “robots take over” as the y-axis.

They start out as follows:

climate-debate

DOE Climate Report Authors Challenge Climate Consensus, Trigger Fierce Media Backlash

by K. Killough, Aug 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

he Department of Energy has released a climate assessment report that incorporates the conclusions of climate scientists who have long been labeled by Democrats, the media, and climate activists as “climate deniers.” [emphasis, links added]

In a statement announcing the release Tuesday of the report, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said it was part of the EPA’s proposed rule repealing the 2009 endangerment finding, which cites the report.

Wright notes in the report’s foreword that the modern world is one of unprecedented prosperity in human history, but the public is being told that “the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”

He said he commissioned the report to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation” that scrutinizes the view that fossil fuels are threatening humanity’s well-being.

The report’s coauthor, Dr. Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Networkand author of “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” says on her blog that there wasn’t complete agreement among the authors, and she welcomes a robust discussion on the report’s conclusion.

However, she wrote, she didn’t expect the same kind of openness from the alarmists who have long been the primary source of science informing climate policy for the past couple of decades.

“The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this report because: the CWG [Climate Working Group] authors are reputable scientists outside of their ‘tribe.’ The Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Curry wrote, adding that their usual ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the report.

…

climate-debate

More On DOE’s Report Challenging EPA Climate Claims And CO2 Alarmism

by F. Menton, Aug 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

earth space

On July 29 — the same day that EPA initiated the process of revoking the absurd “endangerment finding” that demonizes CO2 emissions from energy production (covered at Manhattan Contrarian here) — there was another equally momentous development on the energy front at the federal government. [emphasis, links added]

On that day, the Department of Energy released a lengthy Report with the title “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” (Although the Report bears a date of July 23, the 29th appears to be the date when it was signed by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and officially released.)

The Report is attributed to something called the “Climate Working Group,” consisting of five prominent members of the climate skeptic community: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Full disclosure: I know four of the five (Judith Curry is the exception), and consider two of them friends.

These are all highly competent and accomplished people, which is a dramatic contrast to the lightweights and grifters who constitute essentially all of the “mainstream” climate science community.

Most important about these five is that they are all willing to acknowledge the limitations of the knowledge possessed by the scientific community about the world’s climate.

The Report overall comes off as a fair and balanced assessment of risks and trade-offs, rather than what normally comes from climate academics and journalists, which are cheap attempts to use speculation and fake projections to scare you out of your wits.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Most Americans Still Aren’t Buying Climate Hysteria

by D. Harsanyl, July 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Climate alarmism hasn’t worked. Here’s why the public tuned it out.

The public awareness campaign to convince Americans that climate change is an existential threat has been an epic failure. [emphasis, links added]

In a recent segment, “Are Americans Afraid of Climate Change?” CNN’s Harry Enten incredulously noted that despite all “the bad weather” we’ve been seeing, only “40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change. The same as in 2000!”

Why are climate activists losing?

Sooner or later, fearmongering becomes noise. Reality crashes against predictions.

Public schools, institutions of higher learning, governments, international organizations, the whole culture, and scientific institutions have spent billions and untold hours trying to normalize the idea that modernity and capitalistic gluttony have driven temperatures to dangerous extremes.

When I was growing up, it was cooling. Now, it’s warming. And with each surge of alarmism, the message depreciates.

…

climate-debate

Al Jazeera Wrongly Hypes a Climate Connection to Recent European Heatwaves

by L. Lueken, July 16, 2025 in WUWT

A recent article at Al Jazeera, titled “Wildfire risks as climate change fuels extreme heatwave in Southern Europe,” claims that recent heatwaves in parts of southern Europe are due to climate change, which the publication says is making them more intense, and will inevitably cause more deaths. This is false. Recent heatwaves are not outside of historic norms, and though Al Jazeera correctly identifies the urban heat island effect as a major contributor, they downplay its role in recent trends and the evidence concerning temperature related deaths.

Al Jazeera reports that authorities across several southern European countries have issued heat warnings and fire warnings, “as Southern Europe experiences the summer’s first severe heatwave and as experts link the rising frequency and intensity of soaring temperatures to climate change.”

Countries impacted are: Spain; Portugal, where Al Jazeera says Lisbon is “expected” to see temperatures around 107°F; the Italian island of Sicily, which saw some wildfires over the weekend; and Greece.

Much of the article presents a reasonable discussion of the dangers heatwaves can pose, like increases in the likelihood of wildfire outbreaks and heat stroke. Unfortunately, the author of the post proceeds to make unfounded claims regarding the cause of the summer heat, like that “extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common across Europe’s southern region due to global warming.”

This is false; extreme weather is not becoming more severe or frequent. For example, Lisbon’s predicted high is not unprecedented, in part because the city is prone to being impacted by what is called the “Saharan air layer.” This is the same phenomenon that carries dust all the way across the Atlantic, as well as hot dry air with boosts temperatures. In 2018, Lisbon recorded a high of 111°F, and the all time high for Portugal was 117°F in 2003.

…

climate-debate

Met Office Fail To Respond To Criticisms

by L. Johnson, July 14, 2025 in WUWT

https://www.gbnews.com/news/climate-alarm-challenged-as-expert-warns-dont-wreck-the-economy-for-half-a-degree

The Met Office were given a right of reply to this GB News story. Instead of actually responding to the specific points raised, they merely regurgitated their Press Release:

However, according to the Met Office, the UK has warmed by 0.25C per decade since the 1980s, with the past three years among the five warmest on record.

Last year saw the warmest spring, the warmest May, and the wettest winter half-year in over 250 years, the report says.

It also states that days with temperatures 10°C above average have quadrupled since the 1960s, and months of double-average rainfall have risen by 50 per cent.

They could, of course, added that the wettest year was in 1872!

Their waffle about higher temperatures is meaningless without the corresponding data on extreme cold days.

Worst of all is the fact that they still make claims of extreme rainfall against a baseline of 1961-90. This is what the Press Release stated:

“the number of months where counties are recording monthly rainfall totals of at least twice the 1991-2020 monthly average has increased by over 50% compared to the number in 1961-1990”

They know full well that 1961-90 was a much drier interlude compared with both what preceded it and also what followed it.

They have all the data back into the 19thC, so why don’t they show the long term trends? Is it because it would not tell the story they want to tell?

The long term monthly data for the England & Wales Precipitation Series, for example, shows absolutely no evidence to support the Met Office’s claims:

precipation england wales

KNMI Climate Explorer

The KNMI chart only runs to 2021, but since then the wettest month was 177.5mm in October 2023. Nothing, in other words, that alters the trends shown.

climate-debate

Ocean “Reversal” Hysteria: Facts Not Included

by W. Eschenbach, July 6, 2025 in WUWT

ery so often, the climate media machine spits out a headline so breathless you’d think the laws of physics had just been accidentally repealed by a badly-worded executive order. Case in point: bne IntelliNews in Germany recently told us that a “major ocean current in the Southern Hemisphere has reversed direction for the first time in recorded history,” and that climatologists are calling it a“catastrophic” tipping point. It also quotes a climatologist as saying “The stunning reversal of ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere confirms the global climate system has entered a catastrophic phase.”

And the headline for that hysteria?

Southern Ocean current reverses for first time, signalling risk of climate system collapse

The implication: pack your bags, the climate apocalypse is here, and don’t forget your floaties.

But as is so often the case, the devil isn’t just in the details—it’s in the words they didn’t mention. The article, like a magician with something up both sleeves, never links to the actual scientific study.

…

…

So, after a bit of digital spelunking, I dug up the source. It’s an article in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, yclept “Rising surface salinity and declining sea ice: A new Southern Ocean state revealed by satellites.”

And when I got to the study, what do you know? The study doesn’t mention “tipping point,” “collapse,” “current reversal,” “Southern Ocean current” or even “overturning circulation.” The only “reversal” in the paper refers to satellites detecting a reversal in surface salinity trends from decreasing to increasing, not a reversal in the the direction of the Southern ocean’s most complex circulation shown above.

So what did the study actually say? Here’s the paper’s abstract:

“For decades, the surface of the polar Southern Ocean (south of 50°S) has been freshening—an expected response to a warming climate. This freshening enhanced upper-ocean stratification, reducing the upward transport of subsurface heat and possibly contributing to sea ice expansion. It also limited the formation of open-ocean polynyas. Using satellite observations, we reveal a marked increase in surface salinity across the circumpolar Southern Ocean since 2015. This shift has weakened upper-ocean stratification, coinciding with a dramatic decline in Antarctic sea ice coverage. Additionally, rising salinity facilitated the reemergence of the Maud Rise polynya in the Weddell Sea, a phenomenon last observed in the mid-1970s. Crucially, we demonstrate that satellites can now monitor these changes in real time, providing essential evidence of the Southern Ocean’s potential transition toward persistently reduced sea ice coverage.”

…

climate-debate

Stop Lying, The Guardian, the World’s Oceans Aren’t Becoming Dangerously Acidic

by H.S. Sterling, Jul 5, 2025 in WUWT

From ClimateREALISM

The U.K.’s The Guardian ran an article claiming that the world’s oceans have surpassed a critical tipping point in acidity threatening sea life. This is false. The pH content of the world’s oceans varies by time and place throughout the day, rising and falling modestly, but the average pH content remains far from acidic and there is no evidence crustaceans or other types of shellfish are being threatened by the sea water becoming acidic.

Lisa Bachelor, the writer of The Guardian’s article, “‘Ticking timebomb’: sea acidity has reached critical levels, threatening entire ecosystems – study,” says:

The world’s oceans are in worse health than realized, scientists have said today, as they warn that a key measurement shows we are “running out of time” to protect marine ecosystems.

Ocean acidification, often called the “evil twin” of the climate crisis, is caused when carbon dioxide is rapidly absorbed by the ocean, where it reacts with water molecules leading to a fall in the pH level of the seawater. It damages coral reefs and other ocean habitats and, in extreme cases, can dissolve the shells of marine creatures.

Bachelor’s story is based upon a study which claims that ocean acidity has breached a “planetary boundary,” the seventh of nine such milestones or boundaries to be breached, threatening to cause permanent damage to the planet’s health.

The study looked at ice core records and studies of marine life, run through algorithms of complex computer models to assess the past 150 years, concluding the ocean acidification boundary had been breached, with the world facing a “ticking timebomb,” of sea life destruction.

This study’s findings are driven by woefully flawed computer models, a limited time horizon and understanding of long-term history, and lack a basis in real world data. As such it and The Guardian’s dire warnings based on it, are unjustified.

Model outputs are only as good as the assumptions, data, and our understandings of the feedbacks and systems built into them. Even as our knowledge improves, our understanding of the oceans and the interactions of its various currents, systems, inputs, and outputs remain limited, thus the assumptions built into the models are weak and uncertain. As discussed at Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example, the climate model outputs fail to match reality.

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate change causes WHAT!!? Pink lakes, divorcing albatrosses, shrinking goats and lots else

by C. Rotter, Jul 5, 2025 in WUWT

…

One of my favorite statistics about climate change
…is that apparently, 60% of Americans reckon that climate change has become like a religion, quote, “used to control people.”

…

…

  • Climate change elephant — You’ll be surprised to know that climate change is a significant threat to elephants.
  • Climate change kangaroo — Climate change is impacting kangaroos in various ways, including changing their habitat, food availability, and overall health. They didn’t mention whether the kangaroo’s mental health is affected, but I’m pretty sure it is.
  • Climate change chameleon — Yes. Chameleons. Global warming poses significant threats.
  • Climate change giraffe — Raid your house in Kenya for extinction because of poaching and climate change.
  • Climate change albatross — Climate crisis pushes albatross divorce rates higher. Albatrosses form monogamous relationships. But apparently… and this is in the Royal Society for goodness’ sake. You know—Isaac Newton.

I can barely believe this. Right?
Apparently, albatrosses are splitting up more often.

  • Climate change gorilla — Yep. Climate change is making endangered mountain gorillas more thirsty.
  • …
better to know...?, climate-debate

Basic Physics All at Sea in Sky News Climate Scare Nonsense Story

by C. Morrison, May 31, 2025 in WUWT

Possibly one of the dumbest and most scientifically illiterate climate scare stories ever written has been published by the fast-fading UK Sky News. Climate reporter Victoria Seabrook notes that the sea ice on the Arctic “continent” is melting at 12% every decade but she backs it up by publishing a graph clearly showing it has been stable since 2007. She goes on to claim that the Arctic melt will push up sea levels around Britain and fuel worse coastal flooding, seemingly unaware that melting ice in liquid does not raise its level (suggested educational tip, check out ice in a gin and tonic glass). Just for good measure, her silly story throws in the wobbling jet stream and a “shocking” prediction that global temperature could rise by nearly 1°C in just five years.

This story is a classic of its kind – late climate psychosis folderol to back up the collapsing Net Zero fantasy. After decades of relentless mainstream gaslighting, mass audiences are still vaguely concerned that the climate is in some kind of ‘emergency’. Net Zero is retreating around the world, partly because it is increasingly understood that human civilisation cannot abolish the use of hydrocarbons without returning to the dark ages, and partly because nobody is prepared to pay for it when given a choice. But the great climate science con that is the foundation of the collectivist Net Zero lunacy continues, and, if Seabrook’s latest work is an example, it is getting more desperate by the day.

So she publishes the graph below with the misleading 12% decline every decade heading.

…

climate-debate

CNN Lies in its AMOC Collapse Story: Another Flip-Flop in a Long Line of Alarmist Claims

by A. Watts, May 23, 2025 in ClimateRealism

A recent CNN article by Laura Paddison, titled “A crucial system of ocean currents is slowing. It’s already supercharging sea level rise in the US,” references new research on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) to claim the current is slowing down leading to rising seas and costly, deadly coastal flooding. This false claim is based solely on a single, as yet unpublished and unverified, study which used a single climate model’s projections. Evidence, such as other studies and historical reporting on AMOC trends demonstrate that there is no consensus on the status of the AMOC. Rather, scientists’ predictions and the media’s reporting on the AMOC have been flip-flopping for nearly two decades—unable to decide whether AMOC is speeding up, slowing down, or staying steady.

Figure1. A simplified illustration of the global “conveyor belt” of ocean currents that transport heat around Earth. Red shows surface currents, and blue shows deep currents. Deep water forms where the sea surface is the densest. The background color shows sea-surface density. The AMOC is the currents in the Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of the US. Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.
…
better to know...?, climate-debate

The Media Hype Extreme Weather—But Data Tells A Different Tale

by K&K Media, May 14 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Hurricane Winds
These days, stories of extreme weather are everywhere you look. But a crucial detail often goes overlooked: We’re safer from the consequences of that weather than ever before. [emphasis, links added]

There was a time when extreme weather events that led to massive fatalities were depressingly common in the U.S.

In the last 85 years, however, there have only been three such events that took over 1,000 lives: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Maria, and a 1980 heatwave.

…

There’s a reason for that.

The most important factor in determining a natural disaster’s destructiveness isn’t its intensity, but how well people in its path are protected. And on that front, things have improved … a lot.

Better building codes have prevented about $1.6 billion in damage a year since 2000. Advances in hurricane forecasts and early-warning systems have given people more time to prepare.

Having air conditioners in nearly 90% of American homes has severely cut the risk of extreme heat.

And while you often hear that the economic damages from extreme weather are growing, you don’t often hear why.

…

climate-debate

Current Climate Conditions Aren’t Historically Extreme or Unusual, New Research Shows

by S. Burnett, May 09, 2025 in WUWT

Recently, a number of new studies and analyses have been published indicating what readers of CCW have long known: recent climate conditions are not historically unusual. An examination of long-term wildfire trends, plus research comparing past climate conditions to current conditions in central Africa and Germany, show current conditions are well below extremes experienced historically.

A relatively new Substack platform, “Grok Thinks,” publishes analyses of scientific and technological developments and research by the AI tool/assistant Grok3beta. A post in its first week of operation examined claims by geographer Elizabeth Hoy, Ph.D., a senior support scientist with NASA’s Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Office Goddard Space Flight Center. Grok’s analysis used hard data to show Hoy makes at least 10 false claims about wildfire history and trends on NASA’s “Wildfire and Climate Change” webpage.

Grok writes, in introducing the analysis,

On its “Wildfires and Climate Change” page, and in the accompanying video on YouTube, NASA—through Physical Geographer Elizabeth Hoy—paints a stark picture: climate change, fueled by human activity, is making wildfires longer, more frequent, and more destructive. It’s a compelling story, one that resonates with our instinct to connect dramatic events to a larger cause. But when you peel back the layers, something unsettling emerges: NASA’s claims don’t match the evidence.

This isn’t a minor quibble over data points. NASA’s narrative, endorsed by Hoy, is riddled with exaggerations, omissions, and outright fabrications. Over ten key claims, they twist regional trends into global crises, ignore contradictory evidence, and sidestep the messy reality of wildfire dynamics. Using global datasets, historical records, and peer-reviewed studies—including a groundbreaking paper I co-authored, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis—this article dismantles their story piece by piece. The stakes are high—when a trusted institution misleads, it doesn’t just confuse us; it undermines our ability to tackle wildfires effectively.

The paper Grok refers to was published in Science of Climate Change and coauthored with an international group of scientists from the United States and Hungary. Among the lies that NASA tells about wildfires which Grok AI refutes, data ignored or suppressed by NASA, are that the world is experiencing longer wildfire seasons and is experiencing a surge of wildfire activity, both of which are resulting in growing wildfire-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Each of these three claims is refuted by hard data, some of which comes from NASA itself. Grok reports:

…

…