Climate Change Media Hype, 2022

The more I think about it, the more the Wuhan virus fiasco strikes me as a microcosm (not too micro, unfortunately) of the climate change hysteria. Both are “Do Something!” debacles; both have demonstrated that those who argue for lock-step compliance with ideologically driven “science” don’t understand the science they demand we bow to. And, as we have seen, the policies applied to both problems have proved to be irresponsible, reckless, expensive, and destructive. Nevertheless, a substantial portion of the population remains brainwashed by climate change hysteria, even those individuals with brains one would think are too substantial to wash, much like the once sane and competent Americans who wear masks alone in their automobiles and while walking their dogs. I am seeing this in my college reunion report, as I slog through hundreds of life stories. A majority of them express terror at the looming climate apocalypse. Their solution is massive “structural change”…you know, “one world” government, though few are bold or honest enough to say so clearly.

Aiding and abetting the hysteria that is so useful to those who find democracy an inconvenience is the mainstream media. Just as it hyped the risks of the pandemic, never clearly explaining that the virus was overwhelmingly a mortal threat only to the already sick, elderly or obese—all the better to justify shutting down schools, businesses, social interaction and the economy, the news media continued to exaggerate and misrepresent the effects of climate change in 2022.I haven’t seen or heard claims from “experts” that the unusually cold weather in late December is one more example of approaching climate doom, but I’m sure that argument has been made. It would follow the pattern. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) put together a “factcheck” report on climate change hype  during the year, pointing out egregious cases where media sources told the public that a weather event was triggered by the relentless warming of the planet. For example,

  • The Washington Post stated that Pakistan’s flooding, resulting in over 1,700 deaths between June and
    October, was caused by climate change.While the 2022 monsoon season was the wettest since 1961, the fact that there was more flooding then makes the conclusion that this year’s flooding can be traced to new cliamte developments. And average peak monsoonal rainfall actually has declined
    somewhat since the 1950s.
  • The US. news media blamed climate change for Hurricane Ian, one of the top three most damaging
    storms to strike the U.S. But Ian struck during hurricane season after a historically quiet first few months. There was less storm activity than past trends had predicted, and Atlantic basin hurricane activity is within natural variability, according to NOAA.
  • New York Times reporter Derrick Bryson Taylor claimed that Britain’s heatwaves this summer were intensified by climate change, though heat waves have dramatically declined in duration and frequency in the U.S. for the past 90 years.The hypothesis that Great Britain is being beset with heat waves due to global warming while the U.S. is not cannot be stated as fact, or even as likely.
  • The New York Times said that China experienced “record drought” in 2022, though the “records” are incomplete and there is substantial evidence that mega droughts had occurred periodically in China before records were kept.

And so on. The idea is to bombard the public with scaremongering “facts” based on opinions and speculation, This is, as now know, misinformation of the good kind, like Dr. Fauci’s admitted obfuscations regarding the Wuhan virus for “the greater good.”

All of the organizations involved in the climate change factcheck report are conservative groups, and the report reads like it was translated from Japanese by the same people who do appliance instruction manuals. Nonetheless, its point is valid, and important.

___________________

Pointer: The Blaze

17 thoughts on “Climate Change Media Hype, 2022

  1. Regarding Harvard grads being all in on climate hysteria: I remember being in the northeast for the first time in my then eighteen years and thinking, “Man, these people sure are confident they know everything and how the country should be run.” It wasn’t even stated. It was just known that if you were from what was to become known as the Acela Corridor, you were just smarter than everyone, oh say, west of New Jersey.

  2. “And average peak monsoonal rainfall actually has declined somewhat since the 1950s.”

    Which, to them, is probably also proof of climate change.

  3. I know I keep beating the horse, but this seven-minute video from Tony Heller explains just a single aspect of how government is propagating absolute lies about climate change. We should send this scam to the news people. They would certainly want to cove…oh, wait…

    You’re welcome.

  4. Jack wrote, “The more I think about it, the more the Wuhan virus fiasco strikes me as a microcosm (not too micro, unfortunately) of the climate change hysteria.”

    I know this might be a bit of a tangent but here I go with another rant…

    Stating that the Wuhan virus fiasco is a microcosm of the climate change hysteria is certainly true but it’s a bit of an understatement when you look outside that tunnel at what’s happening in the United States; both the Wuhan virus and climate change become a microcosm of a much broader major cultural shift.

    The hysterical public mindset in the United States is across-the-board and created by decades of wide-spread apocalyptic propaganda that’s been force fed to the public and slowly brainwashed the masses.

    Really think about what that’s saying for a minute…

    Apocalyptic propaganda has infected almost every aspect of our society and culture right down to the labeling of consumer products and people questioning the words that come out of their mouths so we don’t offend psychological snowflakes, all this propaganda destroying the foundations of the culture that the United States of America is built upon. Apocalyptic styled propaganda has been intentionally dumped in our faces for decades by an activist that has corrupted a willfully unethical media that seems to be hell bent on creating more and more hysteria, which in turn helps them sell more of their product and helps to push a wide-spread cultural shift.

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

    Here is a brief listing of just some of the major topics (in no particular order) where apocalyptic propaganda has been used to manipulate the public over the past few decades:
    1. Climate Change
    2. COVID
    3. Firearms
    4. Police
    5. Racism
    6. Gender
    7. Abortion
    8. Free Speech
    9. Equality
    10. Equity
    11. Justice
    12. History
    13. Marriage
    14. Education
    15. Individualism
    16. Religion
    17. Parental Rights
    18. Republicans
    19. Election Integrity
    20. Status Quo

    I’m sure you can think of more, maybe a lot more.

    That list can be further broken down into subcategories showing how apocalyptic propaganda has been used to shift and/or control the thinking and actions of the masses right down to the absurdity of companies feeling they have to virtue signal to the public and change product names and labeling on grocery store shelves to stave off the immature cancel culture, to people feeling they have to self-censor words out of their vocabulary so they don’t risk the irrational horde of social justice warriors canceling them because they offended a psychological snowflake.

    Where politics, society and culture is concerned, fear is a hammer and we’re all nails.

    It’s time to face the facts staring us in the face, our entire culture is under assault and fear has taken hold of our society. Fear of all those things listed above being changed and fear of them not being changed. There’s fear of an onslaught of ignorant totalitarian minded, uncivil, unlawful, and frankly a violent horde of social justice warriors wanting to force changes in all those things listed above and the fear that those social justice warriors have that society won’t allow them to change those things. There’s a fear that our law enforcement is unwilling, or being unfunded, or ineffective at handling the horde of social justice warriors and criminals and there’s fear that the police are going to shoot them dead. There is fear of a revolving door in our justice system that’s allowing criminals to repeatedly break laws without any or effective consequences and there’s fear that the justice system will railroad innocent people into prison. There is fear that the cultural status quo is being undermined and there’s fear that the things that are considered wrong with the status quo can’t be changed. There is fear that our freedom of speech is being stripped from our cultural roots and there’s fear that opposing opinions will be heard. There’s fear that our public education system has become indoctrination camps and fear that our educational system isn’t allowed to indoctrinate. There’s fear that our individualism is being suppressed in favor of social hive-mindedness and fear that individualism is suppressing people. There’s fear that we will be persecuted for having opposing opinions and fear that others actually have opposing opinions. There’s fear that the move towards Marxist like “equity” will distribute earned wealth and fear that the poor are being used by the rich. There’s fear that elections are being rigged and there’s fear that votes are being suppressed. There’s fear that the federal government wants to control the public and fear that the public won’t let the federal government control the public. It really doesn’t matter one bit if these fears are supported or not, the fear exists and the results of that fear has caused a huge cross section of citizens over the last few years to do things that they might never have done twenty years ago, arm themselves with firearms. Some have done this because they’ve realized that law enforcement cannot protect the public or it’s the job of the individual to protect themself and their family or they want to stock up before the emotional troglodyte anti-gun activists get their way and ban, ban, ban. The culmination of all this fear pulls a new unfamiliar dark veil of hysteria across our entire society.

    What can we do to change all this, I’m not really sure. When fear sets in across a society, people are spending more time looking over their shoulder at what’s creeping up on them instead of planning for a positive future or they’re simply planning their future built upon their fears. When the population is in fear and “fighting” to maintain the basics of freedom and a cultural status quo in a society that seems to be teetering on the verge of total chaos it’s really hard to look forward and we become quite stagnant, isolated and migrating towards being tribalized with like minded people. This is true for all people.

    If you want to control a society and get them to willingly give up their freedoms, then you must do it with fear.

    Well people, the apocalyptic kind of fear is already here.

    Rant complete.

  5. Climate change warnings are like the panacea claims of CBD. I visited a CBD shop to investigate its claims. I was informed by the purple-haired purveyor that ingesting, inhaling, or applying CBD oil topically can cure any malady. You name a pathology and the purple-haired propagandist behind the counter can prove the efficacy of her product by science. Anxious, CBD can relieve your distress. If depressed, CBD can lift your melancholy. Whether your blood sugar is high or low, CBD can help balance it. Pain in your feet, CBD relieves it. Neurasthenia, CBD restores sensation.
    Climate change likewise can be scientifically connected to any earthly event. Record-breaking December snowfall in Buffalo caused by climate change. Searing temperatures and droughts in Arizona during the summer, are caused by climate change. Starving children in Bangladesh and Ethiopia. caused by climate change.
    Just some observations!

    • Agreed. Doesn’t anyone ever wonder whether all these “unprecedented” weather events are simply a function of an ever-expanding sample size? These events are always “the most something-or-other since a fairly long time ago, often times well before the introduction of the internal combustion engine.” Why weren’t people alarmed back then? What caused these events back then?

  6. In the analysis of any phenomenon, there are several layers to peel back:

    1. Is the phenomenon real?
    2. Is the phenomenon being measure accurately?
    3. Is the phenomenon on a whole beneficial or deleterious?
    4. Are the causes of the phenomenon understood?
    5. Are there solutions to the phenomenon?
    6. Do those solutions cause more problems than the phenomenon?
    7. How should those solutions be applied?

    We have to understand that science is about creating hypotheses about the real world and testing them. Science collects data, analyzes data, makes predictions about the data, and then observes whether those predictions come true. Thus science can help to a certain degree with the first 6 items on the list, but it has much less to say on the 7th. But even for the first 6, science does not necessarily provide definitive answers, certainly not enough to say that any “Believe the science!” mantras should be heeded. In more detail:

    1. Science can offer a tentative answer to whether a phenomenon is real. Upon testing and retesting, it can assert with a certain degree of confidence (never 100%) that a phenomenon is indeed real. But there could always be further data discovered that shows the phenomenon was not real, or at least what it was was much different that was proposed. In the case of climate science, we have observations since the 1970s that show a general warming trend. It seems very reasonable to accept that we’ve seen a general warming trend since then. However, even now there are some factors that could still upset that conclusion. The urban heat index could be greater than we imagined; the fact that most of the temperature gauges we’ve used around the world are located in first world countries, leaving much of the world unmeasured; and the reliance on satellite data (while currently of high confidence) might have some undiscovered error that invalidates 50 years of data collection. (I’m not saying this is the case or I have any evidence satellite data is flawed, just that that would be an example of how even our belief that the world has been warming could be in error.)

    2. Science can only measure to a certain degree of accuracy. Again, the issues of urban heat index and the location of various temperature gauges could skew the data, and while global warming could be a real phenomenon, the degree to which the world is warming can be misrepresented by poor measurements. Similarly, efforts to reconstruct historical climate patterns based on ice core samples, tree rings, and other methods could be helpful, but still inaccurate, and thus lead to different conclusions about current warming or cooling trends. Furthermore, there is the question of whether we are truly measuring the right things? We need to measure air, land, and water temperatures at a variety of elevations, and we have to properly measure the incoming energy in the earth’s systems, as well as the outgoing energy of the earth’s systems, and this leads to literally hundreds of thousands of data points for one timestamp. Multiply that by years of data, and we are talking about an enormous amount of data, and we could still be missing a crucial measurement that we didn’t think we would actually need to measure.

    3. Global warming and cooling are known, to a certain degree of confidence, to have occurred over a variety of eras to a variety of degrees. Temperatures were hotter when the dinosaurs ruled the earth. Temperatures were colder in depths of the various ice ages that have happened since. We do know that there are problems with a climate that is too cold on one end, and too hot on another end, for the suitability of human life. Climate change alarmist keep propagating claims that weather events will become more frequent and more damaging in a hotter global climate. The evidence thus far has been to the contrary, and on the flip side, a warmer global climate leads to wetter (not drier) temperate zones, longer growing seasons, and fewer cold deaths. At some point, these gains would vanish — too hot a climate would make it difficult for humans to survive (except for the crazies who live in Phoenix…), but that would be far hotter than the 1.5 degree, or even the 5 degree Celsius models the IPCC have proposed.

    4. Science fundamentally seeks to understand causes of phenomena. It is founded on a principle that the universe is ordered, that effect follows cause, that creation is fundamentally intelligible. So it is well within the purveyance of the scientific methodology to propose one or more causes for a phenomenon. We have observed the world warming. Why is it warming? It would have to be due to a larger difference between energy in and energy out. The earth has a certain amount of trapped heat, some of which is stored in the oceans, some in the atmosphere, and some beneath the crust. The earth receives heat from solar radiation, and the earth loses heat by emitting it out into space. So what scenarios do we have to consider?

    a. An increase in the solar radiation.

    b. A decrease in the heat emitted into space.

    c. An increase in heat emitted from the earth’s oceans or molten interior.

    d. Some other mechanism we have not identified.

    e. Some combination of all four.

    The proponents of anthropogenic climate change essentially focus on case b. They propose that dramatic increases in carbon dioxide have trapped and will continue to trap additional heat in the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, continuously heating the earth. While they may consider a variety of other contributors to the observed global warming, they propose that man-made addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary driver. Critics largely suggest that fluctuations in the solar radiation are fundamentally responsible for the earth’s warming and cooling climate. Given that the globe does continue to warm, but that the warming is far below all projections, it seems that while many of the causes are known, the relative weight of each cause is still unknown.

    5. We can use science to produce solutions. If we understand causes, then we can propose actions that will counteract those causes. And so, there are a number of solutions to global warming, from the radical to the expensive to the practical. There doesn’t seem to be much we can do to increase or decrease the sun’s emitted radiation, but there are some hypothetical means of reflecting more of the sun’s radiation back into space, from a solar shade to seeding the atmosphere with large amounts of chemicals that reflect the sun’s light. In terms of decreasing the heat emitted into space, by far the biggest proposition is reducing all man-made carbon dioxide to as close to zero as possible. But the question is how much of a decrease is needed, or even possible? Certainly one way to eliminate all man-made carbon emissions is to eliminate mankind altogether. Others have proposed not the extinction of mankind, but the reduction of mankind to a few million that will live in some carbon-free, solar/wind/battery/organic/vegan-driven utopia. Still others have proposed massive spending to build sufficient “renewable” generation that today’s standard of living and population could be largely maintained. Other pursuits look to bypass the batter problem by seeking other storage mechanisms, such as the generation of “green” hydrogen. I’m not going to touch on the Paris Accords or other non-binding legislation that just seeks to move money around, because those are obviously not solutions to global warming. But there are some other proposals on the flip side, which largely boil down to adapting to the warming climate and not seek to curtail the warming.

    6. Science can help further by evaluating the consequences of implementing those causes by making predictions of how the phenomenon of global warming will unfold under certain scenarios. That is what the IPCC has tried to accomplish, laying out the “business as usual” case against a partial decarbonization against total decarbonization. However, science requires observation and repeatability. Without actually implementing the changes proposed, science can only hypothesize. And this is where the science begins to reach its limits. If the science is actually uncertain what the causes of the phenomenon are, then any solution proposed could either do nothing, actually help, or exacerbate the problem. Worse, those solutions would probably have additional consequences that are not directly related to the problem. Using the cold logic of Skynet, the easiest way to eliminate man-made problems is to eliminate man. Done. However, that does carry the undesirable side-effect (for some of us at least) of extinction. Of the more realistic proposals, such as building solar panels and wind turbines to replace fossil fuels, there is a very high cost of implementation. Calculations show that for scores of trillions of dollars, at the cost of unearthing an unprecedented amount of rare materials, and by blanketing the countryside, it could be feasible to decarbonize the earth’s power generation. Is that good? Is that bad? Science can only offer facts, not value judgments. It is it better to beggar mankind to prevent further warming, or is it better to let warming occur and risk letting that warming spiral out of control? Does that change based upon the uncertainty of how effective each solution is? It would be crippling to beggar mankind, but it would be far worse if mankind were beggared to no effect. What about the green hydrogen? It has some merit on the surface, but compressed hydrogen is extremely dangerous. Hydrogen doesn’t like to remain hydrogen. That’s why we don’t find pure hydrogen in the wild (on earth, I mean — stars are different stories). Is the risk of handling such a compressed, volatile material in unbelievably large quantities a better idea?

    7. This leads us into our final layer, where science can only inform, not recommend. Science deals with is, not ought. A variety of solutions, some more clever than others, could be very attractive to those who are running the models and conducting experiments, but even so, science only goes as far as informing. Anything beyond that is not informing, but advocating, and that is no longer science.

    However, the picture is far murkier than that would suggest. In order for science to inform, it has to both present reasonable information, and it has to be trustworthy in its presentation. The breakdown in past decades of the peer-review process; the scandal of money driving research toward a preconceived policy, rather than letting the science speak for itself; the proliferation of junk science in academia in order to reach tenure has greatly eroded the trust science once held. Add onto that the censorship, not just from the media, but within academia itself, of contrary analyses and inconvenient data, and the call to “Follow the science!” is no longer a reasonable mantra, but blind trust.

    A policy-maker would be more inclined to a course of action if that action solved a problem, but the action would have to be proportionate to the problem. Right now, with global warming in no way keeping up with the climate models, it would be lunacy to direct the entire resources of the human race to the narrow-minded vision of “decarbonization”. All the yammering about the extreme weather has nothing to do with science: the data shows no increase (but does show a decrease) in extreme storms. Droughts are no worse now, and various dry areas of the globe are greening. Snow is still around. Glaciers are still around. And each warmer year we get currently saves about 100,000 lives (since cold-related deaths each year number around 4.5 million, and heat-relate deaths about 600,000). The world continues to produce ample food to feed the entire human population (with only distribution issues being the main reason people don’t have the food they need). And we still have a healthy population of polar bears.

    In the meantime, we continually have groups of anthropogenic climate-change skeptics, such as Anthony Watt’s Watt’s Up With That and Paul Homewood’s Not A Lot of People Know That that analyze all the new papers and proposals, call out misrepresentations in the press, and really do seem to be “following the science” noting just how badly the climate science is being conducted and presented to the public. They are prolific and erudite in their commentary.

    Paul Homewood did in fact point out someone who tried to resurrect the “the current cold spell is further evidence of global warming” argument.

      • Steve,

        I know I let plenty of my biases creep in, but I was trying to stay as neutral as I could. Man, there are volumes that could be, and need to be, written on the subject of the proper application of science, and I had to fight hard to try to keep the topic on just the application of science, what it can and what it cannot do, without polemicizing, but it is hard. Especially if you’re hurriedly typing your fingers off your hands…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.