Links tagged “Borenstein”
- Warmist tout cherry-picked red temperature chart since 1850 to show ‘global warming’ – But 2000 year temperature chart debunks
Media hyped chart of only last 150 years of temperatures:
Reality Check: Chart of last 2000 years of temperatures:
- AP’s Seth Borenstein rips Climate Depot’s Morano: ‘You’re just a troll with a love for conspiracy, a hatred for science and reality. Leave science to smart people’
A Classic Twitter Debate
Seth Borenstein claim: "I seek out experts, people who have studied the science, have academic qualifications, published the data in peer-reviewed journals and write what they say. I hold up a mirror to what data, science, reality show from qualified scientists. That's my job."
Morano responded: "Oh, come on Seth. Your 'job' is to promote bullshit climate scares in any way you can imagine, to hell with the actual science. I don't pay too much attention to your articles anymore, but I believe that you honestly think you are a good reporter on climate change. I think you are that clueless."
Borenstein replied: "You don't pay attention to reality, science or anything with common sense You're just a troll with a love for conspiracy, a hatred for science and reality. Leave science to smart people. Bye."
Morano: "No reason to get so testy Seth. Happy Earth Day."
Update: Morano apologizes!: "Upon further review, I made the first unprovoked rude comment to Seth and instigated him into making a nasty comment about me. For what it's worth Seth, I apologize. Over and out. Thanks." Borenstein accepted the apology.
- AP publishes a silly story suggesting coronavirus should convince us that there’s a climate crisis, or something
- New Science Scandal: Hurricane expert rips ‘major errors’ in media hyped study – ‘Fatally Flawed Hurricane Paper Should Be Retracted’
AP Media hyped claim by Seth Borenstein: Will Borenstein follow up on the study?!
"The biggest most destructive hurricanes happening 3X more often than century ago," Borenstein wrote.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: "The press release accompanying the paper announced that United States mainland “hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous” and with the new study, “doubt has been eradicated.”
If true, the paper (which I’ll call G19, using its lead author’s initial and year of publication) would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions has been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.
In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The conclusions of major scientific assessments remain solid. As I’ll show below, G19 contains several major errors and as a result it should be retracted." ... The first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends."
"From 1900 to 1958, the first half of the period under study, NOAA reports that there were 117 total hurricanes that struck the mainland U.S.. But in contrast, G19 has only 92. They are missing 25 hurricanes. In the second half of the dataset, from 1959 to 2017, NOAA has 91 hurricanes that struck the U.S., and G19 has 155, that is 64 extra hurricanes.The AP passed along the incorrect information when it reported that the new study looks at “247 hurricanes that hit the U.S. since 1900.” According to NOAA, from 1900 to 2017 there were in fact only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (9 storms had multiple landfalls)."
- New Hurricane Study Systematically Debunked By Roger Pielke Jr.
- ‘How does this stuff pass review?’ Extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr rips new media hyped study claiming hurricanes are hitting U.S. ‘more often’
Dr. Pielke ridicules the study for not including Hurricane Andrew as top destructive storm. "Andrew not in top 20? LOL."
Pielke Jr.: "I should point out that this group published similar bombshell findings about hurricanes in 2012 (Also in PNAS). That study was recently updated by the WMO TC assessment and WMO found that its results did not hold up."
Dr. Pielke's note to Associated Press' Seth Borenstein:
- Analysis: US Air Quality Isn’t Slipping: Taking a Closer Look at the Data
The truth is that the changes in air quality cited are statistically insignificant, largely driven by wildfires, and do nothing to contradict claims that America’s air is as clean as it has ever been.
- Media hypes new study — but reality shows ‘Melting Glaciers To Drown Us At 2 Inches A Century’
AP hypes study: Global warming is shrinking glaciers faster than thought
But reality: "27mm (of sea level rise) between 1961 and 2016! Two inches a century. Head to the hills!"
Also see: Scientists, studies & data agree: ‘Global warming’ not fueling acceleration in sea level rise
- Analysis: ‘AP and NOAA are intentionally deceiving the public’ to support the climate narrative
- AP’s Seth Borenstein Tries The Daily Records Con – ‘Another remarkably dishonest and deceitful piece, even by Seth Borenstein standards’
The reason why AP decided to hide the data prior to 1958 becomes immediately obvious. Hot records were far more common not only in the 1930s, but 1950s as well. We also see far fewer cold records since around 1990. It is that lack of cold records which has skewed the ratio of hot/cold, and not an increase in the hot ones.
According to Guy Walton: “You are getting more extremes. Your chances for getting more dangerous extremes are going up with time.”
In fact, the opposite is true. The number of extremes, hot and cold added together, have been getting fewer in recent years...Borenstein claims that we are seeing more and more “record breaking heat” and “more extremes”. The opposite is true. Hot records are less common than in the past, and cold records have become even rarer. As a result, we are seeing a reduction in extreme temperatures.
-
Bill Gates & UN Launch New Climate Agenda – Seeks ‘to kick start a transformational decade’ of climate ‘action’
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi will apparently gather in the Netherlands. There, along with Bill Gates, UN head Antonio Guterres, and personnel associated with the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, they’ll attend a climate summit hosted by the Global Center on Adaptation. ...
We’re told this summit "will launch a comprehensive Adaptation Action Agenda to kick start a transformational decade."
Donna Laframboise: "The chutzpah is astonishing. The global economy is in tatters. Billions face an uncertain future. Health care workers are exhausted. Yet this Clique of Self-Important People™ is full speed ahead, determined to impose its climate vision on the rest of us."
-
The Return of the Dead: Countering Species Extinction Claims – The most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations’
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
-
CNN report buries this good news in paragraph 12 on polar bears: ‘They are doing quite well…Svalbard’s polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years’
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
-
Statistical politics: Prof. Mike Hulme on ‘politically charged’ climate baseline changes from 1961-1990 to 1991-2020: ‘In an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer’
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be
represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ..."So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."
