Meteorologist Calls out Media's Effort Against 'Misinformation' for Lacking Transparency
By Brad Slager | Jan 23, 2022 2:15 PM ET



AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

When they use the very tactics they complain about, that has to be declared as misinformation.


First, a piece of backstory to set the table. We at this site, and those conservative outlets like ours, are well aware that social media holds our work to a differing standard. Being aware of this when we report on stories concerning COVID or the climate, we go in knowing our work will automatically be audited, so we have to take extra care that everything is referenced and corroborated to ensure accuracy. And even then, a fully accurate piece can be flagged as ‘’misinformation,’, because the provable facts divert from an approved narrative.



Meanwhile, the verifiers and fact-checkers who cite problems do not themselves have to hew as closely to those strict standards of factual presentation. This reality has been addressed by meteorologist and PhD recipient, Ryan Maue. In a recent Twitter thread, he points out a glaring violation of the misinformation process where platforms and news outlets combat messaging with the very type of tactic they deride. In essence, they claim to combat misinformation by using misinformation.

Maue notes a recent article by USA Today that announced there is still a swelling of climate misinformation on social media, despite claimed efforts by the largest platforms to crack down on the dissemination of content that is deemed inaccurate and/or dangerous. The first indication there is a flawed approach with this article is that it is said that misinformation is what has stalled many efforts towards effective change in climate policy, a point that is supported by Michael Mann. As a reminder, Mann is one of the infamous names in the climate movement who has delivered blatantly inaccurate climate information.

The heart of this piece is a study conducted by a group called Advance Democracy (AD), which is said to have found significant amounts of inaccurate information distributed on social media. This is a trend that was recorded last summer and has continued throughout the year.

Advance Democracy says the number of posts with climate change denial terms such as “climate fraud,” “climate change hoax,” or “climate cult” increased after the climate topic was introduced and averaged 679 a day in the second half of 2021. Climate change denial spiked during the U.N. COP 26 climate summit, Advance Democracy found.


The USA Today article has been picked up by a number of other outlets. Maue notes the same writer, Jessica Guynn, wrote a similar piece over six months prior, giving almost all the same pronouncements but in reference to the year 2020, and again citing Advance Democracy findings. The information provided to the paper stated the various issues detected on social media, but here is where things get revealing — or, more accurately, get obfuscated. Guynn says the report from the outfit was shared exclusively, but nowhere is there a link or direction to the actual report.

Maue shows that other articles from Guynn share this storyline and features findings by AD. He also found this appears to be the case on the Advance Democracy website. Despite many of the same type of declarations, the outfit looks to be very coy with their data, their studies, and their methodology.

Consider what is taking place now. Over the course of years, a solitary outfit is making very bold claims, which carry implied import and are said to be the cause of action. Their report is picked up across the media spectrum and appears to influence the decisions of social media platforms. Yet at no point is the actual study provided? There may, in fact, be an actual study, but why after years is the actual report not given out? Why are the metrics and methods of study not provided?

When this is an environment where particular news sites have to be extremely diligent in reporting and fact delivery – and can still be flagged as misinformation – it is remarkably revealing that on the other side, there is no such insistence on veracity. It appears that simply making claims is enough, as long as those claims support the approved narrative.

 

This is how you create global warming . It wasn’t the weather service says it’s 6° Today My pick up says it’s 4° today , ( There’s some Thermometer hanging on the side of my house) says 11°
There are folks is your global warming . If you take the temperature right outside the building it will be warmer than the actual temperature outside . Creating global warming the hoax

 

they should'nt have closed up the hole in the ozone layer, ever since then all they talk about is global warming

 

This is so fucking true I see these fucking mask everywhere , Because the same scumbag who force people to wear them are the same scumbags who litter. And don’t give a fuck about the planet at all ,only their own well-being . And to keep others from enjoying life .

 

covid starts in china, then china sells us the fucking mask,

 

Wrong...the Chi-Coms didn't sell them to us...Crime Boss Biden and the Ho(halfcracker/soros/young hunter 3.0) bought them./..

OOOPS. I misread your post, I thought you were referring to the tests that Crime Boss Biden and the Ho(halfcracker/soros/young hunter 3.0) just bought for several million or billion (cant remember.)

 

Big Oil’ board members face hot seat over climate ‘deception’
Oil industry insiders to appear before US Congress as some of the most powerful companies in the world face a reckoning for the climate crisis.


Climate activists carry placards as they participate in an anti-fossil fuel protest action in Glasgow, Scotland, in November [File: AFP]
By Jack Losh
Published On 7 Feb 20227 Feb 2022
In 1977, an internal memo at Exxon, the United States oil giant, made clear that carbon emissions from its product were causing climate change. But not only that – time was running out to act.


“CO2 release most likely source of inadvertent climate modification,” said the shorthand document. “5-10 yr time window to get necessary information.”


But over the coming years, rather than dropping fossil fuels to avert the dangers outlined in its own research, Exxon and other oil corporations chose a different path. The industry orchestrated a systematic campaign of disinformation to dupe the public, impede political action, and protect profits.

“Emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect,” said an Exxon paper in 1988, one of many published in the America Misled report on the fossil fuel industry.

“Stress environmentally sound adaptive efforts,” said another internal memo the following year. “Victory will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science,” added one more in 1998.

Two years later, Exxon – styled by then as ExxonMobil after a multibillion-dollar merger – secured an advertorial in The New York Times as part of a media blitz to bolster climate denial. Under the headline “Unsettled Science”, it argued that scientists faced “fundamental gaps in knowledge”, despite the overwhelming and ever-increasing consensus that fossil fuels were causing the planet to heat.

Humanity’s worst threat
Against this decades-long backdrop of deception and denial, oil industry insiders will appear before the US Congress as some of the most powerful energy companies in the world face a reckoning for their role in creating – and attempting to cover up – the climate crisis.

Board members at BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell will be questioned under oath by a House panel on Tuesday. The aim is to illuminate the industry’s contribution to humanity’s worst existential threat – and how, at the same time, it spread disinformation to cast doubt over the catastrophic impact of burning its products.


Although the hearings cannot bring criminal prosecutions, experts see them as a crucial means of shifting public opinion. And that could spur consumers to shun carbon-based fuels and encourage investors to strip big polluters of capital, while empowering environmental activists and lawyers to take on powerful industrial interests.

“This could be a watershed moment,” said Richard J Rogers, executive director of Climate Counsel, a non-profit law firm specialising in environmental destruction and crimes against humanity. “This whole story is about the greed of a tiny number of men who were prepared to threaten the stability of their own, and our own, civilisation in order to get very rich.”

Current commitments to cut global emissions put the world on track for a disastrous 2.4C rise in global temperatures by the end of this century [File: AP]
The stakes could not be higher. In the wake of the disappointing United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), where crucial new targets were stymied by oil and coal-producing countries, current commitments to cut emissions put the world on track for a disastrous 2.4C increase in global temperatures by the end of this century.

That ruinous rise will cause major sea-level rise from melting ice sheets, devastating coastal cities and island nations. Ecosystems will collapse while storms, droughts, floods and wildfires increase in number and intensity, fuelling famine, fighting, and the displacement of millions as equatorial regions become unliveable and unprecedented heatwaves lacerate northern latitudes.

And that’s if current pledges are even met. Every degree higher scales up the level of cataclysm. “We need an avalanche of action,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last month.

ExxonMobil spokesperson Casey Norton told Al Jazeera the company has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks.

“In addition to our substantial investments in next-generation technologies, ExxonMobil also advocates for responsible climate-related policies. Our public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent, and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time,” said Norton.

“ExxonMobil has contributed to the development of climate science for decades and has made its work publicly available. And as the scientific community’s understanding of climate change developed, ExxonMobil responded accordingly.”

‘Setting the future on fire’
This week’s high-profile hearings in Washington, DC will target board members who were elected to galvanise change at oil companies. It is the second part of an ongoing investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the first of which saw leaders of the four major oil and gas corporations grilled by lawmakers last October.


“Some of us actually have to live the future that you are all setting on fire for us,” Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told them.

The congressional panel has issued subpoenas for company documents to expose what oil firms have known about the harm caused by fossil fuels – and how they failed to act.

The next appearances are scheduled amid an unprecedented wave of court cases across the US as communities nationwide sue oil companies, not only for causing but also exacerbating environmental destruction by suppressing warnings from their own scientists.

In an audacious bid to hold the industry to account, cities and states threatened by extreme weather and rising sea levels are demanding these powerful conglomerates overhaul their destructive operations and pay compensation to cover the cost of building defences or repairing the damage.

However, because much of environmental law is underdeveloped and rarely carries a criminal penalty, claimants have had to get creative.

From Hawaii to California to Rhode Island, some have accused oil companies of creating a “public nuisance”. Deploying that legal term has proven successful elsewhere, for example in lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that fuelled the US’s opioid epidemic with powerful prescription painkillers.

Others have sued on the basis of fraud. Blighted by blistering temperatures and devastating floods, Minnesota’s attorney general has accused ExxonMobil and others of breaching state law through false advertising and deceptive trade practices as part of a campaign to deny climate change.

The legacy of these lawsuits may depend less on the final rulings and more on damaging information that emerges in the process.

“If the plaintiffs are successful in forcing the secrets and conduct of the oil companies into the public eye, they will potentially create a tide of negative publicity that could permanently weaken these companies, similar to what happened with the tobacco industry,” said Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

While oil giants enjoy vast resources to fund these legal battles, the tide of lawsuits poses a grave threat to the industry.

“Unless the oil companies can get these cases dismissed quickly, they will have the sword of Damocles hanging over them for years,” added Farber. “[They] cannot afford to lose.”

Disregarding their own scientists
A mounting body of evidence shows that scientists working for the fossil fuel industry knew about CO2’s warming effects as early as the 1950s. For example, a Shell executive called Charles Jones wrote a paper in 1958 showing the industry was already concerned about levels of carbon emissions in car exhaust amid worries “the oil industry would continue to be blamed for the bulk of air pollution”.


In 1979, an Exxon study described the “dramatic environmental effects” caused by burning fossil fuels. Another study the following decade accurately predicted the trajectory of rising temperatures alongside increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, before that report was also buried.

Despite these clear warnings year after year, oil executives chose to disregard their own scientists, instead spinning a dangerous counternarrative. The disingenuous ploy of “greenwashing” also helped them create a false aura of environmental credibility that distracts from the dirty reality of burning and drilling for oil.

Whether cherry-picking facts or relying on fake experts, the techniques used by fossil fuel interests came straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook for impeding controls on cigarettes, mimicking similar tactics of the asbestos and lead industries, too.

Billions of dollars have poured into political lobbying, whether to derail stricter legislation or to fund aggressive front organisations. Last July, damning footage emerged of a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist saying the energy giant had fought climate science through “shadow groups” and had targeted senators to weaken President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, all to maximise shareholder profit.

“There’s nothing illegal about that,” said Keith McCoy, the lobbyist. “We were looking out for our investments.”

‘Flawed academic reports’
Back on Capitol Hill, those due to appear at Tuesday’s hearing include two figures on ExxonMobil’s board: Alexander Karsner, a renewable energy proponent and a strategist at Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc who won a seat at the Texan crude colossus for an activist hedge fund; and Susan Avery, an atmospheric scientist and former president of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Other board members scheduled to testify include Shell’s Jane Holl Lute, a UN special envoy; BP’s Melody Meyer, an oil industry veteran; and Chevron’s Enrique Hernandez, a lawyer and business executive who also runs a multinational security company.

Exxon’s spokesperson Norton said the company had handed over more than 200,000 pages of documents, “including board materials and internal communications”.

ExxonMobil claims it is the victim of “a coordinated campaign perpetuated by activist groups”, and accuses their backers of releasing “flawed academic reports” and coordinating with public officials to launch investigations and litigation, creating “the false appearance that ExxonMobil has misrepresented its company research and investor disclosures on climate change to the public”.

BP, Chevron, and Shell did not reply to requests for comment.

Whatever testimony is given this week, one fact is certain – Big Oil’s cover-up of the climate crisis has brought Earth to the brink.

“With their power and resources, these companies could have changed the trajectory of our planet’s health,” said Rogers. “They simply needed to be honest.”

Source: Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/7/big-oil-board-members-face-hot-seat-over-climate-information

 

climate deception on the part of big oil??
What about the global warming climate change climate crisis advocates who have collectively been telling us for hundreds of years that we're all gonna die?
You know, as in we're gonna freeze in the dark, and we won't have any food, and we're running out of oil by 2000, we're gonna all drown, we're gonna fry, blah blah blah. Not a single prediction has come true. Yet they still demand money, power, and fundamental changes in life style that not only probably won't make the climate better, but probably will make it worse.

Ironically, Shooter saw yet another article claiming that the entire Colorado River Basin will become a dessert in 40 years because of global warming climate change climate crisis. The problem with the article was that it totally ignored the overallocation of Colorado River water for over 100 years, which is the real reason the reservoirs of the Colorado River pact are all but dry, and the fact that this snow season continues to run above average, putting lie to the idea of a "continuing drought".
But hey, whatever it takes, eh?

But see what they did there? a fluff article demonizing big oil for "deception". A quick google search shows the same article pushed on many platforms, including facebook, occupydemocrats and PBS. A fluff piece that, in the end, either grossly distorts the facts or ignores them entirely.

For example, where's the memo? Perhaps we'd like to read it in it's entirety. Perhaps we'd like to understand more about how that memo was the instigator for EXXON to look at CO2 emissions and consider alternatives, like synthetic fuels. That is, until they proved that synthetic fuels generate more CO2 than fossil fuels.

But Shooter has to give the author credit for one of his tactics, that is tying the oil industry to the tobacco industry. Unethical, more lies and deception, but very clever.

 

The models can be perfect, but as long as they keep feeding them "adjusted" data, the results will always be wrong. In the end, regardless of anyone's belief in climate change or not, the one thing that can be absolutely guaranteed is that whatever "solution" the government comes up with will do more harm than the problem it is designed to fix.


Proof? The US government's response to COVID.

Scientists Conclude Dire Climate Change Models Were Wrong, Now What?
by Tyler Durden
Monday, Feb 07, 2022 - 02:50 PM
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Scientists admit they did not model clouds accurately and that they need a supercomputer 1000 times more powerful to accurately do that...




It's lengthy but an excellent read. I encourage everyone to take a look. The dire predictions went out the window, seemingly unanimously. But there is plenty in the article for the fearmongers and the sceptics to both say "I told you so".

Introduction
For almost five years, an international consortium of scientists was chasing clouds, determined to solve a problem that bedeviled climate-change forecasts for a generation: How do these wisps of water vapor affect global warming? They reworked 2.1 million lines of supercomputer code used to explore the future of climate change, adding more-intricate equations for clouds and hundreds of other improvements. They tested the equations, debugged them and tested again.

The scientists would find that even the best tools at hand can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs as rising temperatures impact almost every region.

Dire Forecasts Wrong
When they ran the updated simulation in 2018, the conclusion jolted them: Earth’s atmosphere was much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than decades of previous models had predicted, and future temperatures could be much higher than feared—perhaps even beyond hope of practical remedy.

“We thought this was really strange,” said Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. “If that number was correct, that was really bad news.”

The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model. “I think our higher sensitivity is wrong too. It’s probably a consequence of other things we did by making clouds better and more realistic.

You solve one problem and create another.”

UN Plays Down Extreme Forecasts
“We have a situation where the models are behaving strangely,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, a leading center for climate modeling. “We have a conundrum.”

In November 2021, as leaders met in Glasgow to negotiate limits on greenhouse gases under the auspices of the 2015 Paris Accords, there were more than 100 major global climate-change models produced by 49 different research groups, reflecting an influx of people into the field.

In its guidance to governments last year, the U.N. climate-change panel for the first time played down the most extreme forecasts.

Hind Casting
Before making new climate predictions for policy makers, an independent group of scientists used a technique called “hind-casting,” testing how well the models reproduced changes that occurred during the 20th century and earlier. Only models that re-created past climate behavior accurately were deemed acceptable.

Computing Clouds
Because clouds can both reflect solar radiation into space and trap heat from Earth’s surface, they are among the biggest challenges for scientists honing climate models.

At any given time, clouds cover more than two-thirds of the planet. Their impact on climate depends on how reflective they are, how high they rise and whether it is day or night. They can accelerate warming or cool it down. They operate at a scale as broad as the ocean, as small as a hair’s width. Their behavior can be affected, studies show, by factors ranging from cosmic rays to ocean microbes, which emit sulfur particles that become the nuclei of water droplets or ice crystals.

“If you don’t get clouds right, everything is out of whack.” said Tapio Schneider, an atmospheric scientist at the California Institute of Technology and the Climate Modeling Alliance, which is developing an experimental model. “Clouds are crucially important for regulating Earth’s energy balance.”

In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.

Dr. Gettelman, who helped develop CESM2, and his colleagues in their initial upgrade added better ways to model polar ice caps and how carbon and nitrogen cycle through the environment. To make the ocean more realistic, they added wind-driven waves. They fine-tuned the physics in its algorithms and made its vintage Fortran code more efficient.

Even the simplest diagnostic test is challenging. The model divides Earth into a virtual grid of 64,800 cubes, each 100 kilometers on a side, stacked in 72 layers. For each projection, the computer must calculate 4.6 million data points every 30 minutes. To test an upgrade or correction, researchers typically let the model run for 300 years of simulated computer time.

In their initial analysis, scientists discovered a flaw in how CESM2 modeled the way moisture interacts with soot, dust or sea-spray particles that allow water vapor to condense into cloud droplets.

It took a team of 10 climate experts almost 5 months to track it down to a flaw in their data and correct it, the scientists said.

Strained Supercomputers
The NCAR scientists in Boulder would like to delve more deeply into the behavior of clouds, ice sheets and aerosols, but they already are straining their five-year-old Cheyenne supercomputer, according to NCAR officials. A climate model able to capture the subtle effects of individual cloud systems, storms, regional wildfires and ocean currents at a more detailed scale would require a thousand times more computer power, they said.

Climate models need to link rising temperatures on a global scale to changing conditions in a local forest, watershed, grassland or agricultural zone, says NCAR forest ecologist Jacquelyn Shuman and NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl.

“Computer models that contain both large-scale and small-scale models allow you to really do experiments that you can’t do in the real world,” she said. “You can really ramp up the temperature, dial down the precipitation or completely change the amount of fire or lightning strikes that an area is seeing, so you can really diagnose how it all works together. That’s the next step. It would be very computationally expensive.”

“I think the climate models are the best tool we have to understand the future, even though they are far from perfect,” said Dr. Gettelman. “I’m not worried that the new models might be wrong.

What scares me is that they might be right.”

Both Sides Now
Models Will Get Better
Scientists need to keep doing what they are doing. The models surely will get better. Despite the models being wrong, they appear to be better than I expected. Yet, had we listened to the dire forecasts from Al Gore, globetrotting Gretta, President Biden, and media darling AOC, where would we be? Al Gore wanted to spend $90 trillion to fight climate change.

AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected
Recall my February 7, 2019 post AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) released her bill for a "Green New Deal". It's stunningly absurd.

AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion
On February 25, 2019 I noted I compared AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing William Nordhaus, a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics, compared AOC's Green New Deal with the cost of doing nothing and various alternatives. Nordhaus’s model—at least as of its 2007 calibration—estimated that such a policy goal would make humanity $14 trillion poorer compared to doing nothing at all about climate change. 2007 is admittedly way out of date, yet the models then were on the dire side.

AOC Says World Will End in 12 Years
On January 22, 2019 I noted Ocasio-Cortez Says World Will End in 12 Years: Here's What to Do About It AOC now says her comment was out of context, but play the video and you will see that her comments clearly weren't. Perhaps it was hyperbole, but extreme fearmongering of this kind will do nothing but raise eyebrows.

Clean Energy Now Demands
We have had an endless parade of fearmongers including Al Gore, Gretta,, AOC, Senator Elizabeth Warren, President Biden, the UN, and countless others demanding "clean energy now". None of them have factored in the amount of copper, lithium, rare earth materials, etc., needed for their demands. Their demands also depend on unreliable wind and battery storage techniques that do not even exist yet.

Solar energy is surprising cheap provided there is enough cheap land, there are no clouds, there is no nighttime, and the energy needs are in the desert, not New York City. Alternatively, solar needs storage technology that does not yet exist, but even if it did, we still have issues regarding need for more lithium, rare earth metals, etc., for the storage. We will get there over time, but that time is not now. Fearmongering does not help.

Per Capita CO2 Emissions


Per capita emissions chart courtesy of Our World in Data.

The US, EU, and UK have made huge strides in emissions. China, India, and many emerging markets are headed in the opposite direction. The political reality of the matter is that actions by the US and EU will not do much unless China and India do much more, much faster.

Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are 'Pie in the Sky'
Please recall my April 5, 2021 , post Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are 'Pie in the Sky'.

India lambasted the richer world's carbon cutting plans, calling long term net zero targets, "pie in the sky." In a pre-summit climate change meeting of 197 countries, China did not show up. India blasted the targets as "Pie in the Sky". "2060 sounds good, but it is just that, it sounds good," Raj Kumar Singh, India's minister for power, told a meeting organized by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Government Action
Scientists discarded 13 of 39 models, those with the most dire predictions and those that could not explain the ice age. Guess which ones the media, the politicians, and the fearmongers most quoted.

Now the scientists struggle with clouds. One of my readers repeatedly challenges me to a debate on climate change. I am sure he understands the models way better than I do. But those models were wrong on the dire side. Yet, I admit the models seem better than I expected. However, my main objection to all of this has been vindicated.

Anyone expecting government fearmongers to do anything sensible about climate change were, and still are wrong.

Science is advancing rapidly. Clean energy, especially solar, will make a dent. But along the way, we dropped nuclear from the equation to appease the Greens. Dropping nuclear energy was a huge mistake, especially in Europe where Germany is now using more coal and is increasingly dependent on Russia for natural gas. That is the irony of Green demands. The Greens perpetually demand more from science than science permits, at prices the Greens don't even bother to calculate. Finally, the Greens ignore the huge political reality regarding China and India. India is talking 2060 and China 2050 on net zero.

There is no way to force countries to go along with US and EU mandates. The cost of attempting to do so via tariffs would be massive, undoubtedly resulting in a global recession, if not depression.

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now
"From up and down and still somehow
"It's cloud's illusions I recall
"I really don't know clouds at all"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ire-climate-change-models-were-wrong-now-what

 

Damn stumbleLass, that's too long to read. Pare it down to a couple of paragraphs, or folks will just scroll through.

I went through 3 mouse scroll wheels before I put stumbles on ignore.

 

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

• Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria (111/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

 

We cannot ignore the irony of stumbler attacking the accuracy or political leanings of a source, any more than we can ignore his accusations of others being treasonous.

Ah well, it does provide some comic relief.

 

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false, and unproven claims, as well as the promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
  
  

Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

 

See...this:

says it all right here.

We as human beings are no comparison to mother nature, no matter how much tax money we throw at her....mother nature...she's a fickle bitch.

There was a time when I too, was gullible and naive as all get out, ignorant to the world, never got outside of my own neighborhood, decided against College, thought that fetching pussy was certainly more important than anything, now I damn near wouldn't give anyone a quarter for it, yet I still tell the grandkids to get as much as you can of it...and thought Government was the answer to all the worlds problems.

Then one day, just like a recovering heroin addict...I had a moment of clarity...those 535 idiots on Capitol Hill control every aspect of my life and lifestyle...yet those rotten bastards were incapable of controlling mother nature and all she will offer this Planet.

 

In somewhat related news, the lads managing the Colorado River Pact have been noting with dismay the very low water levels in the reservoirs they manage, notably Lakes Powell and Mead, but also all the way up to Flaming Gorge and over to the Blue Mesa and Navajo dams.

See, here's the thing. Ignoring for the moment that the real problem is the overallocation of water that simply does not exist, the reality is that until one of two things happen, these reservoirs will remain empty. Until either the allocation amounts are drastically reduced (the pact foolishly allocated 7.5 MILLION Acre feet to the upper basin states, 7.5 MILLION to the lower basin, and 1.5 MILLION to Mexico) the states will continue to take what they were promised, no matter what impact that has on the basin. For reference, the annual flow since 1933 has totaled around 15 MILLION acre feet, but as low as 13 MILLION and as high as 20 MILLION.

The other option is vastly increased water flow, as in make it snow! To refill all the reservoirs in the basin and maintain the 16.5 MILLION acre feet annual allocation, will require a fucking lot more snow. The capacity of all the reservoirs in the Colorado river basin is about 60 MILLION acre feet. If not a single drop was allocated starting today, it would take about 4 years to refill all the reservoirs.
Not gonna happen.

So, one alternative is to simply put almost all of the annual flow through the basin without impounding it. Let it all flow down to Lake Mead in other words. Keep enough back to meet say, half of the allocation, but let the rest just flow. Simply, drain those reservoirs.
Now here's what would happen. First, the power generation would pretty much continue as it does now. So long as water is flowing power is generating. And since most of the water needed for irrigation in the basin is taken during runoff in spring and summer, the irrigation users wouldn't see much change. Who would feel the change? Well, for starters, there wouldn't be nearly enough water flowing to fill the swimming pools and water the lawns in the desert that basically stretches from Las Vegas to Southern California. Mind you, with a bit of management, there'd still be enough water for drinking and what not, but all the pools and lawns would have to dry up.
Sorry about that.
And the recreation business in all the reservoirs would pretty much die. The Powell houseboat rentals would either stop or drastically change, since its simply not reasonable to expect that executive from LA who probably never floated on a lake to maneuver a 50' house boat through a side canyon. And if Powell was basically empty, there'd be a lot of potential for running aground and sinking house boats.

But, Glen canyon would resurface. And so would the lower grand canyon, the part that was flooded with Lake Mead. And the Dolores river would run free again.

Course, the lads managing the current pact would probably lose their jobs, and so would all the government employees who "manage" the reservoirs, but what the hell. We sacrificed a lot of jobs in the name of other good causes over the years.

 

To me, the US military's main job is to defend the country and its' borders. It is not to "...purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks...." Nor is it to push "critical race theory" or any other of the Left's cultural baggage. We should be increasing our military's lethality, not worrying about the military's "gender inclusivity."

I will wager any amount of money that neither Russia nor China are worrying about this level of cultural of stupidity in their militaries.

And that POS General Milley, who should have resigned immediately after the Afghanistan departure fiasco (if not earlier), still remains Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump was warned about nominating him for that position, and he ignored those warnings. This has turned out to be one of Trump's worst personnel decisions ever (IMHO), right up there with James Comey (FBI), John Kelly (Chief of Staff), Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State) and Jim Mattis (Secretary of Defense).

U.S. Army releases plan to address climate change
David Knowles
Thu, February 10, 2022, 11:46 AM·3 min read

The U.S. Army unveiled a new strategy Tuesday for dealing with global disruptions caused by climate change, which it says "endangers national and economic security." "The time to address climate change is now. The effects of climate change have taken a toll on supply chains, damaged our infrastructure, and increased risks to Army Soldiers and families due to natural disasters and extreme weather," Secretary of the Army Christine E. Wormuth wrote in the introduction to the report. "The Army must adapt across our entire enterprise and purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks. If we do not take action now, across our installations, acquisition and logistics, and training, our options to mitigate these risks will become more constrained with each passing year."

Specifically, the report makes the case that the likelihood of armed conflict will grow around the world as temperatures continue to rise and the competition for resources increases. "The risk will rise even more where climate effects compound social instability, reduce access to basic necessities, undermine fragile governments and economies, damage vital infrastructure and lower agricultural production," the report states. Areas of the world cited in the report include Middle Eastern countries like Syria, where drought is seen as having played a role in that country's brutal civil war, and the Arctic, where melting ice caps are poised to set off a scramble for resources.

Part of the Army plan includes making all military installations more self-sufficient in terms of energy and water needs, but it also calls for a sweeping transformation to sources of clean energy, switching to an all-electric fleet of noncombat vehicles by 2035 and for the development of electric combat vehicles by 2050.

A list of "immediate objectives" contained in the report lists priorities such as providing "100% carbon-pollution-free electricity for Army installations’ needs by 2030," and achieving a "50% reduction in [greenhouse gas] emissions from all Army buildings by 2032."

"First, the Biden administration used troops as critical race theory lab rats. Now President Biden wants to turn the Army into a climate change task force," Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CQ Roll Call. "Time and money spent indulging Democrats' political goals is time and money lost in the fight against America's enemies — and our enemies know it."

But Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the Democratic chair of the House Armed Services Committee, praised the report as "an important step."

The Army's new report comes on the heels of the October release of the Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis. In the foreword to that report, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called climate change an "existential threat." "Climate change touches most of what this Department does, and this threat will continue to have worsening implications for U.S. national security," he wrote.

-------

https://news.yahoo.com/us-army-releases-plan-to-address-climate-change-194643335.html