« First « Previous Comments 1,148 - 1,187 of 1,491 Next » Last » Search these comments
A new paper written by zoologist Dr Susan Crockford to mark International Polar Bear Day today has found that global polar bear numbers have continued to rise. Numbers have been steadily increasing since 2005, with 2018 data estimating the highest number of polar bears globally since they were protected by international treaty in 1973.
Last month, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the practice at the U.K. Met Office of inventing temperature averages from over 100 non-existent measuring stations. Helpfully, the Met Office went so far as to supply coordinates, elevations and purposes of the imaginary sites. Following massive interest across social media and frequent reposting of the Daily Sceptic article, the Met Office has amended its ludicrous claims. The move has not been announced in public, needless to say, since drawing attention to this would open a pandora’s box and run the risk of subjecting all the Met Office temperature claims to wider scrutiny. Instead, the Met Office has discreetly renamed its “U.K. climate averages” page as “Location-specific long-term averages”.

If global warming is a problem, we should see effects first in those areas.
A bizarre apocalypse article, based on a recently published astrophysics study, bubbled up through leftwing media this week, finally topping the New York Times’ home page yesterday. It bore the terrifying headline, “Superflares Erupt From Stars Like Our Sun Once Every 100 Years. ...
The study published this week in the journal Science with a title nearly identical to the Times’ headline: “Sun-like stars produce superflares roughly once per century.” (After the appalling pandemic trend of civilians doing their own research, the journal Science joined many other science journals and locked its content up behind an expensive paywall waived for Establishment types and corporate media. The high priests of science will tell you what you need to know, dummy.) ...
Let us pause to reflect that the data these scientists used was not new. The information was collected by NASA’s Kepler satellite telescope, which retired back in 2017. The Times suggested nobody noticed till now because they didn’t have good software tools. But I’d suggest that we’re only finding out now because the results are too different from approved orthodoxy, and so no respectable scientists wanted to find them, at least not until conditions improved.
Given the wild solar weather this year, new theories about the Sun are permissible. A little. Welcome to modern science.
And as for pandemic favorite The Ethical Skeptic (TES), the data genius who revealed and regularly reported on the CDC’s mendacious jab mortality data meddling, his true love is his well-developed but intellectually challenging theory of a recurring pole/solar disaster cycle. ...
The problem is that Establishment Science is politically allergic to two scientific theories: 1) any model attributing Earth’s changing climate to anything besides human activity, or 2) any model explaining Earth’s geology as being caused by catastrophic events like Noah’s flood, rather than by gradualism, the notion that Nature’s slow, steady, uniform forces can fully explain all Earth’s geologic features.
Since Hancock, Davidson, and TES all argue for catastrophic cycles causing both geology and climate, their ideas are doubly anathema to capital-S ‘Science.’ The arrogant left considers them not just heretical, but as “non-scientists,” instantly disqualifying them right out of the gate for lacking the right credentials (and more importantly, lacking the right politics).
So, considering their long-standing opposition to catastrophism and non-human climate influence, what should we make of the far-left New York Times promoting this catastrophic “every hundred years” superflare story, which violates, or at least threatens to violate, both banned ideas?
And especially since the story lends credibility to heretics like Hancock, Davidson, TES, and other heterodox catastrophists?
The answer is not obvious, and the Times isn’t saying. But recent events suggest a solution. Two weeks ago, the Economist ran a scary science story headlined, “Earth's magnetic North Pole is shifting toward Russia.” (Cue complaints about Russian disinformation, which is now confusing the North Pole.) “The pole,” the Economist economically noted, “is on the move.” Moving could become problematic. “If the Earth's magnetic field is disrupted,” the Economist darkly warned, “it may cause problems in technology and navigation, as well as expose the planet to unwanted radiation.”
Here’s the point: Could this year’s increasingly bizarre solar activity (with its astonishing, historic, worldwide aurorae and its weakening magnetic field), combined with the North Pole’s sprinting-speed geomagnetic excursion, be scaring the Establishment into considering previously unthinkable possibilities or, Heaven help us, the potential for a natural catastrophe not caused by cows burping?
These rapidly unfolding events must create a growing sense of urgency for Establishment Science to explain what’s happening, even if only to retain their crowns as experts and prevent customers from going somewhere else. Maybe that urgency, combined with the terrifying ultra-urgency of Trump’s appointment of heterodox scientists to run the main scientific agencies which, after all, award the grants, has the Scientific Establishment feeling especially apocalyptic this week.
Maybe we’re getting somewhere.

“Defendants are liable for continuing trespass and shall remove the wind farm from the Osage Minerals Estate and return the Osage Minerals Estate to its pre-trespass condition on or before December 1, 2025.”
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this ruling. Enel has said that removing the 84 turbines in the Osage wind project would cost the company $300 million. Whatever the cost, the fact that a federal court has ordered the removal of the turbines is unprecedented.
Can’t forget water vapor. Molecule for molecule, it’s on par with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but much more abundant, ranging from 0.2% at the poles to 4% at the equator:
“Water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, fluctuates with temperature. The percent of water vapor in the cold Arctic and Antarctic (and highest Alpine regions) may reach as low as 0.2 percent while the warmest tropical air may contain up to 4 percent water vapor.”
https://www.sciencing.com/percentage-water-vapor-atmosphere-19385/
Undersea vulcanism in the past several years have lifted gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere.
Yup, and comet debris continues to add water to the Earth.
environmental guilt trip
« First « Previous Comments 1,148 - 1,187 of 1,491 Next » Last » Search these comments
( Previous Globull Warming threads were merged into this one on 7 Oct 2025. See https://patrick.net/post/1210872/2012-04-02-patrick-net-suggestions?start=624#comment-2213087 )