- Careful with that data, Eugene: A new study of NOAA’s temperature adjustment (h/t Watts Up With That) finds a lot of chaos in the methodology rather than a set of clear and consistently applied corrections. Which is exactly what you’d expect if, say, they were fiddling them to cool the past and heat the present rather than starting with sound statistical procedures and cleaning up messy readings. As Anthony Watts says, “We need transparency, accountability, and scientific rigor in climate science.” To which we add: How did such an idea ever become controversial?
- We thought Scientific American might be pulling back slightly from its obsession with climate alarmism. They even ran an item “Why Temperatures Swung by 90 Degrees F in Parts of U.S.” that didn’t blame climate. Alas, they’re not firmly on the wagon yet, given a piece by their “senior opinion editor” (and it is not clear why such a publication would have such a thing) arguing that “The U.S. Military Will Be Less Prepared to Fight if Climate Cuts Proceed/ The U.S. Department of Defense suddenly pretending that climate change isn’t real is penny-wise and pound-foolish”. That’s science? It’s not even clear that it’s proper opinion writing, since SA is not well placed nowadays to warn of “a dangerous politicization of Pentagon thinking” given its own drift into militant progressivism that includes dogma like “climate change” is “very real, documented in the scientific record, and analyzed down to the level of its quantum mechanics. This is well understood in military circles and has been for decades.” And praising “woke – which means ‘alert to injustice in society, especially racism,’ per the Oxford English Dictionary” and blaring that “reality in the coming years will be sufficient to ‘wake’ even the willfully blind.”. Remember when science was about atomic weight and the laws of thermodynamics and that boring old junk? They apparently don’t.
- On the other hand, and despite its apparently focus-narrowing name, Heatmap asks “Are There Forever Chemicals in Your Drinking Water?” And despite the rule about rhetorical questions in headlines, immediately adds “If you haven’t asked, don’t assume the answer is no.” Of course just because they say you’re chugging “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” in horrifying amounts doesn’t mean you are. But it’s certainly worth pondering whether you might be. And indeed whether there might be more to “the environment” than just man-made climate change. Even Inside Climate News is now fundraising on “the climate and environment story” and admitting there’s real pollution as well as “carbon pollution.” And credit where due; Scientific American actually send an email teaser to a story on Antarctica that worried about mercury not climate, and didn’t predict doom.
- Someone was bound to blurt it out eventually. And amazingly it was Canada’s federal government, albeit the Department of Agriculture which is not among those agencies most conspicuously convinced it’s the Ministry of Climate Change or should be. And the blurt? It’s that if Canada, which is a northern nation whose massive farm sector perseveres with dangerously short growing seasons, would actually be better off if it got warmer. In southern BC “Temperature increases would add more frost-free and growing degree days that could improve yields and cropping options and enable new practices.” In the southwest prairies a “longer growing season would expand cropping options, e.g. fall crops or double cropping.” And in southwest Ontario “Temperature increases may extend the growing season which could improve crop yields and support more intensive agricultural practices”. They do manage some doom and gloom, like “moisture deficits later in the summer” in the northwest Prairies. But on the whole someone’s gonna get fired… or would if Canada ever fired bureaucrats, which we don’t.
- Here let us grant an “I told you so“ to University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, a long-time dissector of bad climate claims and methodology (and see the second “Science” item below), who just published an article in Nature Scientific Reports that looked at claims that warming would wither crops worldwide and found that, of all things, they’d muffed the math, left out or withheld data and made unclear leaps of logic all of which, strangely tended to push the “Social cost of carbon” higher than it really is. Apparently plants like warmth and plant food after all. And as eminent British commentator Matt Ridley said of McKitrick’s piece, “A shocking result. Turns out the excuse for doubling the official ‘cost of carbon’ was based on omitting the benefits of carbon dioxide, in terms of increased crop yields, from most of the studies. A retraction is now necessary.” Don’t hold your breath, or your crops’ breath, on that one though.
- From the “nothing it cannot do” and “we are all going to die” files combined, Grist warns us of “What climate change means for bird flu – and the soaring price of eggs/ Extreme weather is shifting the migratory patterns of birds, increasing the chances of deadly avian flu outbreaks on farms.” Because there never were epidemics before climate change struck in whenever it was. Unless you count the 15 recorded ones in the U.S. between 1959 and 1995, for instance. Also “In recent years, extreme weather events like drought and flooding have disrupted food supply chains and sent shock waves through the economy that end up hitting grocery shoppers.” Like a drought on the Mississippi in 2022, which never had those before. Unless you count from 1988-90, the 1930s, the 1890s, the 1870s, the early 1860s, and that kind of nonsense.
- In its ongoing mission to report all the news the government that pays for it wants to hear, Canada’s CBC state broadcaster has issued a report saying that in addition to the “introduction of green storytelling courses for all scripted programmers to discuss how content creators can incorporate environmentalism into their stories” and make their sitcoms even drearier, “Training and engagement opportunities related to environmental sustainability are provided throughout the organization in varying capacities” including “introduction of electric bikes, a new and sustainable way to gather news and sustainable commuting initiatives such as bike workshops, installation of bike shelters and the availability of in-house bike repair shops.” Canada’s winters are just the place for that kind of thing… if like the CBC you huddle in major urban centres promoting trite progressive views. Though as Blacklock’s Reporter snarked, “The document did not mention what action would be taken by managers who take junkets overseas.” Not covering it if you like your job even with the requirement to peddle about as well as peddle the government line, perhaps.
See Comments 
Tidbits
05 Mar 2025 | News Roundup
“Are There Forever Chemicals in Your Drinking Water?”
Yes there are! I want to bring your attention to a dangerous forever chemical present in our environment and in our drinking water. Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) was used extensively by the US in Vietnam, and the soil in many parts of Vietnam still has heavy concentrations of it. Although little publicity has been given to it, many US military bases keep large stocks on this chemical on hand and have underground distribution systems for it. DHMO is used in both nuclear arms factories and chemical weapons plants.
DHMO is colourless, odourless and tasteless, and exposure to it kills thousands of people every year. Prolonged exposure to its solid form can cause severe tissue damage, while exposure to the gaseous form can cause severe burns. DHMO has been used as a riot control agent in some parts of the world.
It contributes to global warming via the greenhouse effect, and has been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in North America today. It is frequently found in excised tumours of terminal cancer patients. But the occurrence of this deadly chemical nowadays is global, and it has even been found in Antarctic ice. Much of our food supply is contaminated by DHMO. Even after washing, food found in the produce sections of supermarkets frequently contains traces of it.
Although DHMO can have severe environmental effects, industrial companies routinely dump it into rivers and lakes. The impact on wildlife from environmental DHMO can be extreme, and its presence often makes otherwise fertile farmland unusable.
And that, folks, is how you do it if you're the government and want to scare the heck out of the plebs.
This may just be the best comment ever posted, anywhere! Well done.