Tag: Climate Central

No, WHYY, a Heat Wave Is Not a ‘Fingerprint of Climate Change’

Observational data from NOAA and peer-reviewed analyses show U.S. heat wave frequency and intensity peaked in the 1930s — long before post-1950s CO₂ rise accelerated. The 1934 and 1936 summers stand out for extreme hot day counts, with the decade recording the highest frequency of very hot days over much of North America. Many all-time state and city highs (including in the central and eastern U.S.) were set then and still hold. Extended heat waves were more common in that era than in the 21st century so far.

WHYY’s Climate Desk piece (April 14–15, 2026) claimed an early April heat wave threatening Philadelphia records carried the clear “fingerprint of climate change.”

It quoted Climate Central’s Jen Brady asserting the event had that imprint, with their Climate Shift Index (CSI) tool declaring such temperatures “twice as likely” in Philly and 3–5 times more likely in parts of southern New Jersey/Delaware due to human-caused warming.

Forecast highs pushed into the low-to-mid 90s°F, potentially breaking the April 15 record of 88°F (set in 1941) or tying earlier marks.

This framing is misleading.

A short-term weather event driven by a persistent high-pressure ridge and warm air advection is weather, not long-term climate.

Conflating the two to imply causation or unprecedented crisis misrepresents both the science and the data.

Observational data from NOAA and peer-reviewed analyses show U.S. heat wave frequency and intensity peaked in the 1930s — long before post-1950s CO₂ rise accelerated.

The 1934 and 1936 summers stand out for extreme hot day counts, with the decade recording the highest frequency of very hot days over much of North America.

Many all-time state and city highs (including in the central and eastern U.S.) were set then and still hold. Extended heat waves were more common in that era than in the 21st century so far.

The most accurate modern U.S. temperature network (USCRN, deployed around 2005) shows no sustained rise in daily high temperatures nationwide since its inception.

Broader trends since the 1950s, when properly contextualized against the 1930s baseline, reveal mixed or modest changes in heat wave metrics — not a dramatic escalation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article from the climate desk at Philadelphia’s WHYY News titled “‘Fingerprint of climate change’: April heat wave could break a record in Philadelphia,” claims that warm temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic this week are evidence of long term global warming. This is false. While it is true that average, long term global temperatures have modestly increased since the Industrial Revolution, heatwaves like those forecasted for the East coast are not evidence of any emergency, and also are not becoming more frequent or severe.

A high-pressure ridge in the Atlantic Ocean is causing warmer air to sweep up the Southeastern United States and Mid-Atlantic, giving the region a springtime heatwave. That’s a short-term meteorological event, which is normally referred to as weather, not a long-term change in the average temperature and prevailing conditions for a region, which is climate.

WHYY News says “climate analysts say these hot temperatures fit into a trend of warming spring weather,” quoting a researcher at the climate action advocacy group, Climate Central, saying the heatwave has “a fingerprint of climate change,” as proof.

It is true that some data indicate that spring weather conditions are arriving a few days earlier in recent years than they did a hundred-plus years ago in some locations. However, this does not mean that severe spikes in temperature are the drivers of those changes. In fact, it is less severe cold driving the trend, not more severe warmth.

For example, the article and Climate Central point to Philadelphia as an example of one of the regions expected to see unseasonal warmth this spring, saying “since 1970, Philadelphia’s average spring temperatures have risen roughly 3 degrees, according to Climate Central.”

They say that climate change is what “makes this week’s high temperatures in Philadelphia twice as likely, according to the organization’s Climate Shift Index, which uses models to compare today’s world to a world without human-caused carbon pollution.”

There are major flaws in this reasoning, and bad science.

Data show that temperatures for Pennsylvania have only increased on average by around 2 °F since 1900, meaning that Philadelphia’s 3 ° F of warming since 1970 (if we assume Climate Central is correct) is higher over the past half-century than the average for the state as a whole over the past 125 years. This is actually not at all a surprise, but it has nothing at all to do at all with “human-caused carbon pollution.” The higher warming rate in a city like Philadelphia, like with other highly urbanized regions around the country, has everything do with increased population density and associated development producing the urban heat island effect. This effect was recently described by both an analysis of urban temperature stations in extremely hot places like Reno, Nevada by meteorologist Anthony Watts, as well as broader, summertime satellite-based measurement of temperatures by Dr. Roy Spencer, who found from 1895 to 2023:

[f]or the average “suburban” (100-1,000 persons per sq. km) station, UHI is 52% of the calculated temperature trend, and 67% of the urban station trend (>1,000 persons per sq. km). This means warming has been exaggerated by at least a factor of 2 (100%).

This analysis was for summertime temperatures, but what’s true of summer is true of spring because the built-up, heat retaining environment is the same.

Additionally, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) state climate summaries show that heat spikes are not getting more common. Rather, the long-term slight rise in temperatures is due to days and nights with extremely low temperatures becoming less common, and nighttime temperatures (which are particularly influenced by UHI) are modestly warmer than they were a few decades ago.

Figure 1: “Very cold nights” from 1900-2020, from NOAA state summary for Pennsylvania: https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/pa/

In fact, data indicate that instances of extreme warmth are actually less prevalent today than they were in the mid-1900s:

Figure 2: “Very hot days” from 1900-2020, from NOAA state summary for Pennsylvania: https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/pa/

Climate Central and WHYY News fail to reference any real-world data, opting instead to simply assert without providing proof that it is warming in general. Instead, they point people to an attribution study that compares two models of the world—both fictional, both loaded with assumptions on the part of the researchers and other climate scientists—in order to prove climate change is causing heat waves. Models are not data, and, as such, attribution studies don’t provide evidence of warming. Climate Realism has discussed many times why it is invalid to use a model that assumes what it is setting out to prove; that climate change is responsible for any given weather event. Base models, which these attribution studies rely on, have failed to accurately predict real-world temperature change, and the vast majority of supposed extreme weather trends they predict have failed to materialize.

Just as a single month’s unusual cold is not proof that the planet is cooling, a single month’s unusual warmth is likewise not some “fingerprint” of a climate emergency.

It is shameful that WHYY News and other media outlets do not undertake some basic research before publishing alarming climate stories. Referencing long-term data would result in a fact-based and nuanced scientific view of weather. Instead, harming their audience, they produce hyperbolic stories based on fearmongering grounded in unscientific attribution modeling done by groups like Climate Central. A week of warm weather after months of dreary early spring cold is hardly alarming and certainly provides no evidence that catastrophic climate change caused by humans is underway.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. heat-related deaths have fallen sharply over decades thanks to air conditioning, better infrastructure, early warnings, and adaptation — despite urban growth. Cold-related mortality historically exceeds heat-related in temperate zones. Long-term fingerprints of warming (e.g., global tropospheric patterns, ocean heat content) exist and are debated in magnitude and impacts. Single April ridges in the Northeast are not among them.

WHYY and Climate Central turned a predictable weather story into advocacy by cherry-picking a warm spell and a model-derived index while downplaying history and observational nuance. This pattern repeats with hot events (and is often absent for cold ones or quiet storm seasons).

The honest assessment: Modest anthropogenic warming shifts temperature distributions, contributing a small increment to extremes in a warmer baseline. But heat waves like this one are driven primarily by natural meteorological variability, amplified locally by urban effects. They have occurred for centuries and do not signal a climate “crisis” requiring rushed energy system overhauls.

Policy should emphasize resilience — reliable power, cooling access, accurate forecasting — and energy abundance over treating every warm spell as Exhibit A for net-zero mandates.

Physics, history, and data align: this was weather, not a fingerprint of doom.

The 1930s Dust Bowl era stands out as the period of peak heat wave frequency, duration, and intensity across much of the contiguous United States in the instrumental record (since ~1895). Multiple independent analyses of NOAA data confirm this, particularly for the central U.S., Great Plains, Midwest, and Upper Mississippi Valley.

Context and Location Matters, USA Today and Others, Longer Allergy Season Has an Upside

Recently, a host of media outlets ran stories, typical for this time of year, blaming climate change for making allergy seasons worse. This, although both true and false, misses the larger context. Climate change has resulted in longer allergy seasons in recent decades, with the season especially longer in urban and suburban areas experiencing a significant urban health island effect.

From ClimateRealism


By H. Sterling Burnett

Recently, a host of media outlets ran stories, typical for this time of year, blaming climate change for making allergy seasons worse. This, although both true and false, misses the larger context. Climate change has resulted in longer allergy seasons in recent decades, with the season especially longer in urban and suburban areas experiencing a significant urban health island effect. Allergy sufferers are experiencing symptoms for a slightly extended period of time, spending more on allergy medicine, but that’s not the whole story. The longer growing season has been a boon for plants, insects, and animals, as well as benefiting crop production. In context, one could argue the extra sneezing and watery eyes experienced by some is a worthwhile trade off to receive the benefits of a greener world.

Every year at this time, myriad media outlets run stories on the allergy season and what steps people with allergies can take to alleviate their suffering. In recent years, there has been a twist to the story, tying extended allergy seasons to climate change. This year is no exception. Already, national publications like USA Today and regional newspapers, such as the Augusta Chronicle and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review have run articles tying longer allergy seasons to climate change, each referencing the same study by the climate activist group, Climate Central.

USA Today’s article, titled “Warming trends could make allergy season last longer in Atlanta. Why?,” opens with a series of AI generated talking points:

  • Climate Central’s March 4 report links climate change to earlier, longer and worse allergy seasons for millions of Americans, including one in five children.
  • Between 1970 and 2025, the average freeze‑free season grew by 21 days nationwide and by 19 days in the southeast, creating a 136‑day window without freezes.
  • The freeze‑free season lengthened in 87 percent of the 198 cities studied, adding roughly three weeks of growing time to most U.S. cities since 1970.

“It’s that time of year where the tulips start blooming in our gardens and the flowers of the peach trees are bright and pink,” writes Irene Wright for USA Today. “Then our cars all turn yellow from driving through the pollen-dense air.

“For many, springtime is less about the start of new life, but rather the start of an exhausting seasonal allergy season that seems to get longer and longer each year,” Wright continues. “There is some truth to that, according to a new report from Climate Central.”

While there is a modicum of truth to Climate Central’s claim, it isn’t new or groundbreaking news. Dozens of similar stories have been published each spring for the past decade or two. Even when certain salient points are made in these stories, they almost uniformly ignore the important implication for the climate change link and the critical broader beneficial contexts for species in general.

As Climate Central’s study notes, the “freeze-free” season has come earlier and lasted longer especially in the nation’s cities. That’s not due to climate change having some unique impact on urban locations, which more rural areas don’t experience. No, its due to the built-up environment in cities with artificial sources of heat and formerly open areas like pastures, fields, and forests, now covered with buildings and concrete that retain and slowly release heat at night. That’s the urban heat island effect, which research shows  tends to raise urban temperatures as much as several degrees above surrounding areas. The result, trees, flowers, and grasses – all that built-up landscaping – bloom earlier. The pollen from that starts the allergy season earlier.

Still, even rural areas have experienced a modest extension of the growing season with fewer frost events as a result of modest average warming. But this is good news, not bad, both for reasons of human and environmental health and flourishing.

Cold temperatures kill far more people each year than hot temperatures, by about 10 to one. This has meant that as the Earth as modestly warmed the number of people dying due to non-optimum temperatures had fallen dramatically as discussed at Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths and many more Climate Realism posts. Essentially, early springa are resulting in fewer deaths from cold.

In addition, the decline in late-season frost events has contributed to record setting crop rotations, yields, and production in the United States and around the globe. Fewer hungry people and more people having access to nutritious foods is also a good thing.

Aside from the direct benefits to human life and crop production, as explored in numerous Climate Realism posts from prior allergy seasons, the lengthier growing seasons have resulted in a greening of the Earth and improved habitat conditions for wildlife and pollinating insects. Moreover, longer lasting, flowering plants producing nectar and pollen is good for all sorts of insects, not the least among them bees, but also various species of bats and birds, such as hummingbirds.

In the end, life is about trade-offs. More pollen may aggravate allergies and asthma, but few would argue that a world with declining plant life is better than a world with more abundant plant life.

Focusing on a drawback of a greener world, worsening allergies, while ignoring its broad benefits of more trees, shrubs, grasses, flowers, and food crops, represents poor journalism. Global greening has contributed to the largest decline in global hunger in history, and the greater plant growth not only removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but the allergy causing pollen it emits is great for pollinating insects like bees, and birds. Most people would likely agree that harsher allergies, while unwelcome, are a small price to pay for a more fecund world. Perhaps, if and when mainstream media outlets like USA Today, the Augusta Chronicle, and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review write on this topic in the future, they might provide a balanced examination of the reasons for extended allergy seasons in cities – which is not primarily global warming – and of the benefits as well as the costs resulting from longer growing seasons.



ByH. Sterling Burnett

Tell the Truth, WCNC NBC, Climate Change Hasn’t Harmed Coffee Production

An article posted by WCNC, Charlotte, North Carolina’s NBC affiliate, claims “it’s getting harder to produce,” coffee, blaming a coffee decline on higher temperatures in growing regions. This is false. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) clearly show that coffee production in each of the top coffee-producing countries has increased substantially during the recent period of modestly warming temperatures.

From Climate Realism

By H. Sterling Burnett

An article posted by WCNC, Charlotte, North Carolina’s NBC affiliate, claims “it’s getting harder to produce,” coffee, blaming a coffee decline on higher temperatures in growing regions. This is false. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) clearly show that coffee production in each of the top coffee-producing countries has increased substantially during the recent period of modestly warming temperatures.

In her WCNC story, “Climate change impacting production of coffee across the globe, data shows,” Brittany Van Voorhees writes that “Warming temperatures in the biggest coffee-growing regions are impacting the price of coffee and the ability to grow it.” Van Voorhees cites, Kristina Dahl, Ph.D., vice president for Science at Climate Central, and a study she produced, as the sole evidence for this claim. Climate Central is a climate activist group, not an unbiased scientific organization. Had Van Voorhees or WCNC’s fact checkers bothered to check the real-world data on coffee production before running this story, they would have found that coffee production has increased substantially amid slight warming, not been hampered by it. There is no evidence that climate has harmed coffee production at all. In fact, it is likely that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have contributed to higher production, as it has with other crops globally.

Climate Realism has debunked previous media reports that climate change was harming coffee production on dozens of occasions in the past few years, here, here, here, and here, for example. One would hope that the media would learn from the exposure that their past false claims have gotten and cease promoting this demonstrably false claim. Sadly, the media seem to never learn, accepting alarming falsehoods from climate activist groups at face value as if they were presenting facts.

Data from the FAO show that during the twenty-first century, the period that has supposedly been the warmest in recent history, coffee production has increased substantially, globally, and in each of the five countries WCNC highlighted in its story: Brazil, Columbia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. From 1995 to 2024, the most recent year for which data is available:

  • Global coffee production has more than doubled, increasing by more than 104 percent, with the most recent record for production coming in 2024;
  • Coffee production in Brazil has escalated more than 264 percent;
  • Coffee production in Columbia has grown a relatively modest 2 percent;
  • Coffee production in Ethiopia has been boosted approximately 156 percent;
  • Coffee production in Indonesia expanded 76.4 percent; and
  • Coffee production in Vietnam increased an astounding 824 percent. (see the figure, below)

In short, each country Climate Central identified in its report as having difficulty growing coffee due to global warming has regularly set new records for production during the period of warming, and has seen their production increase, sometimes by huge amounts, amid recent warming. There is simply no evidence coffee producers in those countries or elsewhere around the globe are suffering lost harvests. Based on this data, it is simply untenable to claim modest warming has made coffee production more difficult – the numbers don’t lie.

Climate activist groups and progressive organizations dedicated to ending fossil fuel use will likely continue to assert crop production, including coffee yields, is being harmed by climate change. Telling such lies drive their funding, influence, and power, but the media should not be so gullible and continue to publicize such lies. Good journalists should investigate such claims with a skeptical eye and check them against the data.


If the BBC Never Questions Net Zero the Journalists Might as Well be Replaced by ChatGPT

Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he makes his sorry and uneasy way down the treeless ‘Highway of Shame’ to Belém airport and considers the wreckage of the collapsed COP30. He is not a man devoid of intelligence so he can work out that most of the world has just dodged the bullet of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ let loose by the Net Zero fantasy.

A glowing blue representation of AI, featuring the letters 'AI' in the center, surrounded by a circular design and emanating light beams.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

A man standing outdoors in front of a building with a sign that reads 'WELCOME TO #COP30,' gesturing animatedly while discussing something with enthusiasm.

Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he makes his sorry and uneasy way down the treeless ‘Highway of Shame’ to Belém airport and considers the wreckage of the collapsed COP30. He is not a man devoid of intelligence so he can work out that most of the world has just dodged the bullet of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ let loose by the Net Zero fantasy. The unease arises when he considers his heyday spent spinning an ever more improbable ‘settled’ climate science narrative that deliberately ignored any facts and opinions that troubled the Net Zero political agenda. All for nothing, he might be thinking, except of course the lavish adoration he enjoys in the North London BBC bubble. But now that Net Zero is dying, he, and the numerous other activists on the BBC climate gravy train, must be vaguely aware that following a simplistic, pre-determined but increasingly out-dated narrative can be easily replicated in future by an AI replacement.

Opinions may differ, but suitably prompted AI could easily replicate much of the climate output of the BBC over the last two decades.

If you spend years following a defined narrative by cherry-picking the worst computer modelled climate scare inventions to induce mass climate psychosis, AI is coming for you. It is the work of seconds to load a science paper into Grok and ask it to produce an alarmist story focusing on the most scary ‘scientists say’ predictions in the style of a chosen mainstream media activist. It will be easy, and considerably cheaper, to keep the climate hoax going since all debate will continue to be cancelled, any competing opinions ignored and the intelligence of the British people, as per, insulted on a daily basis.

The BBC is one of the ultimate backers of the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) that runs a six-month grooming course for journalists. One of its recent testing tasks was to ask participants to write an article noting why a fruit such as a mango was less tasty this year than last due to climate change. Why not ask Grok to do it using a set number of words – it is so much easier. But Grok has more balance than fake climate journalists – it will also provide a plausible article of similar length explaining why mangoes are more tasty at present due to the changing climate.

Your correspondent has been around the journalism game for a few decades and witnessed astonishing changes. One of his first jobs was compiling a monthly ‘Major Losses and Catastrophes’ page that entailed writing brief compilations from a variety of news sources. It took some time and entailed good educational grunt work, but these days it could be compiled by AI in seconds. Writing to a narrative, producing copy subbed from press releases, parroting what every other captured journalist says, is increasingly something that can be left to the automated process. AI is particularly good at replicating an echo chamber.

Over 100 journalists from around the world sign up for the OCJN course every six months. Why do they think that learning the same narrative, and being told what is the ‘correct’ way to write about a so-called climate crisis, is appropriate behaviour for an inquiring journalist? The Green Blob in the form of past Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn is paying for their education, and it is naïve not to assume that the Green Blob expects a published return on its considerable investment.

Earlier this year, the BBC lead weather presenter Simon King told us that since 1970, the average UK spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C.

This is what he wrote:

The average spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C since 1970, making it the fastest warming season for all four nations of the UK.

This is what a press release issued by the Green Blob-funded Climate Central said:

The average spring temperature for the UK has increased 1.8°C since 1970, making spring the fastest warming season for the UK as a whole.

Where is the added reporting value in that? Why is the BBC’s lead weather presenter seemingly unable to look at the Met Office’s own temperature graph, which shows clearly that temperatures have risen in that period by 1.3°C? But it is worse than that since 1970 is a date cherry-picked by the Climate Central activists as a low point following a decline in UK temperatures from around 1940. Go back 80 years for a more useful climate trend and the figure drops to 0.85°C. And these temperatures, particularly recent ones, are bloated with large unnatural heat corruptions that are an obvious feature of Met Office readings. All in all, the rise in temperatures in the British spring is likely to be similar to the 1°C warming that has occurred since the lifting of the Little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century.

Paul Homewood wrote an excellent article in the Daily Sceptic on Tuesday noting that one of the takeaways of Belém was the eclipse of Europe as a force in world politics. “While rich, Western countries are still determined to pursue Net Zero regardless of the cost and damage entailed, the rest of the world long ago worked out that fossil fuels are an essential, not a luxury,” he noted.  No longer does the rest of the world pay attention to anything pipsqueaks like Ed Miliband and Wopke Hoekstra, the EU Climate Commissioner, have to say, he added.

The BBC seems to be dying. Unable to properly relate to the concerns of its nationwide audience, hazy on the difference between a man and a woman, seemingly keen on open border migrant overload, its increasingly ridiculous funding flow is starting to evaporate. Whether it could survive in the free market with its biased, identikit news service, along with the thin offerings of audience-lite, woke-obsessed drama, is not certain. Big savings might have to be made. AI looms large over future BBC scripts from Doctor Who to climate change.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

False, Yahoo News, Cape Coral Isn’t Sinking

Yahoo News’ reprinted an item from The Cool Down, titled “Experts warn that beloved US coastal town could soon vanish off map entirely: ‘I’m scared,’” which claims Cape Coral, Florida will disappear soon due to climate change induced sea level rise. This claim is absolutely false. Actual sea level rise data is well below the extreme scenarios promoted in the story the article is based on.

Aerial view of a marina in Cape Coral, Florida, showcasing several yachts docked along the waterfront with multi-story buildings in the background.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

A scenic view of a river with a bridge in the foreground, framed by lush greenery, under a dramatic cloud-filled sky during sunset.

Yahoo News’ reprinted an item from The Cool Down, titled “Experts warn that beloved US coastal town could soon vanish off map entirely: ‘I’m scared,’” which claims Cape Coral, Florida will disappear soon due to climate change induced sea level rise. This claim is absolutely false. Actual sea level rise data is well below the extreme scenarios promoted in the story the article is based on.

The Cool Down story repeats exaggerated projections from the organization called Climate Central, suggesting that Cape Coral, Florida, will “vanish” under rising seas by 2150. It asserts that Florida’s average sea level could rise 3.6 feet by the end of the century and that 17,000 homes statewide could face annual flooding by 2050. Actual measured sea level data shows this to be impossible.

The Yahoo News reposting also repeats the tired talking point that “a warmer planet acts as ‘steroids’ for weather,” claiming more frequent hurricanes and floods. Yet data shows no clear global trend in tropical cyclone frequency. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Historical Hurricane Tracks database similarly shows no upward trend in U.S. hurricane landfalls over the past century. Climate at a Glance also demonstrates that there is no upwards trend in U.S. hurricanes.

The article quotes one resident saying, “I’m scared. It’s really weird. It’s weird to think about that it’s not gonna be here when I’m gone.” That misplaced and overwhelming sense of fear is precisely what Climate Central’s alarming “drowning maps” are designed to provoke. It is not, however, justified by what Florida’s sea-level data actually show.

According to NOAA’s tide gauge record for Fort Myers (Station 8725520), which is the nearest to Cape Coral, the relative sea-level trend near Cape Coral is 3.64 millimeters per year, with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.42 mm/year, based on continuous monthly mean data from 1965 to 2024. That equates to 1.19 feet per century, as seen in the graphic below:

Graph showing the relative sea level trend for Fort Myers, Florida, from 1920 to 2024. The trend indicates a rise of 3.64 millimeters per year, equating to 1.19 feet over 100 years, with confidence intervals depicted.

The long-term rise is steady and gradual—not accelerating catastrophically, and less than a third of 3.6-foot projection that Climate Central is lying about.

In other words, the tide gauge shows reality; the computer model shows fantasy. Even if the Fort Myers trend continued unchanged, simple math shows it would take roughly 300 years to reach the water levels Climate Central claims are possible by 2150.

Florida’s sea-level record is also influenced by local land subsidence, not just ocean volume changes. As NOAA notes, relative sea level is affected by both global sea changes and regional ground motion. In Cape Coral’s case, this modest rise includes such localized effects. There is no evidence of a dramatic sea level acceleration in recent decades.

Even accounting for local subsidence, for nearly 60 years Cape Coral’s sea-level trend has been consistent, moderate, and predictable. The total rise of about one foot per century is entirely manageable with conventional coastal infrastructure, drainage, and adaptation strategies—just as Floridians have managed tides, storm surges, and erosion for generations.

Climate Central’s projections are not measurements—they are computer model outputs layered onto maps to produce alarming visualizations. These “surging seas” graphics have been widely criticized for failing to align with observed trends. Climate Realism has debunked similar false projections and maps made by Climate Central for locations such as, Miami, Norfolk, and San Francisco, previously.

As Climate Realism has repeatedly shown, sea-level rise rates at U.S. tide gauges have remained stable for more than a century, even as atmospheric CO₂ increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  AR6 report found that there is “low confidence in observed acceleration in sea-level rise at the regional scale,” further undercutting the premise that Florida is facing a rapid inundation crisis.

This article substitutes emotion for evidence and cites the anecdotal fears of residents, mislead by the mainstream media over the past two decades with false claims about climate change induced sea level rise, rather than real world data. Climate Central’s maps do not represent measured science; they represent model-driven marketing for climate fear. The real-world numbers from NOAA’s tide gauges make that clear.

Journalism is supposed to illuminate truth and inform the audience rather than incite unwarranted panic. By promoting unfounded projections that “Cape Coral could vanish,” Yahoo News and The Cool Down are doing just the opposite. That’s a sad indictment of the two media outlets’ reporting standards.

Beware How the Climate Crusade ‘Partners’ With the Media and ‘Educates’ the Courts

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

A concrete building featuring a large thermometer and globe emblem, with several guards in uniform standing outside.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A group of people gathered in a large, industrial space, facing a giant screen displaying a close-up of a stern-looking face under the banner of 'INGSOC.'

This article was orginally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Do you ever wonder why mainstream news stories seem so one-sided in their “climate change” coverage, promoting the most radical theories while ridiculing so-called “climate deniers?” Similarly, have you ever pondered how judges who are not scientists or climate experts render opinions favorable to the climate cult while citing scientific “facts” and “evidence” to bolster their verdicts?

Two back-to-back reports in early September provide some answers, each revealing how deeply climate change forces have infiltrated both our news and judicial establishments.

For decades, CBS News – the storied broadcast home of icons like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was long regarded as the gold standard for television journalism. The “Tiffany Network’s” reporting might sometimes be controversial, but it was always considered deeply researched and proudly independent. CBS News prided itself on its unassailable integrity – “And that’s the way it is,” Cronkite assured us every evening when he signed off.

When it comes to reporting on climate news, those days are gone. For some climate-related stories, CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as “policy-neutral” and “independent,” but acknowledges on its on website that it “uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it. We address climate science, sea level rise, extreme weather, energy, and related topics.”

In early September Fox News reported, “Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on ‘Sunday Morning.’ Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, ‘Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.’” Fox News noted that another CBS News article in July, “also tied to an on-air segment with Tracy, included the disclaimer that the story was ‘produced in partnership with Climate Central.’”

In fact, Tracy and Spinder “work for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a current CBS News staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.” So much for fair, balanced and independent journalism.

On its website, Climate Central boasts of its influence on news organizations, noting that through its “Partnership Journalism” program, it “contributes data, science and data reporting, editing and guidance to joint features coverage informed by new climate data.” The site provides links to page after page of “news” stories on which it has “partnered,” ranging from alternative energy outlets to traditional news agencies.

While its guidelines claim that its “partners” make “most final editorial decisions,” Climate Central adds that “we… insist upon scientific accuracy and context. If we can’t reach agreement on the science in a story, we agree in advance that we will halt the project.” CBS News agreed to that?

While it may not be shocking that far-left (formerly mainstream) news agencies are “partnering” with outside climate groups to produce their stories, more disturbing is the notion that our courts might be subject to such influences. And yet, a day before the Fox News story on CBS came a report from National Review revealing just that.

“An ‘educational’ program that aims to convince judges to side with climate activists in state and federal cases has already reached more than 2,000 judges nationwide,” the magazine reported. “The program, called the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), began under the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in 2018. Its objective, according to ELI, is to ‘make available to federal, state, and local judges the basic science they need to adjudicate the climate litigation over which they preside.’”

The article notes that the House Judiciary Committee recently opened a probe of ELI “to examine its distribution of climate-change education programs aimed at influencing both state and federal judges to rule in favor of plaintiffs in climate-related cases.”

ELI insists it is politically impartial and denies engaging in efforts to sway judges. But American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac told National Review, “This congressional inquiry is a necessary and welcome development. For too long, the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project has operated behind a veneer of neutrality while quietly advancing a coordinated effort to influence judges in climate-related litigation.”

Turning to experts for fact-based background information is standard practice in the news media. But openly “partnering” with issue-based organizations to produce stories is a violation of the trust between journalists and news consumers. Likewise, when courts are “informed” by “educational” materials from outside groups representing a certain point of view, the fairness and independence that is the foundation of our judiciary system is seriously undermined.

The House Judiciary Committee’s efforts are a good start, but rather than worrying about things like former President Biden’s use of the autopen or other dead-end probes, Congress should more fully investigate the efforts of climate activists to influence the American people through our media and influence judicial decisions in our courts.

While it’s good that these conflicts have been brought to light, it is not unreasonable to suspect that these entanglements may only represent the tip of the iceberg – an iceberg that even the most radical climate zealot should admit is far from melting.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The Climate Change Cult Is Encountering More Resistance These Days

The devastating Texas flooding over the July 4 weekend was a natural disaster of immense proportions. The lives lost brought unthinkable heartache for families. Especially difficult to fathom is that so many victims were young children.

A person with wet hair and a rain-soaked shirt, shouting passionately about global warming.

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

The devastating Texas flooding over the July 4 weekend was a natural disaster of immense proportions. The lives lost brought unthinkable heartache for families. Especially difficult to fathom is that so many victims were young children.

Adding to the grief was the irresponsible blame game that almost immediately arose in the wake of the tragedy. Many on the left couldn’t wait to point fingers at Republicans, from President Donald Trump to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

Of course, the climate cult again demonized fossil fuels, global warming and other predictable villains from the days of yore (or Gore). The group Climate Central could only contain itself until July 8 before rushing out to hold a press briefing to reiterate its dogma that “climate change drives more extreme weather,” and that the Texas storms were “made more likely and powerful in a warmer climate.”

Leftwing climate groups often accuse anyone who disagrees as being a “climate denier.” But few actually deny that the climate indeed changes, often dramatically. The archeological record makes clear that the earth has warmed, cooled, experienced flooding and undergone a number of other climate-related upheavals through the centuries, long before human activity could be faulted. But groups like Climate Central identify the manmade practice of burning fossil fuels as the modern culprit.

Any brave soul who dares to challenge the extent to which carbon emissions and greenhouse gases impact climate change is shouted down by the cult and buried under an avalanche of “scholarly” papers produced by “the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.”

The good news is that the same day that Climate Central was regurgitating its tried-and-true rhetoric, the New York Times reported (in what it likely considered an expose), “The Energy Department has hired at least three scientists who are well-known for their rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, according to records reviewed by The New York Times.”

What seemed frightening to the Times and the indoctrinated left comes as welcome relief for millions of other Americans who believe that the war on affordable and reliable energy sources is based more on politics than science.

The extent to which fewer Americans are being successfully propagandized is made clear by recent polling. On July 11, CNN data analyst Harry Enten told viewers that as early as 1989, 35% of Americans were “greatly worried” about climate change, a number that jumped to 46% by 2020. But, as Enten admitted with some astonishment, only 40% of Americans currently feel “greatly worried” about climate change. The reason for growing public skepticism on climate change is probably because most Americans have wised up to how data can be easily manipulated for political ends.

We know from experience it’s not hard to convince “experts” to sign on to a “consensus” opinion to add gravitas to the cause de jour. Back in 2020, more than 50 former intelligence officials famously signed onto a letter claiming that emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That was not true, and it was later discovered that former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell had drafted the letter to help Joe Biden’s campaign. Everyone else just signed on, their devotion to a particular election outcome apparently outweighing the lack of evidence backing their claim.

Similarly, individual treatises on climate science aren’t authored by hundreds of scientists. Each one is written by, at most, a handful of researchers who then circulate their work and ask others to sign on – giving activists the fodder they need to claim that “the overwhelming majority” of the scientific community is in agreement. In fact, scientific papers being published as authoritative when, in fact, they are not is a growing problem.

“Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud,” according to a 2024 report in The Guardian.

Fortunately, there has always been a segment of the scientific community willing to stand up to the mob and interpret climate data independently. The three scientists hired by the Energy Department and targeted by the Times for expressing skepticism on manmade climate change – physicist Steven E. Koonin, atmospheric scientist John Christy, and meteorologist Roy Spencer – are among the brave.

In decades past, a key tenet of science was to question everything, on the theory that raising doubts and concerns was the best path to the truth. As Dr. Koonin wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay, “Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”

Instead of natural disasters serving as excuses to launch attacks and place blame using the same tired, lockstep rhetoric, here’s hoping for a new age of climate enlightenment, led by scientists, journalists and others with the curiosity – and courage – to question everything.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Climate Change Is Impacting People’s Ability to Have Healthy Pregnancies

Today’s silly climate scare comes from Time

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

Today’s silly climate scare comes from Time:

https://time.com/7285515/climate-change-impact-healthy-pregnancy/

They write:

As the number of extreme heat days continues to rise due to climate change, the high temperatures are taking a toll on our health—extreme heat has been linked to a range of health issues, including heatstroke, dehydration, and respiratory problems. But some people are at greater risk than others: warmer days are putting pregnant people at a higher risk for health complications.

One Climate Central analysis published on May 14 found that extreme heat caused by climate change is posing dangerous risks for maternal health and birth outcomes. Between 2020 to 2024, the average number of pregnancy heat-risk days—defined as days in which maximum temperatures are warmer than 95% of temperatures observed in a given location—doubled in 222 countries. The greatest increase in heat-risk days occurred primarily in developing areas with limited access to health care, including the Caribbean, parts of Central and South America, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Climate Central, of course, are not scientific experts in climate or anything else – they are a lobby group set up to misinform the public.

As for all these supposed heat effects on babies, the facts tell a different story.

Take Nicaragua, for example:

Babies there have never been healthier.

But you won’t hear that from Time.

BBC’s Make Believe Extreme Weather

You will recall I complained about this BBC article, which failed to offer any evidence to back up its claim about climate change making extreme weather worse.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Climate change has brought record-breaking heat this year, and with it extreme weather, from hurricanes to month-long droughts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg8dg3ke40o

You will recall I complained about this BBC article, which failed to offer any evidence to back up its claim about climate change making extreme weather worse.

They have now responded. Most of their reply is based on weather attribution models. And at the end, they admit the truth behind their article:

“The BBC’s article based on the report by the WWA and Climate Central is in line with these guidelines”

In short, they have not done any research themselves before publishing the nonsense. Instead, they have simply repeated claims by Climate Central, who are by their own admission a lobby group whose focus is on “communicating climate science”, along with claims made by weather attribution computer models.

I will now be moving the complaint up to the ECU.