{"id":299080,"date":"2024-01-30T15:07:53","date_gmt":"2024-01-30T14:07:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299080"},"modified":"2024-01-30T15:07:56","modified_gmt":"2024-01-30T14:07:56","slug":"artificial-alarmism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299080","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Alarmism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
958259766<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

via Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, I was notified by my long-standing \u201cGoogle Alert\u201d that my name had appeared in a paper on the web. It was in a study called \u201cAutomated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models<\/a>\u201c, available on Arxiv.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main thrust of the paper is that actually checking the underlying science to see whether climate claims are verifiable or falsifiable is sooo last week \u2026 so they\u2019ve built a custom Artificial Intelligence large-language-model to save them from having to, you know \u2026 actually think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019ve even given it a cute name, the \u201cCLIMINATOR\u201d, in all caps just like that. I kept waiting for it to say \u201cI\u2019ll be back!\u201d <\/em>in an Austrian accent \u2026 but I digress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First they fed it all of the standard mainstream sources, like, you know, James Hansen, Michael Mann et al. ad nauseum. Then they added in the IPCC and the \u201cNIPCC\u201d, the Non-Governmental IPCC, established by Fred Singer in 2004 to provide an alternative to the IPCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s what first caught my eye \u2026 they unleashed the Climinator on the following NIPCC statement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

There has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of drought in the modern era. Rising CO2 lets plants use water more efficiently, helping them overcome stressful conditions imposed by drought.source: NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s Climinator\u2019s conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The final assessment is that the claim about drought frequency and intensity is [[incorrect]], as authoritative sources indicate an increase in drought severity and intensity due to climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This one made me laugh out loud. Why? Because Table 12.12 of the IPCC AR6 WG1 says that\u00a0no detectable trend<\/strong>\u00a0has emerged in the following weather extremes.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

White squares indicate weather extremes where no trend has been detected, or is projected to emerge in the future. See the part in there about drought? I mean the five parts? The IPCC says to date there is no detected trend in hydrological drought<\/strong> (runoff, streamflow, reservoir storage), aridity<\/strong> (prolonged lack of rain), mean precipitation<\/strong> (average amount of rain), ecological\/agricultural<\/strong> drought<\/strong> (plant stress from evaporation plus low soil moisture), or fire weather<\/strong> (hot, dry, and windy).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No. Detected. Trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only that, but under the most extreme future climate scenario, the impossible SSP5-8.5, none of them are expected to show a trend in the next 75 years except average rain \u2026 and that\u2019s supposed to go up in some areas and down in some areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So as is common with many AI systems, their whiz-bang Climinator is simply making things up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, I searched for the reference to my name that had triggered the Google Alert, and I found this:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Note that as a cross-check on the CLIMINATOR opinion, they include a judgment on my work from the site Climate Feedback. Here\u2019s the\u00a0Climate Feedback page<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The first thing that struck me was that CLIMINATOR folks couldn\u2019t even get the date of my post right, despite the fact that it\u2019s right there in the Climate Feedback claims. Nor did they provide a link to it so folks could check it out themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Climate Feedback claims relate to a 2020 post of mine called \u201cLooking For Acceleration In All The Wrong Places<\/a>\u201c. Re-reading that post, a few comments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, I didn\u2019t discuss possible global acceleration in sea level rise. I didn\u2019t use the term \u201cglobal\u201d at all in my post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, although they\u2019ve quoted my words, they are misrepresenting the fact that I analyzed fifteen of the longest-term datasets, and found no acceleration in any of them. They quoted my claim, viz:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

CLAIM: The long-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement that there is no acceleration<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, they imply that my statement refers to all<\/strong> <\/em>the long-term tide-gauge datasets. But in context, when I said that the \u201clong-term tide gauge datasets are all in agreement\u201d<\/em>, it was clear that my claim only referred to the long datasets that I analyzed. So the claim is misrepresented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, my statement is 100% true\u2014none of the long-term tide gauge datasets I analyzed showed any acceleration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, they say that what I said is \u201cFactually Inaccurate\u201d<\/em> because they claim that global datasets \u201cclearly demonstrate that sea level rise has accelerated\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steve McIntyre says you have to watch the pea under the walnut shells. Note that they have totally changed the context of my claim, which only covered the fifteen datasets I analyzed, and which was demonstrably true. Instead, they\u2019re pretending I made claims about global datasets, and then they say they\u2019ve convincingly demolished that impressive straw man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They go on to say my work \u201cmisrepresents a complex reality\u201d <\/em>because I looked at individual datasets, but results from the satellites \u201chave demonstrated that sea level rise has, in fact, accelerated in recent decades.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My initial response was that when someone says \u201cin fact\u201d<\/em>, it often means they\u2019re not certain that it\u2019s a fact, or they wouldn\u2019t mention it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, they\u2019re saying that it\u2019s wrong to look at the parts of a complex system to try to understand how the whole system works. Say what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, regarding the satellite data they refer to, it was fascinating reading my old post because when it was written, I hadn\u2019t yet quite grasped the nettle concerning how they artificially created the claimed \u201cacceleration\u201d in the satellite data. At that time, I could only say \u201cThe changes in trend seem to be associated with the splices.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I discovered how they did it about a year later, and discussed this in a post entitled\u00a0Munging The Sea Level Data<\/a>. Here\u2019s the money graph from that article:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Note that the two earlier satellites have a trend of about 2.6 mm\/year, which is about the same as the tide gauges. But the two later satellites show a large change, with the trend lines intersecting in ~ 2011, where it goes up to a 50% higher rate of rise \u2026 say what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than being honest about that obvious problem with the satellite data, the folks keeping the sea level records merely spliced all four of the satellite records together, hid the discrepancy, and voila! 50% SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION, EVERYONE PANIC!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s what it looks like after the bogus splicing.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Note the claimed acceleration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So. My conclusions from all of this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Trying to use Artificial Ignorance to analyze scientific papers is a non-starter. Long-term study by actual humans is how science progresses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Picking one single analysis to test, whether mine or anyone else\u2019s, is lazy and deceptive. If they\u2019d had the CLIMINATOR read all of my posts regarding sea level rise, it would at least have had my entire body of work regarding the subject to consider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 AI is bound to fall into the trap of consensus science. It can\u2019t avoid it. It is operating under the deeply flawed assumption that science is decided by the preponderance of opinion. But as Michael Chrichton said,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you\u2019re being had<\/strong>. Let\u2019s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right. In science consensus is irrelevant.Michael Crichton<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

AI of this type is guaranteed to be unable to pick out the one diamond from among the dross. If it were applied in the past, it would undoubtedly have said that Wegener\u2019s theory of Continental Drift was wrong, simply because it is not investigating the underlying science<\/strong>\u2014it is simply checking the consensus of what other scientists have said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Einstein would no doubt have been assessed by the CLIMINATOR as being wrong because at the time nobody agreed with him. But all scientific advances come from an individual who breaks with the consensus. And because of that, using AI in this manner means that science will never progress\u2014the CLIMINATOR assumes that the past ideas are all correct, and if you don\u2019t agree, you\u2019re wrong, wrong, wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 I was going to send a note to the Corresponding Author \u2026 but the paper doesn\u2019t list one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 I find it hilarious that their cross-check on their results is the deeply alarmist website Climate Feedback<\/a>. That\u2019s like asking your barber if you need a haircut \u2026 what do you think he\u2019s going to say?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My best to all on an overcast but warm winter day here in the redwood forest, with a tiny triangle of the Pacific visible in the far distance between the hills. Two days ago, an awesome bobcat wandered out of the forest and sat in our meadow for a bit. Ah, the hidden strength in its elegant movements \u2026 what a glorious world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

w.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further Reading<\/strong>: You might also be interested in my post Inside The Acceleration Factory<\/a>, where I discuss the alarmists\u2019 pernicious habit of tacking the bogus spliced satellite data onto the end of the tide gauge data and using that chimera to claim global acceleration \u2026 bad scientists, no cookies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And regarding the reality of the acceleration and deceleration of the rate of sea level rise, I discuss that in my post The Uneasy Sea<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My More Controversial Thoughts<\/strong>: For those, I have my own blog entitled \u201cSkating Under The Ice<\/a>: A Journal of Diagonal Parking In A Parallel Universe\u201d<\/em>, and I\u2019m on Twitter\/X as @weschenbach. C\u2019mon down!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Same As Always<\/strong>: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are referring to. Avoids heaps of misunderstandings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Update (Eric Worrall): The factual unreliability of LLMs (Large Language Models) as used by CLIMINATOR are a well known problem. From IBM\u2019s description of LLMs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 Model performance can also be increased through prompt engineering, prompt-tuning<\/a>, fine-tuning and other tactics like reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) to remove the biases, hateful speech and factually incorrect answers known as<\/strong> \u201challucinations<\/strong><\/a>\u201d that are often unwanted byproducts of training<\/strong> on so much unstructured data. This is one of the most important aspects of ensuring enterprise-grade LLMs<\/a> are ready for use and do not expose organizations to unwanted liability, or cause damage to their reputation.  \u2026Read more: https:\/\/www.ibm.com\/topics\/large-language-models#:~:text=Large%20language%20models%20(LLMs)%20are,a%20wide%20range%20of%20tasks.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This tendency of AI language engines to present incorrect or totally imaginary \u201cfacts\u201d<\/strong> has already landed professionals in serious trouble. In June 2023, lawyers in an injury case inadvertently presented fake precedents to a judge, precedents hallucinated by ChatGPT, another LLM engine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 Steven Schwartz\u2014the lawyer who used ChatGPT and represented Mata before the case moved to a court where he isn\u2019t licensed to practice\u2014signed an affidavit<\/a> admitting he used the AI chatbot but saying he had no intent to deceive the court and didn\u2019t act in bad faith, arguing that he shouldn\u2019t be sanctioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schwartz later said in a June 8 filing<\/a> that he was \u201cmortified\u201d upon learning about the false cases<\/strong>, and when he used the tool he \u201cdid not understand it was not a search engine, but a generative language-processing tool.\u201d<\/strong> \u2026Read more: https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/mollybohannon\/2023\/06\/08\/lawyer-used-chatgpt-in-court-and-cited-fake-cases-a-judge-is-considering-sanctions\/?sh=6ae9363b7c7f<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Well, I was notified by my long-standing \u201cGoogle Alert\u201d that my name had appeared in a paper on the web. It was in a study called \u201cAutomated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models\u201c, available on Arxiv.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":299091,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Well, I was notified by my long-standing \u201cGoogle Alert\u201d that my name had appeared in a paper on the web. It was in a study called \u201cAutomated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models\u201c, available on Arxiv.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691822666,691818169,691819566,691818056,691818076,691820093],"class_list":{"0":"post-299080","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-artificial-intelligence-ai","9":"tag-bad-science","10":"tag-chatgpt","11":"tag-climate-change","12":"tag-co2","13":"tag-sea-level","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00artificial-intelligence-example-s.x215c2124.jpg?fit=2048%2C1299&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1fNS","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":216632,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=216632","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":0},"title":"Bizarre \u2018Fact Check\u2019 of World Climate Declaration Claims No Natural Climate Change for Almost 200 Years","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The lead signatory is the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, and he is followed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-2.png?fit=1140%2C570&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-2.png?fit=1140%2C570&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-2.png?fit=1140%2C570&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-2.png?fit=1140%2C570&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-2.png?fit=1140%2C570&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":427588,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=427588","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":1},"title":"Scafetta: Climate Models Fail to Reproduce the Medieval Warm Period, Undermining Claims of Unprecedented Man-Made Warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/02\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Modern climate models are used to support the claim that recent warming is unprecedented and largely man-made. This claim is based on the assumption that the models can accurately reproduce Earth's past climate behavior. But they don\u00b4t. A closer look at Nicola Scafetta's new\u00a0study\u00a0shows that climate models repeatedly fail to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"CMIP6 climate model\"","block_context":{"text":"CMIP6 climate model","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cmip6-climate-model"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Ma.jpg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Ma.jpg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Ma.jpg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Ma.jpg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0-Ma.jpg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":417267,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417267","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":2},"title":"Wrong, Phys.org, Faulty Thermometers Aren\u2019t Evidence of a \u2018Climate Roller Coaster\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Phys.org recently published \u201cGlobal warming amplifies extreme day-to-day temperature swings, study shows,\u201d reporting on a new study in Nature Climate Change which claims that human-caused warming is intensifying rapid day-to-day temperature fluctuations, in the process creating a new category of climate hazard. This is false.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMF2RC5Jjji6Dch8PzY9wqxn3ftNQ_aF3yvJAIvmBTDh4pwINZnWSYWX8C_NV-wmkmLV7wy9TQFYmjMP5g8qHYDqbddPY38n64DIGhAT3j8F8Yc1p1AUYClmitVw-HUn9hQhjugba7wX8OJVoy_xC9OjBKQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMF2RC5Jjji6Dch8PzY9wqxn3ftNQ_aF3yvJAIvmBTDh4pwINZnWSYWX8C_NV-wmkmLV7wy9TQFYmjMP5g8qHYDqbddPY38n64DIGhAT3j8F8Yc1p1AUYClmitVw-HUn9hQhjugba7wX8OJVoy_xC9OjBKQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMF2RC5Jjji6Dch8PzY9wqxn3ftNQ_aF3yvJAIvmBTDh4pwINZnWSYWX8C_NV-wmkmLV7wy9TQFYmjMP5g8qHYDqbddPY38n64DIGhAT3j8F8Yc1p1AUYClmitVw-HUn9hQhjugba7wX8OJVoy_xC9OjBKQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMF2RC5Jjji6Dch8PzY9wqxn3ftNQ_aF3yvJAIvmBTDh4pwINZnWSYWX8C_NV-wmkmLV7wy9TQFYmjMP5g8qHYDqbddPY38n64DIGhAT3j8F8Yc1p1AUYClmitVw-HUn9hQhjugba7wX8OJVoy_xC9OjBKQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMF2RC5Jjji6Dch8PzY9wqxn3ftNQ_aF3yvJAIvmBTDh4pwINZnWSYWX8C_NV-wmkmLV7wy9TQFYmjMP5g8qHYDqbddPY38n64DIGhAT3j8F8Yc1p1AUYClmitVw-HUn9hQhjugba7wX8OJVoy_xC9OjBKQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276893,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276893","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":3},"title":"Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Sources of variability of some terrestrial and solar phenomena.","rel":"","context":"In \"Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA)\"","block_context":{"text":"Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=singular-spectrum-analysis-ssa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-55.png?fit=1200%2C948&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-55.png?fit=1200%2C948&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-55.png?fit=1200%2C948&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-55.png?fit=1200%2C948&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-55.png?fit=1200%2C948&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277596,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=277596","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":4},"title":"Wrong, LA Times, There is No Evidence \u2018Climate Change Boosts Risk of Explosive Wildfire Growth in California\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"An article in\u00a0The Los Angeles Times\u00a0(LA Times)\u00a0published on September 4, 2023 makes the claim\u00a0that a study by a Berkeley think tank proves \u201cClimate change has ratcheted up the risk of explosive wildfire growth in California by 25%.\u201d This is false.","rel":"","context":"In \"California\"","block_context":{"text":"California","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=california"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0TEDSIXR5IRCAVCYBE7F5PNINAI.webp?fit=1024%2C641&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0TEDSIXR5IRCAVCYBE7F5PNINAI.webp?fit=1024%2C641&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0TEDSIXR5IRCAVCYBE7F5PNINAI.webp?fit=1024%2C641&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0TEDSIXR5IRCAVCYBE7F5PNINAI.webp?fit=1024%2C641&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438563,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=438563","url_meta":{"origin":299080,"position":5},"title":"No, BBC, Disaster Losses Can\u2019t Be Tied to Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Better journalism would distinguish modeling from measurement and highlight what we can control: smarter land-use, resilient infrastructure, and adaptation. That\u2019s far more immediate and effective than blaming every insurance claim on \u201cclimate change.\u201d The data, not the headlines, supports the ClimateRealism headline.","rel":"","context":"In \"British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)\"","block_context":{"text":"British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=british-broadcasting-corporation-bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-No-BBC-Disaster-Losses-Cant-Be-Tied-to-Climate-Change.jpg?fit=1168%2C784&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=299080"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299080\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":299093,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299080\/revisions\/299093"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/299091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=299080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=299080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=299080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}