The Deeper Dive: Globalists Keep Turning up the Heat
David Haggith

We are experiencing the worst globally manufactured heat wave in history. The question is whether it was caused by human manufacturing plus cows or manufactured by scientists with a sacred-cow agenda.

I’m making today’s complete Deeper Dive available for free to everyone because this article is about gross manipulation of truth on a global issue being carried out at a globally pervasive level on a matter that is easily the most expensive issue on earth and that will be potentially the most economically damaging IF what we are getting and understanding is not the solid truth. 

That is to say, if we are spending trillions of dollars and euros, etc., that we needn’t spend or depriving ourselves of economic opportunity or lifestyle unnecessarily, then we are inflicting incredible damage on ourselves pointlessly. (I am also presenting it to everyone as an example of what you get with a Deeper Dive if you become a paid subscriber.)

The fog that pervades the mainstream press has become insufferable on this issue as I repeatedly see and sometimes point out misrepresentations of such basic things as “temperature.” Last week’s news in The Daily Doom was filled with headlines about record-breaking hot weather, and this weekend one article summarized the week by claiming, 

World breaks 1,400 temperature records in a week as heat waves sweep globe: Insights from Science News, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press

This week, more than 1,000 temperature records broke around the world, many of them shattered by extreme heat.

Right away, the opening sentence caught my eye because I’ve been seeing it a lot lately. Why would you say in the summer that record temperatures were “shattered by extreme heat?” What else would they be shattered by during the summer? Extreme cold? Record temps shattered by cows crossing the street while farting? In the world of common sense, most of us would say that all record temperatures are caused by “extreme heat.” So, it seems like saying, “record temperatures caused by extreme temperatures.” However, it’s not. There is some shaded meaning behind the word “heat” that you need to know.

It caught my attention because of how the word “heat” has been used in the past year by many publications to mean something much different than raw temperatures. For awhile publications were spelling out what they meant by “heat” versus actual temperature, but I’ve noticed they have quickly moved on from explaining how, when they talk about record “heat domes,” they no longer mean actual temperatures.

One huge problem with manipulating data or manipulating the language in how the data is reported, as I’m about to show, is that no reports can be trusted anymore. We can see this easily in the climate-change argument, especially when they no longer even bother to mention when “heat” means actual temperature and when it means something much different than actual temperature.

While some 100 million people are under a heat advisory in the United States. The total number of heat-related deaths isn’t yet clear, but at least hundreds have died in an unseasonably early heat wave.

A “heat wave” used to just mean the actual temps were high.

Now it does not.

Today, such reports always make the same additional claim in every story that I read:

The heatwaves are “the fingerprint of climate change,” experts said, and are a glimpse of what’s to come as human-induced climate change continues to amplify extreme weather. “It should be obvious that dangerous climate change is already upon us,” a climate scientist told The Washington Post. “People will die because of global warming on this very day.”

The lead for that story in Semafor was based on The Washington Post:

The suffering came despite predictions that a year-long surge of global heat might soon begin to wane. Instead, in the past seven days alone, billions felt heat with climate change-fueled intensity that broke more than 1,000 temperature records around the globe. Hundreds fell in the United States, where tens of millions of people across the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard have been sweltering amid one of the worst early-season heat waves in memory.

There they even used the term “heat” and “temperature” simultaneously, as though they were meaning the same thing by either term. They were not.

That much of this week’s heat unfolded after the dissipation of the El Niño weather pattern — which typically boosts global temperatures — shows how greenhouse gas pollution has pushed the planet into frightening new territory, researchers say. Scientists had expected this summer might be somewhat cooler than 2023, which was the hottest in the Northern Hemisphere in at least 2,000 years….

June is already all but sure to set a 13th-consecutive monthly global average temperature record, said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist who works for the payments company Stripe. Next month, he added, the planet could approach or surpass the highest global averages ever measured.

He’s a climate scientist who works for a payment company? Moving on …

“We’ve got the highest greenhouse gas concentrations in the last 3 million years. Carbon dioxide traps heat, so the temperature of the planet is rising,” said Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It’s real simple physics.”

So, we’re just talking average temperatures?

No, we’re not.

Then the Post included a graph with an odd statement:

Number of days with temperatures made twice as likely to occur by climate change, June 15 to 21:

What does that even mean? How do they know which temperatures are caused by climate change and which are not? Are there areas where climate change is not making temperatures twice as likely to occur? Twice as likely as which other period of time that we’re comparing to? Twice as likely during June 15-20 as the average week or twice as likely as they have ever been during any week in the history of the world? They did just say we’re going to be approaching the highest global temperatures ever measured?

For some 80 percent of the world’s population — 6.5 billion people — the heat of the past week was twice as likely to occur because humans started burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to data provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit Climate Central.

As you can see, they are pounding the human-caused climate-change narrative as a fact harder than ever in order to drive the point home.

So, I dug down from Semafor to The Washington Post to try to find out what is meant by “heat” because it is no longer “simple physics” as claimed, and I still didn’t find it. So, then I dug past The Washington Post to the nonprofit organization that The Post said provided their data. This is how deeply buried the truth on all of these article about “record temperatures” has become.

Climate Central states,

Using the Climate Shift Index, Climate Central issues alerts when there’s a notable heat event around the world that was made more likely by human-caused climate change. We also produce retrospective analyses to track the local influence of climate change.

Hmm. Naturally, that makes me ask …

What is the “Climate Shift Index?”

Well, that takes some real digging to find, and most people and most publications are not going to expend that effort for you. Leave it to me:

Digging further into Climate Central’s own site, I find their recent introduction of their new Climate Shift Index:

Today, Climate Central launches the Global Climate Shift Index —a new tool that quantifies the local influence of climate change on daily temperatures around the world. 

How do you “quantify” the “local influence” of climate change on daily temps around the world? How does specific locality affect global temperatures? Are they not simply whatever the temperatures are?

Climate Central’s first-ever analysis using the Global Climate Shift Index reveals the influence of human-caused climate change on daily average temperatures on each of the 365 days from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 across the globe—including 1,000+ global cities. 

So, “human-caused” sounds like it is a given. And, while some scientists (quite a large bunch actually) still say we don’t know how much climate change is “human caused,” versus how much is just the ice age still winding down because things like an ice age take 10,000 years or more to change into the next age. Maybe more like 100,000. And because the sun, itself, changes, going into deeper “solar minima” or "maxima,” which is to say times when sun spots that wash the world in radiation, such as we just witnessed beyond compare this year (well, beyond compare in my lifetime), swing on cycles from very few and minor sun spots to where we are now entering a solar maximum with a lot of very intense sunspots. There is no agreement on whether or not all that bathing in solar particles/energy can heat up the world or by how much. Nevertheless, these guys are going to quantify how much of this rising “heat” is human caused.

It is a fact, the source of data for The Wishington Post’s article claims, that …

Human-driven warming affected everyone, everywhere. Over the last 12 months, human-caused climate change affected temperatures experienced by 7.6 billion people. That’s nearly every person on the planet (96% of the global population). 

Yes, its pervasive and bad, impacting everyone:

People living near the equator and on small islands were especially impacted. Mexico, Brazil, western and eastern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Malay Archipelago experienced the strongest influence of human-caused climate change on temperatures over the 365 days analyzed.

And they’ve counted them all and quantified the impact:

At least 200 million people around the world felt the fingerprint of climate change on each of the 365 days analyzed. Global exposure peaked on October 9th 2021, when more than 1.7 billion people worldwide experienced temperatures that were made at least 3x more likely due to human-caused climate change.

How, might you ask, do they do this? (Also, doesn’t peaking in 2021 mean it is now less than it was 2.75 years ago? Or is that why in 2022, as we shall see, they had to develop this new index … to keep things rising?)

Scientists have been measuring the signals of human-driven global climate change for decades. We know how much planet-warming carbon dioxide we’ve released into the atmosphere since 1850 (660 billion metric tons). And we know how much global temperatures have increased since then (2°F, or 1.1°C). 

OK. That part seems straighforward (though I have no idea how accurate it is), but it is, at least, just a claimed measurement of CO2 and of global temperatures averaged out; but here is where it gets tricky (and why we need outfits like this to help drive the narrative):

But individual people don't experience global average temperatures. Instead, we mainly experience climate change through shifts in the daily weather patterns where we live. And now, using Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index ™, we can measure the influence of climate change on the temperatures that people experience everyday, everywhere.

OK, I say with raised eyebrow, what does that mean?

First, they present the same map shown in The Washington Post, then they let us know they have been at this since 2022. So, they have a long track record, I guess for judging something like the change in climate.

Today, Climate Central is expanding the CSI tool to the rest of the globe (CSI-Global). We’re kicking off the global expansion with the first-ever global CSI analysis.

A couple of years of work should be enough to create the new model global and make it the basis for factual data for publications all over the world, as we’ll see they do. But, again, how do they derive their numbers?

I keep drilling down into their own site, but don’t find anything about that. Instead, I keep reading the same huge overarching conclusions about human-caused climate change, so maybe that’s just a foregone conclusion:

Human-driven warming affected everyone, everywhere. Over the last 12 months, human-caused climate change had a detectable influence on the daily temperatures experienced by 7.6 billion people. That’s nearly every person on the planet (96% of the global population). 

OK. Yada, yada. How do you know that, and how does your index measure “heat?”

At one point, we get just a hint:

An estimated 55% of the global population lives in cities, where urban heat islandsworsen the risks posed by extreme heat.

I’m going to hypothesize a little until I find their answer to my question (writing as I research, knowing the answer will be evasive). “Urban heat islands” causes me to believe that their measure of heat is not just raw temperatures, but that it extrapolatesthe impact of temperature, sunshine, and wind shielding from large concrete and glass buildings and hundreds of acres of concrete-clad ground into how humans experience that heat.

That urban environment magnifies the radiance of the sun by reflecting it all over the place and trapping temperatures between buildings. But wouldn’t there be a massive amount of human extrapolation in deciding how all of that impacted the affect of simple old temperature (the stuff of “simple physics” that is no longer simply a matter of how much CO2 is in the air)?

Their page claiming to explain what the Climate Shift Index is and how it works goes on and on to report the impact without saying anything more about how they do all of this.

Finally, down the page, they get down to it. (You have to really keep digging deeper to get to the truth these days.) Or do they?

What is the Climate Shift Index ™ ? How does it work?

Here we go. This should tell us.

Thanks to advances in attribution science, we can now measure the influence of human-driven climate change on the temperatures that people experienceeveryday, everywhere—using the Climate Shift Index ™ (CSI).

The Climate Shift Index ™ (CSI) is a tool developed by Climate Central in 2022 and grounded in the latest peer-reviewed attribution science. 

Hold it. So it IS a measure of what people “experience?” What is advanced attribution science? That reads like an answer without an answer. Finding the answer to what is attribution science required drilling even deeper through the links. 

It turns out,

Climate change has altered the frequency of daily high, low, and average temperatures at a given location. 

So, some places, such as cities with lots of concrete and few shade trees might “experience” much more heat in areas that count millions more people than the ambient average temperature of the earth. That, of course, isn’t man-made climate change. It’s man-made cities trapping heat by reflecting and absorbing sunlight beyond what the air absorbs while blocking wind to blow the heat away. 

Drilling down into the “attribution science” links, I finally find …

Extreme weather events such as life-threatening heat waves and record-breaking downpours are part of the natural climate system, but by definition they are relatively infrequent—even rare. In recent decades, however, some kinds of extreme weather events have become more common. Science has linked some of these general increases to climate change, but it was challenging for researchers to clarify the influence of climate change on specific extreme weather events. Advances in computer processing power over the last decade and improved methods for sorting out the many factors that contribute to weather are allowing scientists not only to determine the extent to which climate change contributed to some extreme weather events but also to say with confidence that certain extreme weather events would not or could not have occurred but for climate change. This is the science of extreme event attribution.

So, in other words, in stories where The Wishlist Post is claiming record days of human-caused heat, what we really have is a vast set of calculations that are so difficult it takes the most advanced computers to run them and figure out how much is human-caused. I’m sure there is no chance that in all of that advanced programing there might be some human-caused biases written into the programs. Because scientists don’t ever goal-seek. Even they admit that it was quite challenging for scientists to determine how much was human caused or even how much the frequency of catastrophic events was caused by climate change.

The basis for the new index of record temps going back 3-million years is

Countless scientific papers, as well as assessments of those papers by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and others have concluded that the Earth’s climate system is warming and that most or all of the warming in recent decades has been caused by human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

So, the CSI starts from that premise. And throughout the layers of their website, we find that premise stated as the fact that the rest of their arguments are based on:

Though these changing extreme events vary by definition, region, severity, and by their importance for human systems and culture, they all occur on a warming planet that is distinctly and prominently influenced by humans.

Clearly there is a whole lot of room for interpretation and argument in this process even on what we are talking about:

For example, an “increase” in a kind of extreme weather can mean “happens more frequently” or “is more extreme when it happens” (in intensity or duration) or both. Careful wording can prevent confusion.

It’s also important to distinguish between the influence of climate change on certain classes of extreme weather, and climate change’s contribution to a specific extreme weather event.

We still haven’t gotten to ANYTHING precise or clear about what they mean by “heat,” though, and HOW they extrapolate heat out of simple temperature readings, other than their “urban island” hint.

These assessments require a ready and available research team working rapidly after an event occurs. As of 2021, “rapidly” still means attribution information is often not available for days to months after an event (e.g., Philip et al., 2021). 

In other words, there is a massive amount of extrapolation necessary to determine how much a single event was due to climate change and then how much of that was human caused. There is surely no room in any of that for human preconceived notions, premises that may not be real facts, goal seeking, or science as a doctrinaire religion.

The Climate Shift Index ™ is based on the ratio of the local frequency of a particular daily temperature in the current climate to the estimated frequency of that temperature in a world without human-caused climate change. 

Well, that, in itself, sounds like a whole shipload of extrapolation with plenty of room for argument. So, records are being broken like never before due to massive amounts of extrapolation.

Having dug way down, there is still nothing about what they mean by “heat.” They talk endlessly about heat, but it’s hard to pin them down on what this once-simple term means? Are we talking raw ambient temperatures in the air? Or is there a lot of extrapolation going on to turn raw temperatures into quantified measurements of “heat” as indexed metrics?

What I do see throughout their website is talk about the massive amounts of analysis they do in order to provide this data, which certainly sounds like we’re not talking ambient temperature of the air. It is so much more complicated than that. It has to be if we’re going to come up with proof that human-made climate change is still impacting millions of people. The raw numbers just won’t get you there anymore. They can’t because they haven’t gotten any worse in a number of years. So, we must extrapolate a lot more. 

To give you an example of how extreme the “analysis” is in order to come up with CSI readins, I present the following for just one city on just one month:

Phoenix has recently experienced deadly extreme heat events (as has much of the western United States, e.g., June 2021; https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/record-breaking-june-2021-heatwave-impacts-us-west, last access: 2 June 2022), but how attributable are Phoenix days with less extreme maximum temperatures? To briefly explore this question, we examine the month of July 2016 because it exhibits a relatively calm period of warm weather, exemplifying a set of “lesser extreme” moderately high temperatures that are nevertheless made more frequent by climate change. Daily July 2016 Tmax observations are taken from the Berkeley Earth dataset at the grid point containing Phoenix (33.75∘ N, 112.5∘ W; the city center is approximately 52 km from the containing grid cell's center). Note that we are using a coarse analysis grid to illustrate the attribution framework; gridded data could be downscaled and combined with point-based (e.g., station) data to produce more accurate estimates at a specific point (see the discussion in Sect. 4).

Coming up with these record “maximum temperature” changes doesn’t sound like an easy task because it is not that easy to get temperatures to shatter 1,400 world records in a month when you have to analyze it all at every individual location in order to, as they said, localize all the impacts in order to create the map above. However, rest assured that 1,400 local temperature records have been shattered by this process.

Still what do they mean by “heat”? 

At one point, deep down in their scientific papers, they do mention,

heat stress indicators that rely on both temperature and humidity fields or coupled Tmin/Tmax analysis)

That doesn’t answer the question, but it provides another clue that perhaps “heat” means something more than just warm “temperatures.” So, when we are shattering heat records, which are sometimes presented simultaneously as “temperature” records, they may be compounding temperature with the effect on how HUMANS feel temperature as it is amplified or diminished by relative humidity … or “Temperature Minimum/Temperature Maximum” analysis, which takes a whole team of scientists a month to determine for any one location … or a supercomputer … or both.

Digging down into their FAQs to see what the index is telling us and how it is calculated, I find, 

To compute the Index, we average together two complementary ways of estimating how climate change has altered the frequency of a temperature. The first method uses 22 climate models each run with, and without, historical greenhouse gas emissions. We then calculate the frequency of the temperature in the modeled climates. This gives us 22 pairs of frequencies. We then take the ratio of the frequency in the runs with observed CO2 to the frequency in the run without extra greenhouse gasses.

The second method….

It goes on and on with how much they do to get to the the “data” provided by the Climate Shift Index. It is in other words a very complex process, but none of that tells us clearly what they even mean by “heat” when they are claiming 1,400 records shattered.

They clearly recognize there is no “simple physics” in getting to where they are going. It is not as simple as all that:

So the Climate Shift Index shows a shift in temperature?

Not quite. It’s a shift in how frequently certain temperatures occur. For example, suppose 90°F used to occur on average one day each year in June where you live. If climate change has altered the conditions so that 90°F now occurs on average three days each June, then its frequency (or likelihood) has increased by 3 times. Following this estimate, whenever we see a 90°F day in June in your location, it is assigned a value of 3.

and …

Does a high Climate Shift Index mean climate change caused the hot weather?

Not entirely. Any weather event has multiple causes. The Index tells us how much climate change has boosted the odds of a particular temperature. Events where the Index reaches level 5 would be very difficult to encounter in a world without climate change–-not necessarily impossible, just very, very unlikely.

O.K. You get the point, lots and lots and lots of extrapolation and interpretation get you to numbers that are measures of probability, not simple changes in temperature or even “heat,” whatever that now means.

You might wonder, still, how they know—if we’re not just collecting raw temperature data, which wasn’t even measured 3-million years ago—how we know our temperatures today are beating ALL other periods. They answer that complex question for you with another complex answer:

How do you know what temperatures were like in the distant past?

The goal of our system is not to recreate the climate of 1850 or some earlier period. Instead, the goal of our system is to calculate how human-caused climate change has altered the climate. There are lots of factors that can affect climate in a location. For example, turning a grassy field into a city can make higher temperatures more likely, while allowing trees to grow back will make warm conditions less likely. We want to include these effects but remove the effect of greenhouse gasses. We do this by characterizing today’s climate using the best available data and then using the model- and observation-based techniques described above to remove the effect of the extra greenhouse gasses released by humans….

Right now, we have only implemented our system for surface air temperature. We have good data on temperature and climate models do a good job simulating it. We are working to extend the Climate Shift Index to other meteorological and oceanographic variables.

Notice that once again, they start out as if they are talking about simple “temperatures,” but right away they start quantifying their guesses about “temperatures” in the past based on the amount of concrete and glass versus verdant forests that existed in the surrounding world at the time and their impact on “temperature.” Even some “surface air temperatures” are simulated.

That is how they derive “urban islands of heat.”

And that (urban islands of heat) is where we get some idea of how loosely they interchange the hard facts of “temperature,” a simple point on a glass tube of rising mercury or on any other kind of basic thermometer, with “heat.” Digging deeper through more pages, I finally come to …

About 80% of the U.S. population lives in cities, where the urban heat island effect can worsen heat extremes.

Climate Central analyzed how urban heat island intensity varies within 44 major U.S. cities that together account for nearly one-quarter of the total U.S. population.

This analysis calculates the urban heat island (UHI) index for each census tract within a city to estimate how much hotter these areas are due to the characteristics of the built environment. 

So, now we have another calculated index that is just a component of establishing how 1,400 areas broke heat records last week. It seems we cannot talk just simple straight temperatures anymore, but abuse the word “temperature” at will to mean “calculated or even estimated heat indices.”

They are still not really clear about what they mean by heat, so let me give you an example from a heat index by AccuWeather, which has its “RealFeel” measure of “heat,” not actual temperature, and it regularly uses that now when reporting temperature, increasingly without stating they are doing so:

The AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature takes into account the effects of multiple parameters, including air temperature, wind speed, solar intensity, humidity, precipitation intensity/type, elevation and atmospheric pressure.

The RealFeel Temperature can be warmer or colder than the actual temperature depending on the weather conditions.

Wind Chill only takes into account two variables - temperature and wind speed, while the apparent temperature measures only temperature and humidity.

I’d be fine if they provide their RealFeel only as a sideline to temperature, as was often done with “wind chill” for years. This would be to give you a sense of what the daily temperature actually feels like due to all factors that influence how it impacts the human body. BUT IT IS NOT TEMPERATURE, and is increasingly presented as if it is. I’ve read article about “heat waves” where I’ve dug down to find that their measures of “heat” were RealFeel temperatures provided by AccuWeather.

This is the fog of confusion we are stuck with now everytime we read an article about “record heat.” You have to ask, “Are they using the term heat to avoid using the term temperature because they are not talking raw numbers on the mercury-filled tube anymore?” The change has happened so quickly that sometimes they don’t even use the more vague word “heat” and just, instead, give the AccuWeather RealFeel “temperature.”

Back to the reporting

Now take all that back to The Washington Post article that became the basis for the Semafor article:

For some 80 percent of the world’s population — 6.5 billion people — the heat of the past week was twice as likely to occur because humans started burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to data provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit Climate Central.

Nearly half that number experienced what Climate Central considers “exceptional heat” — conditions that would have been rare or even impossible in a world without climate change.

“What is really standing out is how many [heat waves] are happening at the same time,” said Andrew Pershing, the nonprofit’s director of climate science.

At this point, you understand that what they mean by “heat” is far from simple temperature. You might have thought we were smashing record temperatures, and I’m sure in some places we did:

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the past week has seen more than 1,400 high temperature records fall around the globe….

Climate Central … underscores how warming has juiced the chance of temperatures at the edge of what people can tolerate. warming has juiced the chance of temperatures at the edge of what people can tolerate.

Especially since we are taking about how humidity, radiant heat of buildings and asphalt, etc, affect how much temperature people can tolerate. Where the article is talking about NOAA, maybe those are just raw temperatures. I’d have to do a lot more to dig into that because it is increasingly difficult to decipher that as we get concocted reports with an agenda.

Now, let’s prove my agenda claim:

What is Climate Central? 

They claim,

Climate Central is an independent group of scientists and communicators who research and report the facts about our changing climate and how it affects people’s lives. We are a policy-neutral 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Are they?

Their very next paragraph says,

Climate Central 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.

“What can be done about it” certainly doesn’t sound policy neutral. Neither, really does, “using” science and big data to generate thousands of local storylines with compelling visuals that are intend to “make climate change personal” sound like a group of scientists without an agenda! That sounds very much like they are starting with an agenda (a mission) to persuade people about climate change. They have already determined climate change is real and human caused and are intent upon making that narrative personal and compelling. It sounds totally agenda-driven to me.

Deep down in another part of their website, I came across this:

Knowing whether and how this climate change is contributing to extreme weather (a field sometimes called “extreme weather attribution”) can help decision-makers:

I.e., said plain and simple, can affect policy. And that IS the goal here.

For example, they say it can …

determine how to balance efforts to limit climate change (“mitigation”) versus efforts on preparedness and infrastructure resilience (adaptation)….

Those all sound like things that would have to happen by government policy since it is typically government that creates infrastructure and focuses on disaster preparedness. 

Moving back up a level on their site, we find they’re a group of scientists with an agenda to …

collaborate widely with TV meteorologists, journalists, and other respected voices to reach audiences across diverse geographies and beliefs.

So, what we have here is a group of activist scientists doing everything they can to make the human-caused climate change narrative impactful in order to share their compelling stories and visuals with television meteorologists and journalists everywhere in order to spread the gospel of “what can be done about it” via government policy changes to undertake such initiatives. We have climate-change evangelists “using” science to spread their beliefs.

Since actual temperatures have not been enough to do that, you need human-manipulated “heat” indices to drive the narrative home.

You can expect to see Climate Central’s “data” now published everywhere as gospel truth by major “news” outlets like The Washington Post, which won’t ever question the data and then see it copied by other publications like Semafor, which won’t even question The Washington Post. And all of this becomes the new “facts. 

To show you how truthful it all is, The Post article claims this data shows the hottest temps going back 3,000,000,000 years (since it is just simple science that the highest concentration of CO2 in 3,000,000,000 years has to equal the hottest temps in as many years; however, the group providing the data has only been around two years, and we were often told that temperature data from a hundred years ago wasn’t very accurate, so climate scientists have had to adjust it to make up for known deficiencies in the older equipment (always adjusting temps downward the further back in time they go in order to make the present look more upward).

So, I ask if something as basic as temperature was not measured accurately a hundred years ago, how accurate was humidity and radiant heat directly from the sun measured? Might there be a lot of assumptions in this “data?”

Weather wars

With so much extrapolated, analyzed confusion being sown in terms of what simple words like “temperature” and “heat” even mean anymore because the naturally broader term “heat” is being used vaguely while “temperature” is often synonymously in the same paragraph, is it any wonder that we also had the following story in last week’s weather news:

TV Weather Gets Political

For the longest time, chatting about the weather was the apotheosis of small talk.

Awkward pause in the conversation? Stumped about what to say to a colleague? Remarking on the forecast was usually a safe bet.

But the weather is no longer the neutral territory it once was.

Climate change is now squarely part of the American culture wars, and heat waves and flash foods have become fodder for partisan squabbling.

They have to be because the language, itself, is being so abused by those who want to score points for their agenda that even simple words like “temperature” are being redefined to mean “heat,” which is being defined to mean a whole lot of factors affecting how humans “feel” heat.”

As extreme weather becomes more commonplace and climate change raises temperatures [temperatures or heat indices?] around the globe, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the nation’s roughly 2,000 television meteorologists to stay above the fray….

An award-winning TV weatherman, Gloninger moved to Iowa in 2021 to take the job of chief meteorologist at KCCI, the CBS affiliate in Des Moines. His new bosses were explicit: They wanted him to talk about climate change.

Of course they did. It’s an obvious World Economic Forum agendum being proposed through all the major media that gets invited to and loves to attend the WEF. The message hasn’t been selling. So, they are pumping it hard now and fostering non-profits (NGOs) to make sure the information gets disseminated everywhere with the most compelling local stories and visuals.

But many of Gloninger’s conservative viewers felt differently. As he began making the connection between extreme weather andhuman-caused global warming on the air, he began getting hate mail and even a death threat.

You’ll see the emphasized talking-point there in every article now. And, of course, he is getting hate mail (though death threats are beyond the pale) because people are sick of the news stuffing manufactured stories at them as truth. If the stories were always clear that “here is what actual raw temperatures show” and “here is what we extrapolate that to mean in terms of how people feel the heat” and if they didn’t always presume “human caused” as a premise, then maybe people would not be so outraged; but they are now making it almost impossible to decipher between actual raw data and extrapolated “data.” They are going to repeat their premise until they establish it as a fact in people’s minds.

Gloninger began to feel unsafe and eventually moved back to Massachusetts.

What happened to Gloninger is an extreme case. But the episode reveals just how difficult it can be for meteorologists to talk about climate change.

Maybe they should try talking in purely factual terms and just leave out all the extrapolated stuff. Let’s get back to talking about weather as weather. If we keep seeing record actual temperatures, we’ll get the point that this is happening a lot; but when we keep reading about “heat” and then finding that “heat” means any broad array of things and then start seeing the word “termperature” used synonymously in a story about record heat index measures, then we’re going to get mad because we’re confused as we are meant to be. (Actually, we’re meant to just suck up the extrapolations as if they are the hard data and not question the premises.)

The meteorology community has been grappling with the issue of how to talk about global warming for more than a decade.

By which they mean “how to sell the human-caused climate change agenda without making it sound like they have an agenda to sell.”

In 2010, the National Science Foundation and George Mason University started a program called Climate Matters. The goal of the effort was to bring data-driven climate news to local audiences, and the appetite for such material has been tremendous.

If that’s all you really want to do, then just give us the data. If you tell us the recorded highest temperature in a region was X and that we just beat that with Y today, and you use only the actual recorded temp and not the one adjusted “because instruments were not as accurate back then” and certainly not the one off of heat indices calculated since 2022 to go back hundreds of thousands or millions of years, maybe we’ll believe you. We’ll see that yes, Y is higher than X was, and we’ll know there are no human adjustments in any of the data. If you need to, then put a footnote that says, “It is estimate that instrumentation read 0.5 degrees higher than today back when X was recorded.”)

Climate Matters is now in more than 245 cities and media markets and is working with thousands of reporters and editors around the country.

Yet another NGO to help us understand that we cannot go by simple temperature measurements. It takes big organizations to recalculate the raw data and create helpful infographics and local stories to convince us that we’re causing global warming.

Bernadette Woods Placky, who runs the program, said that, across the board, more TV meteorologists are talking about global warming in their reporting.

No kidding. By design. The push on that agenda has been more than abundantly obvious as every story published repeated the talking points of the WEF.

“Our weather has so fundamentally changed because of climate change that it is now part of the story,” she said.

Actually, it is now part of every weather story all the time because that is the agenda. Drive the point home to those who have been reluctant to accept it. Create new facts wherever necessary to help us understand that human-felt temperatures are rising and make them facts by just stating them as your premise over and over.

Showing how political simple weather reports have become, one meteorologist in Florida said in his weather report on air,

Please keep in mind, the most powerful climate change solution is the one you already have in the palm of your hands: the right to vote.

That was because his governor had just passed a bill making it illegal for Florida to consider climate change in any of its budget policies; but, hey, these NGOs are not trying to affect policy. You know that because they told you so.

That article last week went on to tell of many vain weatherheads who are now using their forecasts to present the human-caused climate-change narrative, rather than just the weather facts of temperature and inches of rain. All news these days is political commentary—even the weather. The article, of course, presents this as a noble effort by your local meteorologist to brave the slings and arrows of local rabble to tell them the truth they need to hear.

“My job is to be honest and upfront about the science, and to tell people the facts,” Berardelli said. “I’m not going to couch the truth because it may offend some people.”

Well, it’s actually the “extrapolation” made from the facts and many other truths and maybe a few not-so-truths now all presented as if they were simple temperature readings when they are not. These conglomerations have room for innumerable interpretations and assumptions.

Can we just get back to talking about the weather? Give me some plain ol’ mercury. If I can’t handle that hard truth, maybe I can drink it to make myself insane enough to believe this world of lies. It turns out talking about the weather is no longer the purely safe non-political, non-religious conversation it once was.

And that’s a Deeper Dive—a penetrating plunge through the layers of fabrication to get down to the basic truths under it all that you will never see anymore in the mainstream media. You have to dig to find it or have someone who does the digging for you. Deeper Dives are also where I publish my economic predictions, some of which eventually are made available for free to all in bits and pieces. It’s my thank you to those who actually pay to support my writing.

Share

(Quotes above can be found in the boldface articles below or the many links you have to dig back through from those articles to get to the truth.)

Seeing the Great Recession Before it Hits

My path to writing this blog began as a personal journey. Prior to the start of this so-called “Great Recession,” my ex-wife had a family home that was an inheritance from her mother. I worked as a property manger at the time, and near the end of 2007, I could tell from rumblings in the industry that the U.S. housing market was on the verge of catastrophic collapse. I urged her to press her brothers to sell the family home before prices dropped. The house went on the market and sold right away — and just three months before Bear-Stearns and others crashed, taking the U.S. housing market down for the tumble. Her family sold at the peak of the market.

 

 

www.thedailydoom.com