Wood Romances

It looks like Wielicki is now generating and/or promoting AI-generated memes that misrepresent climate science . I saw this from him on X earlier today  (an alternate version from him is  here ). AI-generated Meme from Wielicki Wielicki's meme misrepresents and/or fabricates multiple lines of evidence. Let's look look at each of these supposed lines of evidence to see if he's made his case that "Natural variability produced temperatures like these before, so we should expect it to contribute to temperatures like these again... regardless of CO₂." Temperature Stripes The climate stripes in Wielicki's meme is attributed to Büntgen et al 2020 [1]. This paper was explicitly not limited to Europe. It included extratropical NH temperatures with distinct treatments for Eurasia (EA) and Eurasia/North Atlantic (EA+), and even the EA reconstruction is significantly larger than Europe. The paper is intended both 1) to parse out the role of volcanic forcings during th...

A couple days ago I saw the following post on X from Dr. Matthew Wielicki , who has decided to double down on some terrible math that I (and many others) corrected over a year ago (see here  for his terrible math and rebuttal). Dr. Wielicki Attempts math The errors in this post are numerous. Let's summarize them: It's wrong to calculate the amount of warming by subtracting one annual value from another. Wielicki should calculate the rates of warming by calculating proper trends. His approach completely ignores the natural variability that he says matters in this post. The trends for the two time frames are below. The difference between the two is statistically significant. The central trend for 1915-1936 is ~2.7x more rapid than 2005-2025 (not 3.6x), though the 2σ CIs are large.      1915 - 1936: 0.79 ± 0.5°C/decade (2σ) or 1.73°C warming over 22 years.      2005 - 2026: 0.29 ± 0.4°C/decade (2σ) or 0.64°C warming over 22 years.  Wielicki is cl...

In a video promoted by both Heartland and Climate Realism  that has been circulating on social media, YouTube and blogs for since at least 2022, two people (the top person is Stanley Goldenberg , and the bottom person is Dr. Richard Keen ) discuss an AMS Monthly Weather Review report describing the warming of the Arctic Ocean . After reading some language from the report describing large and dramatic climatic changes in recent years he says, "it goes on and on" and then quotes it saying, "Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable." Then comes the big reveal - this report was written in 1922. So dire predictions stemming from climate alarmism have been around for over a century. Who knew? The short answer to that question is, apparently nobody in 1922. It turns out that these two people were not reading from an AMS Monthly Weather Review report. They were in fact reading from a Washington...

Frequently I see contrarians confuse local and global temperatures in such a way that they end up contradicting themselves. The contradictions goes like this - on the one hand they say global warming can't be a problem because a small amount of glo. warming is no different than the change in temperature over a small portion of the day, and nobody would notice this small change anyway. But then they also say that during the Little Ice Age, climate was so much worse than it is today, including wide spread famines, frozen rivers, puritans burning witches, etc. Given that the LIA was only a couple degrees colder than today, this directly contradicts their claims about the effects of a couple degrees of global warming. I'll document an example of this below.  On September 6 , Matthew Wielicki posted a claim on X that global warming isn't a problem because 2°C warming by 2100 is "about the temperature change from 8am to 10am in most major cities." He then showed a gra...

Lucy Biggers appears to be the next up-and-coming influencer in the climate space. She presents herself as a former a climate activist suffered from extreme anxiety over climate, and so she advocated for policies and viewed other activists like Greta Thunberg as her hero. However, she says she was uninformed about the scientific evidence supporting her "doomer" anxiety. Then she read a couple books by Shellenberger and Koonin that caused her to stop being a climate activist, and now she is employed by the Free Press to share her newly found liberation from doomerism with the world. In reality she never stopped being a climate activist; she just changed her politics. Her appeal to her viewers appears to be that she (unlike many of her thought leaders) usually doesn't pretend to be an expert in science or policy. Instead, her approach appears to be that since she converted from doomerism to contrarianism, she has cured herself of her anxiety .[5] She was once filled with cl...

In the past I've shared how Tony Heller lies about bias correction procedures applied to CONUS temperatures and as well as by using simple averages of station data with no gridding, meaning that he fails to accounting for station moves and closures. I've also been shown these graphs from him below (located on his blog here ) that he uses to support both of these lies. This graph is intended to show that scientists are conspiring to fabricate global warming through bias correction. In his words, "the data is being tampered with precisely to match the increase in atmospheric CO2." To make his case, Heller shows difference of USHCN final - USHCN raw "temperatures" (it's actually not temperature; see below) plotted with CO2 concentrations. Since the plot shows a roughly linear increase with CO2 concentration, Heller suggests this is evidence that scientists are just engaging in criminal fraud by manipulating USHCN final temperatures to fabricate a warming tr...

Opinion polls appear to be all the rage among contrarians. These polls appear to be attempts to undermine the fact that over 99% of the recent scientific literature agrees with AGW, and 100% of scientific agencies globally that have taken a stance on AGW agree with AGW. In fact, as best as I can count, only about a half dozen credentialed climate scientists still working in the field globally disagree with AGW (11 if you count living, inactive scientists). Since the evidence is overwhelming in favor of AGW and the consensus on AGW is so strong, political activists need to resort to opinion polls to generate the perception that there are a significant number of scientists that disagree with AGW. And of course to get large numbers of signatories, you have to make the requirements to sign very low. This I believe explains the existence of the so-called Oregon Petition and the Petition Project . Qualifications of Signatories to the Petition The Oregon Petition was begun in the wake of t...