donsutherland1

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/ "Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance. Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth. It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review. Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. It is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt. Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with). This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

Two quick things: 1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question. 2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

Thanks for sharing this information. Cook has done a lot of good work in trying to combat climate change denial. Hopefully, this book will do well in helping address what remains a real problem.

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg. Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic: https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20 Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics. Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Some PNS reports from the snowstorm: 000 NOUS42 KMHX 211006 PNSMHX NCZ029-044>047-079>081-090>092-094-193>196-198-199-203>205-212206- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Newport/Morehead City NC 506 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Provider ...North Carolina... ...Beaufort County... Bath 2.8 in 0933 PM 02/20 Public 1 SSW Chocowinity 2.0 in 1110 PM 02/20 Trained Spotter 1 NNE Pinetown 2.0 in 1023 PM 02/20 Public ...Craven County... Vanceboro 3.7 in 1130 PM 02/20 Public 1 ENE Fort Barnwell 2.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 Public ...Duplin County... 3 SW Bowdens 1.5 in 0845 PM 02/20 Amateur Radio ...Greene County... Snow Hill 4.0 in 0414 AM 02/21 Public ...Lenoir County... 1 ESE Kinston 3.5 in 1120 PM 02/20 Public 1 ESE Kinston 3.0 in 0939 PM 02/20 Public ...Pitt County... 2 N Farmville 3.8 in 0123 AM 02/21 Public Grifton 3.5 in 0310 AM 02/21 Public && 000 NOUS42 KRAH 210829 PNSRAH NCZ007>011-021>028-038>043-073>078-083>086-088-089-212029- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Raleigh NC 329 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Lat/Lon ...North Carolina... ...Alamance County... 1 S Mebane 2.8 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.28W 1 W Burlington 2.3 in 1000 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.47W Burlington 2.0 in 1015 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.45W ...Chatham County... 6 W Bynum 1.8 in 0732 PM 02/20 35.78N/79.25W 1 NE Siler City 1.5 in 0607 PM 02/20 35.73N/79.45W 1 ENE Goldston 1.4 in 0657 PM 02/20 35.60N/79.31W ...Cumberland County... 5 NNE Fayetteville 0.8 in 1021 PM 02/20 35.15N/78.87W Hope Mills 0.5 in 0822 PM 02/20 34.97N/78.95W 5 NNE Fayetteville 0.5 in 0911 PM 02/20 35.15N/78.87W Fayetteville 0.5 in 0921 PM 02/20 35.07N/78.90W ...Davidson County... 3 WNW Lexington 1.0 in 0608 PM 02/20 35.82N/80.31W Thomasville 1.0 in 0611 PM 02/20 35.89N/80.08W ...Durham County... 7 SE Gorman 2.7 in 1017 PM 02/20 35.97N/78.72W 1 SSE Parkwood 2.1 in 1147 PM 02/20 35.88N/78.90W Durham 2.0 in 0902 PM 02/20 35.98N/78.92W 1 SSE Parkwood 2.0 in 1008 PM 02/20 35.88N/78.90W ...Forsyth County... 3 W Pfafftown 1.0 in 0600 PM 02/20 36.15N/80.36W ...Franklin County... 3 NE Youngsville 4.0 in 0912 PM 02/20 36.06N/78.44W 4 ENE Franklinton 3.8 in 1030 PM 02/20 36.13N/78.39W Youngsville 3.0 in 1250 AM 02/21 36.03N/78.48W ...Guilford County... 3 SSW Gibsonville 2.0 in 0630 PM 02/20 36.07N/79.57W 5 E Colfax 2.0 in 0800 PM 02/20 36.12N/79.93W 2 SSE Summerfield 2.0 in 0815 PM 02/20 36.18N/79.88W Greensboro 1.5 in 0929 PM 02/20 36.08N/79.83W High Point 1.3 in 0630 PM 02/20 35.98N/80.00W ...Halifax County... Roanoke Rapids 2.5 in 0918 PM 02/20 36.45N/77.65W ...Harnett County... Coats 1.5 in 0745 PM 02/20 35.41N/78.67W 3 E Pineview 1.5 in 0815 PM 02/20 35.31N/79.03W 2 SSW Benson 1.5 in 1105 PM 02/20 35.35N/78.56W ...Johnston County... Benson 2.5 in 1005 PM 02/20 35.38N/78.55W 1 E Linwood 2.2 in 0801 PM 02/20 35.75N/78.30W 3 NNW Flowers 2.0 in 0700 PM 02/20 35.70N/78.37W 2 E Pine Level 2.0 in 1042 PM 02/20 35.51N/78.21W Clayton 1.9 in 0722 PM 02/20 35.65N/78.46W 6 N Coats Crossroads 1.9 in 0926 PM 02/20 35.61N/78.56W 5 WNW Coats Crossroads 1.5 in 0645 PM 02/20 35.54N/78.63W Emit 1.5 in 0731 PM 02/20 35.73N/78.27W 2 E Pine Level 1.2 in 0902 PM 02/20 35.51N/78.21W 6 NNW Coats Crossroads 1.2 in 1200 AM 02/21 35.59N/78.60W ...Lee County... Broadway 1.5 in 0709 PM 02/20 35.46N/79.05W ...Montgomery County... Troy 2.8 in 0916 PM 02/20 35.36N/79.89W Star 2.0 in 0839 PM 02/20 35.40N/79.78W Candor 1.8 in 0932 PM 02/20 35.29N/79.74W ...Moore County... 4 SW Carthage 2.3 in 0956 PM 02/20 35.31N/79.47W ...Orange County... 2 N Efland 2.5 in 0730 PM 02/20 36.09N/79.17W 4 NNW Efland 2.1 in 0630 PM 02/20 36.12N/79.20W 2 S Carr 2.0 in 0604 PM 02/20 36.19N/79.22W ...Person County... Roxboro 3.3 in 0757 PM 02/20 36.40N/78.98W ...Randolph County... 4 SE Asheboro 1.8 in 0745 PM 02/20 35.68N/79.76W 3 ENE Seagrove 1.5 in 0742 PM 02/20 35.56N/79.73W Asheboro 1.0 in 0517 PM 02/20 35.72N/79.81W ...Sampson County... 2 W Spivey`s Corner 1.8 in 1100 PM 02/20 35.25N/78.56W ...Vance County... Henderson 2.8 in 0925 PM 02/20 36.32N/78.41W ...Wake County... 4 NE Wendell 3.1 in 1001 PM 02/20 35.83N/78.31W 4 NE Rdu International 3.0 in 0947 PM 02/20 35.91N/78.73W 5 SSW Garner 2.8 in 0951 PM 02/20 35.62N/78.67W Purnell 2.7 in 0920 PM 02/20 36.03N/78.57W 2 N Raleigh 2.5 in 0831 PM 02/20 35.85N/78.66W 3 S Falls Lake 2.5 in 1020 PM 02/20 35.89N/78.58W 4 NNE Raleigh 2.3 in 0856 PM 02/20 35.87N/78.64W 6 W Falls Lake 2.3 in 0924 PM 02/20 35.94N/78.68W 1 S Cary 2.2 in 0800 PM 02/20 35.77N/78.80W Wake Forest 2.0 in 0825 PM 02/20 35.97N/78.52W 5 W Purnell 2.0 in 0914 PM 02/20 36.03N/78.65W 2 NNW Fuquay-Varina 2.0 in 1040 PM 02/20 35.62N/78.81W 4 SSW Raleigh 1.8 in 1200 AM 02/21 35.77N/78.68W 2 WSW Holly Springs 1.7 in 1000 PM 02/20 35.64N/78.86W 2 NE New Hill 1.5 in 1100 PM 02/20 35.70N/78.88W ...Warren County... 1 N Arcola 1.8 in 0613 PM 02/20 36.29N/77.98W ...Wayne County... 1 SW Goldsboro 2.0 in 1110 PM 02/20 35.36N/77.99W 3 N Mar-Mac 1.1 in 0845 PM 02/20 35.37N/78.06W ...Wilson County... Lucama 2.3 in 0955 PM 02/20 35.64N/78.01W 2 ESE New Hope 2.0 in 0858 PM 02/20 35.79N/77.92W && 000 NOUS41 KAKQ 210832 PNSAKQ MDZ021>025-NCZ012>017-030>032-102-VAZ048-060>062-064>069-075>090-092-093- 095>100-509>525-212032- Public Information Statement National Weather Service Wakefield VA 332 AM EST Fri Feb 21 2020 ...SNOWFALL REPORTS... Location Amount Time/Date Lat/Lon ...Maryland... ...Somerset County... Crisfield 0.3 in 0938 PM 02/20 37.98N/75.85W Eden 0.3 in 0936 PM 02/20 38.28N/75.65W ...Worcester County... Ocean City 0.1 in 0939 PM 02/20 38.36N/75.07W ...North Carolina... ...Gates County... Corapeake 2.0 in 1130 PM 02/20 36.53N/76.58W ...Hertford County... Ahoskie 3.0 in 0843 PM 02/20 36.29N/76.99W ...Virginia... ...Accomack County... Bloxom 2.5 in 1008 PM 02/20 37.83N/75.62W Quinby 2.0 in 0942 PM 02/20 37.56N/75.73W 2 NE Atlantic 1.0 in 0714 PM 02/20 37.92N/75.48W Chincoteague 0.5 in 0938 PM 02/20 37.95N/75.36W ...Brunswick County... Gasburg 4.0 in 1000 PM 02/20 36.57N/77.90W ...Chesterfield County... 3 S Meadowville 1.7 in 0739 PM 02/20 37.33N/77.33W ...City of Chesapeake County... 2 SSE Hickory 2.0 in 1230 AM 02/21 36.63N/76.21W ...City of Franklin County... Franklin 5.1 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.69N/76.94W ...City of Newport News... 1 ESE Oyster Point 1.0 in 0716 PM 02/20 37.10N/76.49W ...City of Norfolk... 2 SE Norview 0.4 in 0120 AM 02/21 36.87N/76.23W ...City of Petersburg... 1 W Petersburg 3.0 in 0817 PM 02/20 37.21N/77.41W ...City of Suffolk... Downtown Suffolk 4.0 in 0115 AM 02/21 36.72N/76.59W ...City of Virginia Beach... 2 WNW Princess Anne 2.0 in 1215 AM 02/21 36.77N/76.09W ...Gloucester County... 1 NNW Gloucester Point 3.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 37.28N/76.50W ...Greensville County... Purdy 4.0 in 1044 PM 02/20 36.82N/77.59W ...Henrico County... 1 W Fair Oaks 0.6 in 0815 PM 02/20 37.53N/77.34W Varina 0.5 in 0900 PM 02/20 37.45N/77.35W ...Isle of Wight County... Zuni 3.0 in 1100 PM 02/20 36.87N/76.82W Carrsville 3.0 in 0732 PM 02/20 36.71N/76.83W Windsor 2.5 in 1230 AM 02/21 36.81N/76.74W ...James City County... Lightfoot 3.4 in 0952 PM 02/20 37.34N/76.75W Toano 2.5 in 1000 PM 02/20 37.38N/76.80W ...Lunenburg County... 2 N Dundas 3.0 in 0925 PM 02/20 36.95N/78.03W ...Mathews County... Soles 3.5 in 1030 PM 02/20 37.49N/76.44W Mathews 2.0 in 1030 PM 02/20 37.44N/76.32W Gwynn 1.5 in 1009 PM 02/20 37.50N/76.29W ...Mecklenburg County... Bracey 2.3 in 0856 PM 02/20 36.60N/78.14W ...Prince George County... 2 SSE Fort Lee 2.0 in 0930 PM 02/20 37.21N/77.32W 2 SE Richard Bland College 2.0 in 0854 PM 02/20 37.15N/77.35W 1 W Prince George 2.0 in 0830 PM 02/20 37.22N/77.31W 4 NNW Barham 2.0 in 0706 PM 02/20 37.19N/77.15W ...Southampton County... Courtland 5.0 in 0245 AM 02/21 36.71N/77.06W 1 WNW Hunterdale 3.0 in 0731 PM 02/20 36.71N/76.98W ...Sussex County... 1 NW Wakefield 3.6 in 1029 PM 02/20 36.98N/77.00W ...York County... Yorktown 3.0 in 1210 AM 02/21 37.24N/76.51W Grafton 2.0 in 0838 PM 02/20 37.17N/76.47W &&

On this I disagree. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The papers are available. The skeptics have no credible alternative to explain ongoing warming. Any serious money manager with a long-term horizon would already be working to mitigate risks and pursue opportunities in areas exposed to climate change based on the science. They would not be giving consideration to things that, quite frankly, have not much more scientific credibility than astrology.

Another climate scientist who is no longer giving perceived legitimacy to climate change deniers via debates: https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1228197739760013317

On GISS, January 2020 was the warmest January on record globally. The temperature anomaly was +1.18°C, which was narrowly above the previous record of +1.17°C from 2016.

An insightful video (h/t Mark Boslough):

The NOAA also reported that January 2020 was the warmest January on record globally. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202001

On February 6, 2020, NBC News reported: Facebook groups that routinely traffic in anti-vaccination propaganda have become a resource for people seeking out a wide variety of medical information — including about the ongoing flu season. Facebook hosts a vast network of groups that trade in false health information. On “Stop Mandatory Vaccination,” one of the largest known health misinformation groups with more than 178,000 members, people have solicited advice for how to deal with the flu. Members of the group have previously spread conspiracies that outbreaks of preventable diseases are “hoaxes” perpetrated by the government, and use the groups to mass-contact parents whose children have died and suggest without evidence that vaccines may be to blame. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-anti-vaxxers-pushed-mom-not-give-her-son-tamiflu-n1131936 Unfortunately, dubious groups such as those cited in the article are not limited to any particular field. Indeed, one sees a vibrant ecosystem of such actors and groups, all devoted to sowing doubt about anthropogenic climate change or outright denying it despite the overwhelming evidence for it. One useful approach for identifying disinformation related to climate change is to examine any claims that seen novel, dismiss climate change, or with which one is unfamiliar. One should check for peer-reviewed research that supports the claim (recent research is stronger than old research that may have been superseded). If such support is found, the claim is credible. If not, it should be viewed as speculative or, at best, a hypothesis that has yet to be tested.

From Copernicus: Global temperatures were substantially above average in January 2020. The month was: - 0.77°C warmer than the average January from 1981-2010, becoming by a narrow margin the warmest January in this data record; - warmer by 0.03°C than January 2016, which was previously the warmest January; - close to 0.2°C warmer than January 2017, which is now the third warmest January; - exceeded in anomalous warmth only by February and March 2016. European-average temperature anomalies are generally larger and more variable than global anomalies, especially in winter, when they can change by several degrees from one month to the next. The European-average temperature for January 2020 was particularly high. The month was: - 3.1°C warmer than the average January in the period 1981-2010; -warmer than any other January in this data record, by about 0.2ºC in the case of January 2007, the previous warmest January. https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-january-2020

The McKinsey Global Institute's report on climate change and its impacts: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Sustainability/Our Insights/Climate risk and response Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts/MGI-Climate-risk-and-response-vF.ashx

Perhaps this is one reason climate change deniers have stepped up their attacks on climate scientists, as well as the volume of their disinformation on Social Media and other outlets that still disseminate their position. From the Yale University Climate Change Communication Program: Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/ In short, science is gaining ground when it comes to Americans' views of climate change. As that process continues to play out, public support for effective policies aimed at making a credible start to addressing the challenge of climate change could reach critical mass. At that point, the defense of the status quo could disintegrate, as support of the status quo could hinder electoral success.

The definitions are universal. If, for example, a scientist/group of scientists discovers or identifies a new natural mechanism that can credibly explain at least some of the ongoing observed warming that cannot currently be attributed to natural forcings, then of course it would need to be given due consideration. Science is an iterative process. Areas of uncertainty e.g., especially with respect to some feedbacks, remain to be resolved.

The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.

The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement has a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific and medical understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of knowledge of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity, not to mention biodiversity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.

Why the "LOL?" Mann has been among the most prolific, influential, and widely-cited climate researchers, including in recent years. His work has been cited more than 35,000 times, including more than 12,000 times since 2015.

Yes. I agree with you.

Some excerpts from a timely interview with Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann: JAISAL NOOR: So you actually traveled to Australia to study the links between climate change and extreme weather events. You didn’t go to cover what’s happening now, but describe what you have discovered since you’ve been there. MICHAEL MANN: Yeah. It’s a bit surreal, because this trip, this sabbatical, was more than a year in the making. And indeed my goal was to come here to Australia to collaborate with some Australian scientists and understanding the scientific linkages between climate change and extreme weather events in Australia. And of course, ironically I arrived at the time that Australia was experiencing perhaps the most extreme weather on record in the form of unprecedented heat across the continent. And of course these unprecedented bush fires that are literally spreading across the continent. I’ve witnessed these impacts firsthand here in Sydney where I’m staying. Yesterday, I couldn’t go outside and take my usual daily run because the air quality was dangerous from all the smoke that was blowing in from these wildfires. And so here in Sydney, climate change isn’t just some theoretical construct. It’s something that is playing out in real time. I can look out my window and see it... JAISAL NOOR: Now have we reached a tipping point when it comes to climate change and these catastrophes that are unfolding not only in Australia but you see around the world. You see this growing devastation that natural disasters are causing. And is it possible to reverse this at this point? What would that look like? MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, so there is the danger of tipping points. You know when things get dry enough and hot enough, you can see a very dramatic escalation of these wildfires and bush fires here in Australia. And arguably that’s what we’re seeing in California and the Western US. That’s what we’re seeing here in Australia and in any many other regions around the world where summers are getting hot enough and dry enough that you just see this almost exponential escalation in these wildfires. So we may indeed be starting to cross a tipping point where, in the very best case, we are dealing with the new norm. That is to say, if we stop warming the planet and we sort of stabilize temperatures, we don’t worsen the problem. https://therealnews.com/stories/australia-fire-denying-climate-change-wont-save-you

There has definitely been arson. However, the disinformation being circulated is a claim that 90% or more of the fires are the result of arson (not lightning, not accident, etc.).

Yes, I did read about how the bots are spreading disinformation. Social Media platforms may be the battleground where the dying climate denial movement is making its last stand. Science has already triumphed in the research publications field (though pseudo-journals may be launched to try to create confusion) and it has made major gains among numerous media outlets (except mainly for ideology- or interest-driven ones). Nevertheless, ignorance-driven movements typically prove unsustainable in the long-term when knowledge becomes widely-diffused. Unfortunately, when it comes to addressing the challenges of anthropogenic climate change, early significant progress is needed, due to the long atmospheric residence of some greenhouse gases and the increase in forcing associated with their increasing atmospheric concentration. There is real urgency for society--on a global basis--to begin to make serious efforts to address the challenge. But, for now, with some exceptions, there remains a leadership deficit and the impact of that deficit is compounded by the noise of the shrinking but still loud climate change denial movement (and the interests, some with vast financial resources, that have a vested stake in its goals).