From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ad running in Wisconsin gives new name to weather events worsened by climate change: unnatural disasters,” discusses an advertising campaign that is trying to mobilize moms to take climate action when voting, by scaring them with claims that climate change is causing worse floods, heat waves, and wildfires. This is false. The trends for none of the types of extreme weather events they are warning of are worsening. In fact, American families are in less danger from the weather now than any other point in history.

The article says:

An ad running in Wisconsin and other swing states is urging residents to consider a new term to describe severe weather events worsened by climate change: “unnatural disasters.”

Science Moms, a nonpartisan group of climate scientists that emphasizes the risks climate change poses to families, is spending $2.5 million on the ad campaign, one of a handful they’ve run as they expand across the U.S., including on billboards. It underscores that human-caused climate change is making floods, heat waves, wildfires, and other extreme weather worse — jeopardizing kids’ ability to experience the world the way generations prior could.

Right away, the central claim of both the advertising campaign and article is false. Floods, heat waves, and wildfires, among other natural weather events, have not become more extreme by any measure that can be recorded.

Beginning with flooding, media outlets and climate activists claims to the contrary, data does not show there is an increase in the frequency or intensity of flooding events. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports with only low confidence that climate change is impacting flooding worldwide, it is just as likely that flooding is getting less common. In the United States, the picture is likewise not very scary, damage from flooding appears to have declined over time, even as modest warming continued. Despite an increase in infrastructure over time, the costs as a proportion of U.S. gross domestic product of flood damage have significantly dropped off since the early part of the 20^th century.

Heat waves have received a lot of media coverage over the past year. Climate Realism has covered many of the specific heat wave events in detail, here, here, and here, for example. The stories almost uniformly falsely claim that some location or other in the world experienced temperatures that were unprecedented, while ignoring historic data that show otherwise. They also ignore the growing impact of the urban heat island effect, which can have a significant warming effect, especially at night, in downtown areas, as discussed here in detail.

Most notably, however, data show that the vast majority of the United States has seen a decrease in the number of days equal to or over 95°F. (See figure below)

Additionally, historic data show the most severe heat in the United States occurred in the 1930s; recent extended heat records are not even close.

Finally, regarding wildfires, again the worst wildfires occurred in the United States during the beginning of the 20^th century. As Climate Realism has covered in great detail here, here, and here, for instance, available data do not indicate that the conditions necessary for massive wildfires are getting more likely over time, and at the global scale they are actually becoming less frequent and severe. Proof of the latter point is provided by NASA and the European Space Agency. Satellite data from those organizations show that over the past few decades the number of wildfires and acreage lost too them have declined dramatically.

Moms do not need to be worried that climate change is going to make America less safe for their families. It is shameful that the Journal Sentinel chose to uncritically parrot the alarmist talking points from moms who, rather than being called “Science Moms” would be more accurately named, “Moms Lacking a Good Science Education.” Data show their claims are false, their fears are unjustified, and thus the Journal Sentinel’s decision to promote their point of view is fake news.

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund are laundering the meat industry’s propaganda. …”

How the most powerful environmental groups help greenwash Big Meat’s climate impact

Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund are laundering the meat industry’s propaganda. At what cost?

by Kenny Torrella Aug 7, 2024 at 8:00 PM GMT+10
Kenny Torrella is a senior reporter for Vox’s Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat.

…

The Denver conference led to the creation of a new organization: the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, a network of beef processors, fast food chains, and other industry stakeholders, which has since spun out a dozen national and regional roundtables. …

…

To put it in fast food terms, it’s all bun and no beef. Yet for more than a decade, McDonald’s and other food giants, alongside meat lobbying groups, have pointed to the roundtables as proof they’re taking climate change seriously.

…

None of this is terribly surprising — it’s largely the same denial and deflection playbook run by Big Oil to avoid responsibility for climate change, with the usual suspects helping: industry-aligned academics, front groups, loyal politicians, and social media influencers. 

But among those allies are groups that are surprising: some of the world’s largest environmental organizations. 

Take the World Wildlife Fund, or WWF, a green giant with over $600 million in assets. WWF and McDonald’s are both founding members of the beef roundtable, and later, the two worked together on other beef-related projects. In fact, that inaugural conference in 2010 was officially titled the World Wildlife Fund Global Conference on Sustainable Beef. (WWF has helped to found similar industry roundtables for poultry and soy — most of which is fed to farmed animals — and a certification program for seafood.)

For its collaboration, McDonald’s makes sure WWF is well compensated; from 2015 to 2022, the company donated $4.5 to $9 million to WWF-US.

…

Read more: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/362224/environment-groups-meat-industry-lies-global-warming-climate-change-wwf

My first thought was, I didn’t know McDonalds burgers contain any meat.

Jokes aside, Reporter Kenny Torrella goes on in the article to suggest farming beef is an opportunity cost for carbon sequestration or production of other food. But cattle can be farmed on land which is otherwise utterly worthless – near desert land which cannot support other forms of food production. In my opinion claims that reducing beef production would increase food availability are questionable, and contain a highly dubious assumption that the land to be retired from beef production can be used for the other productive purposes.