re: Climatology: more hot, dryness for Texas

quote:

---

Yeah, but Gore, being a politician, was interpreting the data he was using incorrectly.

---

And did you notice how no one called him on it back then? The scientists whose work he was quoting, the media, anyone? There ARE people who are pointing out the holes, omissions, illogical conclusions or the work being down now that's fueling these new predictions, but the problem is that unless you are predicting doom and gloom, you cannot get your work published. That is another thing that is no longer a conspiracy.

For example:

LINK

quote:

---

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

---