Alaska’s Quiet Wildfire Season
Continuing the global trend, Alaska’s wildfire season was another unremarkable one.
After a record-slow start, the official Alaska wildfire season tally –as of Sept 13– stood at 343 fires covering 297,747 acres. That is well-below the recent years’ median of ≈1 million acres, and also down on the 20-year average.
Almost all of Alaska’s wildfires came extremely late, with less than 3,000 acres burned through late-July. The situation changed when a wave of lighting strikes commenced on July 24. That day alone, 16,300 strikes were registered, which ignited about 30 new fires, according to the Alaska Fire Service.
Summer in Alaska proved a frustrating one for the climate cabal. Snowmelt arrived very late, and Fairbanks was documenting accumulating snow in the month of June.
It was “a weird summer,” said Rick Thoman, of the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy at the University of Alaska which are words, when uttered by a mainstream climate scientist, can often be translated as, “conditions failed to support the AGW theory”.
Alaska’s fire season ended up with a low burn acreage — fact. So now “it’s the timing that was so remarkable,” continued Thoman. Records show a ‘definite pattern’, so it is claimed; however, the pattern isn’t one of out-of-control burn acreage, rather it is the ‘intervals between big fire years’, they’re apparently getting shorter, a change the AGW Party attribute to a warming climate.
The mainstream claim, however as pushed by the USDA’s Climate Hub, remains: “Climate change is increasing the risk of large, frequent, and severe wildfires as rapidly warming temperatures and longer growing seasons affect Alaska.”
–That’s the spiel, but below is the associated (and official) data.
I fail to see the ‘fingerprints of climate change’ in the charts.
Maybe I’m not looking hard enough.
Argentina’s September Snow Dump: Las Leñas Receives 10ft, Patagonia Ski Fields Extend Their Seasons
Hot on the heels of receiving 3 feet of snow in just 24 hours–and before that, 10 feet in 4 days–Argentina’s Las Leñas ski area has continued to be been pounded, with recent totals again exceeding 10 feet.
The Andes Mountains have been absolutely slammed in recent weeks.
As a result, avalanche danger has reached “extreme levels” in and around Las Leñas, with two large avalanches already documented this week, occurring, fortunately, within a closed-off area of the resort.
Many Las Leñas residents have been battling the snow, unable to leave their homes.
Late-season snow is pounding swathes of Argentina and Chile, most notably the Andes Mountains–hard.
Cerro Catedral, in San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, caught the southern tip of the system that slammed Las Leñas, receiving feet of snow. While in Chile, Portillo is reporting its snowiest season in over a decade, with slopes open that haven’t been skied on for years. Likewise at Valle Nevado, Santiago, conditions have been “absolutely firing”, reports snowbrains.com.
As a result of this exceptionally snowy September, ski areas across Patagonia are extending their seasons. Cerro Catedral will now stay open until at least Oct 15; Portillo to Oct 1; Valle Nevado to Oct 8; and La Hoya to Oct 16 — to name just four.
And looking ahead, yet another monster storm is predicted to slam the Andes this weekend, threatening additional feet of accumulating snow to ski areas such as Las Leñas, Cerro Catedral, and many others — record-challenging totals, in fact.
Muzzled Climate Dissent
There is an intensifying effort to silence ‘global boiling’ skeptics as The Narrative becomes harder and harder to maintain.
Censorial efforts have been ramped up of late: This summer, the International Monetary Fund canceled a presentation by John Clauser, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who publicly disavows the existence of a climate “crisis.”
A top academic journal, pressured by climate lobbyists, retracted published research which also dared doubt that we’re in an emergency — a move Roger Pielke Jr. described as “one of the most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen”.
And thirdly, Dr Patrick Brown is now feeling the full wrath of The Climitariat after he said that editors at Nature and Science–two of the most prestigious scientific journals–select “climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives” and favor “distorted” research which hypes up dangers. He said himself, “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published”.
The U.S. is seeking to half its carbon emissions by the 2035 and achieve net zero by 2050 in order to stave off the “existential threat” of human-induced climate change — and they’re stamping down all dissent in order to achieve this.
Last month, more than 1,600 scientists, among them two Nobel physics laureates, Clauser and Ivar Giaever, signed a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency, and that climate advocacy has devolved into mass hysteria.
“What advocates of climate action are trying to do is scare the bejesus out of the public so they’ll think we need to [act] fast,” said Steven Koonin, author of ‘Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.’
Roger Pielke Jr. dismisses “the fanciful idea that emissions are a disaster control knob.”
These 1,600 dissenting scientists have broad views when it comes to the climate. Some are claiming that global warming is indeed real and is indeed a problem, but that we have far more time that is being expressed to adapt; while others come from the standpoint that Earth’s climate is entirely regulated by the Sun and clouds, and carbon dioxide plays no part.
What they do all agree on, however, is that there is no climate “crisis”, and that being systematically sidelined by government agencies, foundation grant-makers, academic journals, and much of the media is the end game for scientific integrity.
Among their united arguments:
• There is no climate crisis or existential threat as expressed in catastrophic predictions by activists in the media and academia. By and large, humans cannot control the climate.
• Global temperatures are increasing incrementally, and have been for centuries, but the degree of human influence is uncertain or negligible.
• Rapidly replacing fossil fuels with renewables and electricity by mid-century would be economically risky and may have a negligible effect on global warming. It’s unrealistic, they say, to force societies to rely on intermittent energy from wind and solar, or wager the future on technologies that are still in experimental stages.
• The global political push “net zero” and “carbon neutrality” by 2050, as advocated by the United Nations, will erase millions of jobs and raise energy costs, leading to a prolonged economic depression and political instability. The result would be that developing regions will pay the highest price, while the biggest polluters (China and India) will simply ignore the net-zero mandate.
• Despite the common refrain in the media, there is no evidence that a gradually warming planet is affecting the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, storms, wildfires, droughts, rainfall, or other weather events. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has expressed low confidence such weather events can be linked to human activities.
• Extreme weather events are not claiming more human lives than in the past. The human death toll is largely caused by cold weather, which accounts for eight times as many deaths as hot weather. Overall weather-related mortality has fallen by about 99% in the past century. “People are safer from climate-related disasters than ever before,” Bjørn Lomborg has said.
• Climate science has been hijacked and politicized by activists, creating a culture of self-censorship that’s enforced by a code of silence that Koonin likens to the Mafia’s omerta. While climatologist Judith Curry, in her 2023 book, ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk,’ asks the question: “How many skeptical papers were not published by activist editorial boards? How many published papers have buried results in order to avoid highlighting findings that conflict with preferred narratives? I am aware of anecdotal examples of each of these actions, but the total number is unknowable.”
• Slogans such as “follow the science” and “scientific consensus” are misleading and disingenuous. There is no consensus on many key questions, such as the urgency to cease and desist the burning of fossil fuels, or the accuracy of computer modeling predictions of future global temperatures. The apparent consensus of imminent disaster is manufactured through peer pressure, intimidation, and research funding priorities, based on the conviction that “noble lies,” “consensus entrepreneurship,” and “stealth advocacy” are necessary to save humanity from itself.
Dr Judith Curry has called these 1,600 climate refuseniks the sane, rational voices in a maelstrom of quasi-religious mania.
“The urgency is the stupidest part of the whole thing,” she said. “Transition risk is far greater than any conceivable climate or weather risk. … In the 1500s, they used to drown witches in Europe because they blamed them for bad weather. You had the pagan people trying to appease the gods with sacrifices. What we’re doing now is like a pseudoscientific version of that, and it’s no more effective than those other strategies.”
I’m not sure that the establishment censorship is visible to those who operate within ‘approved circles’. If you follow the doctrine, you are accepted; if you forward the doctrine, you are lauded. However, to step outside, as I personally do here on Electroverse, well, it risks the wrath of The Climitariat — there is a system in place to quell dissent, and it descends on you hard and fast.
My website, in its earlier days (when the extension was .net), achieved close to 1 million page-views a month and was earning a healthy advertising revenue. Those heydays were short lived. In 2021, an orchestrated campaign was launched against me, one designed to censor and demonetize the site, driven by powerful legacy media outlets such as The Washington Post.
I was over the target, is all I can assume. I was yanking too many lost souls from the clutches of the Climate Cabal. What other reason can there be? If my website claimed that we humans were mind-controlled by the one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater I would be left well enough alone, the WP wouldn’t care, it’s misinformation, but they wouldn’t give two shits.
My claim, however–that the world isn’t ending–of course threatens the masses’ intravenous drip of fear that requires constant administration in order to be effective: crisis to crisis. Content humans equal perceptive humans, and they can’t risk us folk rationalizing all this craziness.
Climate change is a scientific topic, remember that alarmists. Therefore it demands an honest debate, always. The theory needs to be torn down, regularly, so as to see if it can stack back up. You remove that process and what you risk having is dogma.
I have started a ‘less contentious’ YouTube channel in order to get the facts across. Also, as of next week, I’ll be uploading daily ‘uncensored’ Electroverse videos to Rumble so follow me there too if you have an account: