Skewed Tropical Cyclone Reporting

While the Atlantic hurricane season has been somewhat active, overall tropical cyclone activity across the Northern Hemisphere as a whole remains well below average.

This year has seen only 49 named storms, far fewer than the historical average of 54.1, along with 27 hurricanes compared to the usual 30.1. Major hurricanes are also down, with just 12 recorded versus an average of 16.3. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index, a measure of storm intensity, currently sits at 360.3—significantly below the average of 509.2.

Despite these indicators, despite these facts, media coverage remains fixated on cherry-picking Atlantic storms, leaving the Northern Hemisphere’s below-average storm levels as a whole completely ignored, perpetuating their skewed narrative.

“Something we are doing is clearly not working,” said billionaire Jeff Bezos in a recent sermon to his employees the Washington Post. “Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion.”

Officially now, trust in media is at an all-time low: the public view the press as little more than a mouthpiece for powerful backers and damaging agendas. The public is waking up to the way media narratives are carefully curated—not to inform, but to shape public opinion in ways that suit their sponsors’ agendas. Climate alarmism, selective scandal coverage, and the sheltering of influential figures like Bill Gates from scrutiny reveal the press’s troubling descent from watchdog to lapdog.

As revealed above, despite a lower-than-average tropical cyclone season in the Northern Hemisphere, headlines are filled with exaggerated coverage of “record-breaking” storms and “catastrophic” trends, painting a picture of crisis where there is none. Instead of reporting facts, many outlets leverage selective data to heighten climate fears and bolster a profitable narrative of impending doom. The goal? To keep the public on edge, to champion the policies of certain environmental lobbyists, and to maintain a steady stream of advertising revenue from corporate green initiatives. The result is not a well-informed public, but an anxious one, fed a steady diet of sensationalized half-truths designed to provoke rather than educate.

And then there’s Bill Gates, the tech titan turned public health “philanthropist” —uh-huh— who now faces legal action in the Netherlands over questionable vaccine practices. Despite this, mainstream media coverage remains suspiciously muted. Gates, who has invested billions in media initiatives and global health projects, enjoys a uniquely favorable press that doesn’t ask tough questions. Outlets overlook his recent indictment, choosing instead to preserve his carefully managed image as a benevolent visionary. The message couldn’t be clearer: the press protects its patrons, sheltering the powerful from the very scrutiny it ruthlessly applies to others.

It’s not just his public health ventures that escape critique. Recently, Gates funneled $50 million to the Harris campaign, quietly passing it through backdoor channels to keep it under wraps—another move overlooked by the media. Yet when Musk funds causes on the opposite side of the political spectrum, the press decries such contributions as a threat to democracy itself.

It’s a pattern repeated across countless issues.

Where is the unbiased coverage of contentious topics? Where are the balanced reports? The answer is that it’s buried under a pile of priorities that have nothing to do with serving the public good. Instead, the press has become adept at picking and choosing narratives that suit its patrons’ interests while ignoring or dismissing those that don’t fit the agenda.

This distortion has driven people away from mainstream media and toward alternative sources, even if they’re unverified or prone to error. People prefer an imperfect, independent voice that pursues truth to one that’s been bought and paid for by special interests. They’re demanding real answers and transparency.

The media’s reputation now lies in ruins—not because people have stopped caring about the truth, but because they no longer believe the press is offering any. Legacy media has devolved into a megaphone for the wealthy, a propaganda machine designed to shape and control public perception. And what has been the Establishment’s answer to its loosening grip on control? Attack alternative sources, like X and, in places like Britain, even jail those who dare to voice their frustrations online.

The WaPo and its ilk could go up in flames, and few would mourn the loss—they’ve devolved into hollow shills.

AMOC Collapse: Hype vs Reality

Once again, alarmist narratives are pushing the idea that humanity’s impact on the Arctic is triggering catastrophic changes in the Atlantic’s overturning circulation, or AMOC.

A new study claims that melting Arctic and Greenland ice is exerting pressure on this circulation, potentially driving it toward a perilous slowdown reminiscent of ancient, naturally occurring climate shifts. However, the actual data on Arctic temperatures and ice extent suggest a much more stable reality than the catastrophists would have us believe.

Take a look at the charts below detailing Arctic temperature anomalies and sea ice extent from mainstream sources like HadCRUT4 and NSIDC.

Since the early 2000s, Arctic temperatures have shown relatively modest fluctuations around a stable mean. Despite natural, seasonally-driven peaks and valleys, the broader picture from 2000 to recent years is one of relative temperature stability.

Similarly, Arctic sea ice extent over the past couple of decades has followed a largely cyclical pattern. While there’s a seasonal rhythm—ice retreats in the summer and grows back each winter—the long-term trend line is hardly the stark, relentless decline one would expect from claims of unprecedented melting. Instead, the data demonstrate a consistent oscillation.

Further complicating the alarmist narrative is a recent study published in Science Advances, which reveals that uncertainties in predicting climate tipping points, such as those impacting the AMOC, polar ice sheets, and tropical rainforests, are far larger than previously acknowledged.

This study, conducted by climate scientists from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), identifies significant issues in accurately forecasting tipping points due to several factors:

1. Oversimplified Mechanistic Assumptions – Many climate models rely on assumptions about physical processes and human actions to project future changes. These assumptions can introduce considerable errors.
   
   
2. Scarcity of Long-term Data – Continuous, high-quality observations are rare, making it difficult to capture the nuanced behavior of complex systems like the AMOC.
   
   
3. Incomplete Historical Data – Gaps in historical climate records force researchers to use interpolation methods, which can introduce inaccuracies, particularly when projecting over long timescales.

Serving as a pertinent example, predictions for a potential AMOC ‘tipping point deadline’ range wildly from 2050 to 8065—a 6,000-year spread that underscores the practical uselessness of these predictions for policymaking. Previous estimates, like those suggesting a collapse as soon as 2025, have proven themselves nothing but speculative. Despite the broad media attention these projections attract, the science behind them is laden with uncertainty.

For those pushing the AMOC slowdown story, invoking the “Last Interglacial” as a cautionary tale ignores the fundamental differences between past climate events and present conditions. The Last Interglacial period, roughly 130,000 years ago, saw significantly higher sea levels and distinct climate patterns that unfolded over millennia, not decades. Using it as a model for near-future predictions misrepresents the complexity of climate dynamics and the nuanced forces at play in natural climate variability.

While it is true that long-term shifts in Arctic conditions could influence the AMOC, data from recent decades hardly supports the notion that the current melting —or lack thereof— is having any effect at all. Instead, the narrative picked up by the MSM and pounced upon by meaning-seeking activists appears to cherry-pick historical events and ignore present-day stability to create a sense of urgency that is unsupported by evidence.

The AMOC “crisis” serves as a prime example of how a hyper-focus on a uncertain topic can skew public perception.

Expanding Polar Sea Ice

Polar sea ice is doing just fine this year and all, in 2024.

Over the past four days, Arctic Sea Ice Extent has grown by 947,000 km2 — an area almost the size of Egypt.

NSIDC data is showing a real swing up:

While at the bottom of the world, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently very similar to this date back in 1986 (i.e. nothing unprecedented):

The Latest Climate Delusion: Diamond Dust

In a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have proposed injecting five million tons of synthetic diamond dust into the stratosphere each year to reflect sunlight and reduce global temperatures by 1.6C.

According to the researchers, this “high-tech solution” could stave off severe climate consequences by mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. The cost, however, would be an eye-watering $200 trillion over the coming decades—making it one of the most costly, impractical, and dangerously shortsighted climate solutions ever suggested. Think about it. During a time when millions are struggling with inflation etc., these academics want folk to fund the tossing of literal diamonds into the sky.

Serving as come background, the concept draws inspiration from an alternative and equally pointless idea in geoengineering: injecting sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere. When volcanoes erupt, they naturally release SO2 where it combines with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols. These aerosols act like tiny mirrors, reflecting sunlight away from Earth. However, this sulfur-based cooling comes with trade-offs, such as increased acid rain, which can harm ecosystems, pollute water sources, and degrade agriculture.

Thinking outside of the box, and also firmly outside of the realms or reality, the research team states that synthetic diamond particles, which will be chemically inert and stable, could sidestep many of these issues. Unlike sulfur, diamond dust wouldn’t contribute to acid rain or ozone depletion. Only to pull this off, the world would need an astronomical increase in synthetic diamond production, along with fleets of high-altitude aircraft to disperse the dust on a continuous basis—an engineering and logistical nightmare so absurd that it renders this scheme laughably impractical.

Advocates argue that exploring alternatives like diamond dust is “necessary,” but even scientists in favor of geoengineering admit the challenges are extreme: synthetic diamond costs around $500,000 per ton, making it nearly 2,400 times more expensive than sulfur. Achieving global coverage would require a continuous, multi-billion-dollar investment in production, distribution, and deployment infrastructure. And for what? The same level of cooling could be achieved by simply waiting for the affects of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai to subside (chart below). Or, given the rise in global volcanism, we could simply allow Mother Nature to work all this out for us. Otherwise, we could see what Solar Cycle 26 has in store, because even just a repeat of SC24 (rather than a full blown GSM) would see notable cooling across the planet—given what would, by then, be decades-worth of low activity.

This proposal not only distracts from real, immediate climate action but risks creating a false hope that we can “engineer” our way out of the crisis. These techno-fix fantasies siphon resources, time, and attention away from genuine issues.

You can read the study in full here (but I would’t bother, don’t give it the click).