Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report 708
New submitter SomeoneFromBelgium (3420851) writes According to Bloomberg a leaked climate report from the IPPC speaks of "Irreversible Damage." The warnings in the report are, as such, not new but the tone of voice is more urgent and more direct than ever. It states among other things that global warming already is affecting "all continents and across the oceans," and that "risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action."
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you telling me that spewing into the atmosphere millions of years of accumulated sunlight and cutting down most of the natural CO2 scrubers (trees) of the world will have negative effects? Nah! Imposible!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you telling me that spewing into the atmosphere millions of years of accumulated sunlight and cutting down most of the natural CO2 scrubers (trees) of the world will have negative effects?
1. Trees do nothing
2. Human emissions are not even stable, they are continuing to increase. 60 million barrels of oil went up in smoke 10 years ago. Today, almost 50% MORE, 90 million barrels a day. Coal, increasing too. Gas usage, increasing.
Confused people will start talking about things like "cow farts" or "trees" or similar. These have nothing to do with global warming - the climate thing - because these do not represent sequestered carbon. These are all carbon cycle stuff. Sequestered carbon being ADDE
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Confused people will start talking about things like "cow farts" or "trees" or similar. These have nothing to do with global warming - the climate thing - because these do not represent sequestered carbon.
Not quite right. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, taking existing atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 and turning it into methane will increase warming.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Tree Farts? can we PLEASE start that one so we can at least get some laughter out of it.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Called a 'Treef'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plant growth is actually outpacing plant death:
When I was in graduate school, that was the first time that scientists came to grips with the fact that half of the missing carbon is going into the land. The reason that was a surprise is that it is not enough just to have photosynthesis taking CO2 out of the air, what we are saying is the growth of new plants is more than the death of old plants. Things are growing faster than they are dying–and this is across the world, which was really a surprise.
only 2 things left to do... (Score:3)
Delayed action (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll never do anything about climate change as long as businesses can dictate law, control the EPA, and guide lawmaking through lobbyists. The Supreme Court has literally ensured this.
I can't stand the idea that multi-billion corporations can't afford to spend 1/8th of their profit, if even that much, to operate in a more environmentally friendly manner.
Gotta hoard and accumulate money at all costs, no matter what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
We already are doing something about climate change! The price of solar is plummeting and some are suggesting that it will be a disruptive technology on the same order as the internet:
the tipping point will arrive around 2020. At that point, investing in a home solar system with a 20-year life span, plus some small-scale home battery technology and an electric car, will pay for itself in six to eight years for the average consumer in Germany, Italy, Spain, and much of the rest of Europe. Crucially, this
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Delayed action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if their founders have initially good intentions those good intentions will, when there are externalities, ultimately harm their business. This applies to everything from worker welfare or unsafe factories to harm to the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
By the looks of it, you have a hard time sustaining a thought process for more than about two seconds.
Simple English Wikipedia will come in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand. (Emphasis mine)
Why do I have a feeling the report to the politicians will have to read a lot like the Simple English Wikipedia, to the point where it might not be a bad idea to get the writers for that on it.
"Global warming is a bad thing that causes lots of problems. Burning stuff causes global warming. If you keep burning stuff, you will have a bad problem."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats not the problem though. They understand english and know how to look up big words. The problem is that they receive campaign donations from people who have an interest in keeping the status quo. If lawmakers were to pass bills that would attempt to counter global warming on a large scale, these same businesses would have a huge hit to their bottom line. The stupidity of the situation is if we made changes little by little when people started to raise alarms about global warming, we probably could have
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The scientists said they have “medium confidence” that warming of less than 4 degrees Celsius would be enough to trigger such a melt, which would take at least a millennium.
Other effects the report flags include reduced food secur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'impossible' is just something that hasn't been done yet.
Nothing is impossible eh? Go slam a revolving door.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting a work of fiction doesn't make your point unless your point applies only within that world.
Unless, of course, you think we can solve global warming by reversing the polarity of the neutron flow (or perhaps Gandalf can just not let any IR photons pass, if you prefer fantasy solutions over scifi ones).
Re:Irreversible? (Score:5, Insightful)
well... (Score:2, Funny)
I just hope global warming increases to the point where it can self-pop the popcorn I like to eat when these histrionic sorts of things come out. All the sound and fury, so little actually accomplished! Whee!
It's also likely that global warming might deliver pre-melted butter for the popcorn. Damn, what's wrong with this again?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you aspire to be (as opposed to eat) sous vide steaks, I guess there's no problem at all.
Don't Worry! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry. Seriously, some very rich people who made a fortune selling gas and coal have assured us that these climate change alarmists are just a bunch of melodramatic liars. There's nothing to worry about.
Re:Don't Worry! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, rapacious capitalism tends mostly to believe in whatever lines their pockets at the moment.
Your mention of ethanol is a great example. Ethanol on the whole is a big loser both in therms of wasting food, wasting tax dollars subsidizing it, not reducing carbon emissions, and greatly using up public will with a massive sideshow. Monsanto loves it, as do lots of industrial farmers (there are no family farmers left of consequence, just in campaign ads).
If our government was not already captured by the current lot, we could use laws to adjust incentives to get these rapacious capitalists to cause less harm by letting them fight over dollars in solar rather than oil. Sadly, changing the status quo scares the hell out of the current set of rapacious capitalists, so they spend part of their massive profit to manipulate the system to keep their cash cow protected. We as voters have been gerrymandered into being mostly irrelevant, so we cannot do much anymore. Weak minded kumbaya green folks are their own worst enemies, expecting that hugs and good will toward mankind will magically solve the problem (and they SUCK at math).
Re: (Score:2)
here is the kicker, anyone with an IQ over 100 and not lazy can make their own wind generators. In fact if you are not completely inept you can easily generate all the electricity you need with low cost parts that are available. All of the knowlege you need is right in front of you, you just have to take the time to search for it and read it.
Drilling for oil, then refining it yourself with todays available devices and parts is significantly harder than a solar,wind and battery installation.
It's IPCC...not IPPC (Score:4, Informative)
My 0.02 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously why to people do water intensive farming in a desert in an effort to preserve their water rights? I am not all that sympathetic to farmers and ranchers that through our governments subsidy rules and their use it or lose it water rights are having a hard time in what normally is a desert. Guess what you live in a desert and if you can't get the water to grow your alfalfa, lettuce, grape, etc crops maybe you should be trying to grow those things there.
Climate damage is never irreversible (Score:3)
But I absolutely assure you it is possible to undue all damage- if we are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money to do it.
Now, biological extinctions may be unpreventable, but we can always turn the clock back on climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
and what can we do? (Score:3)
Buy another LED light bulb? Buy an electric vehicle? Eat vegetarian?
Given there are no good alternatives when it comes to voting time, it seems like we're basically along for the ride..
Get China on the phone (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
China is our fault. (Score:3)
China makes everything, for everybody. We pay them to do this, part of the reason everybody pays them is because they are willing and we are not. Since we are not immediately and directly impacted by CO2 ...plus it is invisible... we are simply too shallow to realize it harms us indirectly. Just as people shop at Walmart and wonder why their jobs disappeared (forcing them to shop at Walmart more.)
Is it MY fault I shot you in the foot, when you told me to do it?
Leaked? (Score:3)
Impacts (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Impacts (Score:5, Interesting)
It was kind of going that way anyhow though, either to a tropical earth or back towards a new ice age. And really given the choice the tropical option is less destrcutive. As I understand it we were in an interglacial until people started digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into the atmosphere. Either way I don't believe it will be possible to stabilise the climate over the mid to long term, at least not with our current technology, so maybe its best just to prepare to adapt to these changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we could still work to try to lessen/minimize the damage and instability.
Like, if you had gangrene on your arm, and the doctor announces, "I'm sorry, but we can't save the arm, the damage is irreversible," you wouldn't go, "Ah, well. It's impossible to save the arm. Time to wait it out and adapt."
At least, I'd hope you wouldn't. That's when you have an operation, try to save as much of your arm as you can. And then you think about what caused the gangrene in the first place, and try to not do th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All I see is "the world is ending!" without any realistic measurements provided. Show me what it's going to cost at each point, and when. The simplest, lowest cost adaptation is simply to build above future sea levels. The lowest cost food change is crop switching and genetic manipulation. The simplest - and probably only - long term solution is reducing population numbers.
Re:Impacts (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are a lot of conclusions to draw when you openly admit that you have insufficient measurements and cost estimates.
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Interesting)
Those are a lot of conclusions to draw when you openly admit that you have insufficient measurements and cost estimates.
There are plenty of "no regrets" policies, that should be done regardless of global warming. We should reduce our fuel consumption and dependence on imported oil for reasons of economics and national security. Third world countries should reduce population growth through education and better access to contraception, because that is their path out of poverty.
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Insightful)
The Stern report assumes that how we do things doesn't change, which is fundamentally incorrect. We constantly change. fivethirtyeight.com has had a few backwards-looking comprehensive stat reports that show we do adapt and that this type of report is bogus.
Climate change is happening and will continue to happen. Society isn't going to abandon oil so researchers need to quit having that fantasy. What are REAL ways that society will agree to change? The simplest is to quit building below anticipated sea levels (probably by adjusting insurance rates... put a cap of CPI-U+5% yearly increase to make it politically palatable). Focus on that - it's an area of society and economics that has a decent chance of actually being changed.
Re: Impacts (Score:3)
You're condemning my entire country to oblivion! Are you seriously suggesting the billions of people on this planet who live on the coast move somewhere else? Good luck with that. That's a bare minimum of three wars or so.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere.
People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.
Please learn something:
Average planetary temperature and CO2 concentration for the past billion years or so [paulmacrae.com]
Important points:
1. Average planetary temperature now is about 12C. Average temperature for most of the past billion years or so is 22C
2. Average CO2 concentration today is EXTREME geological LOW. It's been as high as > 7000ppm
3. There's pretty much ZERO correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Note well that if temperatures go up 2C, we've still got 8C to go before the planet reaches its "norma
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Average planetary temperature now is about 12C. Average temperature for most of the past billion years or so is 22C
2. Average CO2 concentration today is EXTREME geological LOW. It's been as high as > 7000ppm
3. There's pretty much ZERO correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Note well that if temperatures go up 2C, we've still got 8C to go before the planet reaches its "normal" average temperature.
Ok, I'll accept that... of course the first mammals appeared on the planet around say 225million years ago, and were the size of perhaps a mouse or smaller. Larger mammals have been found around 100million years ago, around the size of a large rat perhaps... it wasn't until say 55million years ago the earliest ancestor for man/primates appeared, Archicebus, which would fit in the palm of your hand and weigh maybe an ounce.
So maybe instead of the past "billion years" we should focus on say the past 50million, where temperatures and CO2 levels were at a level where a mammal like mankind could survive on most of the planet? Seems rather pointless to say the planet has been "22C average" when at the time it was mankind didn't exist, and more than likely with a 10C increase over current temperatures it's unlikely human beings could survive in many areas (a 100F desert will kill in a day or two w/o water - imagine 120-130F?).
I mean, unless you're worried about ants, cockroaches, and mammals the size of mice, and shrews, it might be wiser to focus on temperatures that human beings can and have survived in, and not some 'average' that includes numbers from many (up to 950million) years before anything even remotely human-like existed. Because, yes, "life" existed at 7000ppm and 22C - but not human life.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, this is a lot more persuasive than your earlier attempt [slashdot.org], but still not quite good enough... Citation needed much? (No, IPCC-produced documents don't count — members of the panel are government-appointed politicians, not scientists [dailycaller.com].)
Please, don't hate.
Re:Impacts (Score:4)
Certainly not. The panel would be disbanded, if Climate Change turned out to be a hoax so all members are interested in maintaining the fear. The fear may still be justified, but the glaring conflict of interest disqualifies their reports as evidence.
I would not trust them any more, than I would trust an "anti-poverty" politician to eliminate poverty — what is he going to run on come next elections?
You had the opportunity to offer a link, but chose not to... Is it because you don't have one.
Re:IPCC members (Score:4)
A person may remain an academic and retain various titles, but he stops being a scientist when his research is done not to advance knowledge, but to confirm an already held conviction. Perhaps, you did not read to this text:
Re:Impacts (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt. With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere. People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.
Hogwash. Even in the IPCC A1FI scenario, the most pessimistic case presented, total global warming by 2100 is 1.4C to 6.4C. Yes, that would have significant bad effects but it's not going to mean the end of agriculture across the entire planet. Earth isn't going to turn into Venus. The average temp at the equator now is 30C while in Siberia it's only 0.5C. So, if we look at the average high temperature for Novosibirsk during the hottest month of July (25.7) and add the high end of the worst case scenario (6.4C) then we only get 32.1C, so yeah moving north will be an option. I'd expect massive droughts in the equatorial zones, the collapse of many third world governments and a huge refugee crisis but that's not the same as saying it's unsurvivable by humans as a species.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Equatorial zones have a great deal of ocean water, which certainly isn't going to change. That water will evaporate faster, the atmosphere will contain more humidity, and therefore there will be more precipitation, if the average temperature is up a few degrees C. How does that constitute the precursors for anticipating equatorial droughts?
I can see marginal areas (US midwest, for instance) baking off the little bit of moisture they have and not reac
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Informative)
You *do* realize that the equatorial zone is generally tropical, wet as heck, and quite a bit warmer than everywhere else, yes? And that plants thrive on CO2?
Doesn't follow that making it warmer will make it drier. That doesn't seem to be how it works. Drier happens when water sources go away. There's no reasonable postulate for that which would apply to most equatorial regions.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
Unless this planet gets up to Venus level heat (and I'm pretty sure that's impossible), then humans will adapt.
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for nature, bad for man. Just like O2 Poisoning the planet when it was overrun by Plant life. Life adapts. Humans haven't always been around, and won't be around forever. Because we are aware of our own demise doesn't change these facts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it sane, given foreknowledge of your own demise and the power to avert it, to charge full-steam-ahead toward that demise? If humanity were a person, we'd lock it up for its own safety.
Re:Impacts (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have foreknowledge of shit. It's a pretty epic level of arrogance to think we've suddenly acquired the ability to accurately see 100 years into the future when EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT in the past to accurately predict anything even 20 years in the future has failed MISERABLY and has been LAUGHABLY wrong.
The only thing that I predict about what this planet is going to look like 100 years from now is that it's going to be nothing like what anyone expects today.
Re:Impacts (Score:4, Informative)
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.
Oh great. "The sky is gonna fall! Almost 100 years from now!!! Disaster is looming!!!!"
And people wonder where deniers come from?
Here's a hint: exaggeration and catastrophic alarmism destroy credibility.
Re:Damage or Change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.
You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?
Yes, I agree.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.
You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?
Yes, I agree.
Sure, why not? And it is only "damage" to the species that die out. Think of all the evolutionary opportunity there will be in the Next Phase!
Re:Damage or Change? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome our new raccoon-descended overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.
You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?
Yes, I agree.
Well yeah, the last couple of major asteroid impacts above Russia just broke a few windows.
Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am fine being remembered for pointing out yet again we will be better off in 100, 200 or 300 years keeping the economy strong and forging ahead with technological advancement than slowing it by draconian clamps on the economy (there are many clamps beside environmental remediation).
100 years ago we barely had simple planes and no antibiotics. Horses were still common in the streets. Had they slowed down their growth to "help" us, well, thanks for nuthin', Gentleman Jim.
The best thing we can do for futur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many actual scientific doomsday predictions can you think of?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score:5, Insightful)
single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year
That sounds an unreasonably high figure.
Petrol weighs about 737g / l, so 4750Kg of petrol is 6445 litres.
Wikipedia says the carbon content of petrol is up to about 85%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
So 6445/0.85 = 7582 litres of petrol contain 4.75t of carbon.
Wikipedia suggests average fuel economy is somewhere around 5l / 100Km: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
7582*100/5 = 151640Km - I'm pretty sure that the average car doesn't travel 152Mm/year!
Lets assume you're talking about tons of CO2 rather than tons of carbon.
Apparently we multiply litres of petrol by 2.331 to get Kg of CO2 emitted: http://www.carbontrust.com/res... [carbontrust.com]
So 4750/2.331 = 2038 litres. At 5l / 100Km, this gives us 2038*100/5 = 40760Km - ok, a vaguely more reasonable figure.
Apparently the average company car does around 30,000Km/year and the average private car does about 12,000Km: http://www.racfoundation.org/m... [racfoundation.org]
So the average is going to be well under 41Mm and around an order of magnitude less than the 152Mm you claimed!
I'm certainly not saying that climate change is nothing to worry about - I think it's a big problem and whether or not you think it's man made, dumping vast amounts of crap into the atmosphere can't possibly be a bright idea. But I really wish people wouldn't just invent bogus "facts" to back up their arguments - the arguments should stand up for themselves, if you need bogus data to prop them up then you've got something really badly wrong somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year
Bullshit.
Density of gasoline: 0.73 kg/L
Typical gas tank capacity: 57 L
Typical number of fillups per year: 52
0.73 * 57 * 52 = 2200 kg/year.
Gasoline contains various different organic molecules starting from hexane and running up through decane. Hexane is C6H14, so the carbon makes up 84% of the mass. Octane is C8H18, so the carbon makes up 80% of the mass. Call it 82%.
A single average-sized car emits 1800 kg of carbon every year. Less than 2 metric tons.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group.
So how do you account for:
The hole in the ozone layer and the successful global response to fix it
Acid rain destroying forests and the successful global response to fix it?
Were they also not man made problems that affected the world as a whole?
Re: (Score:2)
How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.
Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally
Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group
Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in th
Re: (Score:2)
We can't make it rain? You've not heard of cloud seeding [wikipedia.org], have you? No, we don't have the power to control the weather locally, because that involves some truly massive amounts of energy. Thing is, on a global scale, humanity throws out truly massive amounts of energy. How much?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" can you please tell me how we are going to deal with all of those people displaced by this natural phenomenon?"
That is all a part of his trickle down economics on how the wealthy's cast off cash will flow down to solve that problem, we just need to give the wealthy a LOT more money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love the way it's claimed to have been "leaked", as though the IPCC would sit on this. Perhaps they think making it officially a 'leak' will make people think they were going to cover it up, to trick people into thinking that "something must be done, right now!"
Re: (Score:3)
What thought proccesses could have led to this post?
"Hey my conspiracy theories don't have enough conspiracy in them yet, why don't I make deniers look even crazier?"
It's "leaked" because it's still under review prior to publication.
Re: (Score:2)
MDSOLAR why do you post links from that biased site every time climate comes up? Do you work for them? Post from respectable sources.
Wikipedia says it will be 75 degrees (F) and sunny for the rest of time! [citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
Please characterize the bias.
I won't reject your claims of bias out of hand(and benefit of the doubt is pretty much entirely what deniers rely on for everything so my patience is a little limited.
This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions. These are scientists with appropriate credentials discussing common misinformation.
If there is a bias, there must A: be an undisclosed or clearly concerning motivation or B: some kind of oversight problems.
I don't mind
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know what the Witch Doctors of New Orleans think about it. We all know that that is the real authority on what is happening in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
You mean science like the Cook "97%" survey they supported and cited, which was such a laughable parody of responsible statistics that a middle-schooler could show it to be invalid?
Expert site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, honestly, the piles of mindless hate you get for a relatively benign opinion and posting news stories in support of that benign opinion tends to make me more, and not less, sympathetic to your positions.
Must be getting old (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, right. So you indirectly cite Levitus as the basis for your argument. [21stcentur...cetech.com]
You'll have to do better than that. The raw data does not show this, unless like the Levitus paper you're willing to draw conclusions from localized data and ignore the rest of the world. Which, it must be said, is a technique warmists are rather famous for. It's a form of lying. Like saying the current drought in California is "climate".