I've cancelled my WSJ sub so I can't read this.
I can't support this kind of nonsense nor can I support those in charge of it.
This is a perfect example of why I did the above.

Having said that, I know Bjorn's "work" and it's garbage. It's not factual.
From the little I read in this latest "presentation" it became obvious this is no different than I've seen or expected.
You don't validate a premise based on the number of "hits" in headlines. That is stupid.
You don't present that "finding" as some find of support for that premise.
I put this in the category of "propaganda to make idiotic deniers feel good."

#18 - There's so much research material out there that refutes the premise you put forward I didn't think it was worth my time. It's stupid, and as I said I cancelled my WSJ (when Murdoch took over and it became garbage several months later). I don't need to refute this garbage because anyone that does even a basic search on google will find out its garbage.

Are polar bears better off now than they were 10 years ago? Oh hell no.
Are penguins better off now than they were 10 years ago? Oh hell no.
Are mosquitos spreading "tropical" diseases further and further north? Yes.
Are more and more species threatened by climate change? Yes.
Is desertification spreading? Yes.
Are people being driven to migrate because of climate change? Yes.
Is salt water intruding, flooding happening from tides, and locations becoming unlivable because of rising seas? Yes.

Has any of the above improved in the past 20, 10, 5 years? Oh hell no. It has only gotten worse.
This is obvious no matter how many "hits" there are on a newspaper page. Only an idiot refers to that as proof of anything (other than the press's desire for clicks).

BTW - the headline is a total joke. None of those are "fictions." What a truly enormously dumb thing to state.

I've now given this way more time and thought than was warranted,