The Grand Solar Minimum is a time when The Sun goes into a kind of hibernation, where Planet Earth will not be receiving the heat it normally depends on to carry out most of life’s necessities. Solar Cycles run every 11 years, some have lasted 6 cycles.
Major challenges will be arriving all at once, such as finding, growing, cooking, and storing food. Many of us will be faced with not being able to receive power from the standard electric & gas companies that we totally depend on.
Transportation infrastructure will be affecting supply chains and basic levels of transportation such as buses, trains, and cars. Heating our homes will be imperative!
Dr. Valentina Zharkova, founder of ZVS Research Enterprise Ltd, at Solargsm.com. is a Solar Physicist, Mathematician, Teacher, and professor, who joins us to share her scientific findings about our main star, The Sun.
She shares how and the Suns’ Activity has impacted life in the distant past and why our ability to measure it is so advanced, that we will have a front-row seat at this Earthly Cycle.
This interview is about leaving you with a totally different framework in which to clearly understand the importance of this Solar Cycle & why it’s urgent that we understand how the Sun works, and how measuring it has totally changed over the last 2-300 years. You and your loved ones still have time to prepare for this upcoming Solar Cycle.
It’s advisable to have paper and pen with you so that you don’t miss the key distinctions that you would ordinarily not receive in ordinary climate science data and discussions.
Share this with everyone you know and care about. Don’t miss this Special!
----------
It’s Rainmaking Time Weather and Climate stories here
Dr. Valentina Zharkova’s recent talks at the international meetings about the modern grand solar minimum (2020-2053) and the role of orbital motion of the Sun on the temperature increase on Earth and other planets (with ppt files)
* Presentation at the International Conference in Astrophysics, 23-25 May 2023, Kyiv, Ukraine: Comparison of solar activity indices: sunspots and eigen vectors and the modern Grand Solar Minimum in progress (2020-2053) download
* Presentation at the International Conference in Astrophysics, 23-25 May 2023, Kyiv, Ukraine: Periods of solar activity and orbital asymmetry of solar radiation deposition into the terrestrial atmosphere download
David Evans, who consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) 1999-2005 and 1998-2010, and was a believer in AGW until the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself in 1998 to 2006, when he became a skeptic.
“The AGW scam involves a “regulating class’ of believers, consisting of the UN, western governments, major banks and finance houses, NGOs and greenies, totalitarian leftists, government-funded scientists, academia, renewables corporations and the mainstream news media. Against them are the doubters: independently-funded scientists, private-sector middle class, and amateurs. The regulating class does not try to hide its belief that it is cleverer and morally superior. Their solution is regulation of the whole world’s economy by themselves, which was the object at the failed Copenhagen climate conference. On climate change, the regulating class has won over the leadership of most professional and business organizations by lobbying and pressure.”
-------------
Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation
“The free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present- and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. “
-------------
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, visited Australia in July 2011. In referring to the ideological orientations of those individuals and organisations who have significant financial and other vested interests in propagating the ‘Doctrine’ of anthropogenic induced climate change, President Klaus said: “They want to change us, to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences, they want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. What is endangered is freedom, the climate is okay.”
After noting that today’s human-induced climate change alarmists are the ideological descendents of the zero and negative population growth advocates of the 1970s who erroneously forecast that human population pressures would lead to increases in global poverty and growing shortages in resources, President Klaus went on to add: “They hate us, the humans, they consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world - called communism - and I know that it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”
SEEN IN THEIR OWN WORDS:
* Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General who chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 , who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse...isn’t it our job to bring that about”.
* “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention ...and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or...one invented for the purpose.” Quote by the Club of Rome.
* UN Climate Chief Christine Figueres said “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system (destroy capitalism).”
* UN IPCC Lead Author Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
* Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of globaL warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
* Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
* “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
* “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
* “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace”
* “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
* “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
* “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
* “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
* “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” Professor Maurice King
* “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” - Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
* “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
* “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
* “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
* “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
* “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
* “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
* “All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’ - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
* “Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.” - Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
* “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.” - Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
* “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
* “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
* “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” - United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
* “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” -Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
* “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
* “One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
* “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
* “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
* “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” -Christopher Manes, Earth First!
* “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
* “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
* “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
* ‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.’ - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
* “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
* The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
* “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.” David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
* *Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.” Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
* “By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic. Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia
* “Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis” Greenpeace International (It has risen less than 7 inches in 100 years and is decelerating)
* “We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.” Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“ “In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan[ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.’ Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“ “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.’ UN Commission on Global Governance report
* ‘The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.” Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens
* “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.” Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
* “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.” Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
* “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced - a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” - UN Agenda 21
* “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
* ‘In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."- Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
* “Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.” Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
* Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff recently admitted that the ‘Green New Deal’ was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing”.. nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it was not originally a climate thing at all,” Saikat Chakrabarti said
Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “the hottest month [July] just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences.”
He added, “It’s a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let’s use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action.
“Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come.”
Myron Ebel, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy and Environment, notes that while June and July were hot in many locations, others - such as Los Angeles with the 10th coolest June on recent record according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - experienced below-average temperatures.
On July 27, President Biden stated that “record temperatures - and I mean record - are now affecting more than 100 million Americans. Puerto Rico reached a 125-degree heat index last month. San Antonio hit an all-time heat index high of 117 last month.”
Rather than citing actual temperatures where, according to the National Weather Service (NWS), Puerto Rico on the day referenced was 95 degrees - not 125 - since index measurements combine temperature and relative humidity.
According to the NWS, San Antonio’s 117-degree heat index that month resulted from just three days of 105-degree temperatures from June 19-21.
And whereas Houston experienced 10-degree-higher-than-average July temperatures, some rural Texas towns such as Water Valley at 99.8 degrees compared with a prior 97-degree average reflected little change.
Climatologist and professor John Christy, director of the University of Alabama Huntsville Earth Science Center, points out that “regionally, the West has seen its largest number of hot summer records in the past 100 years, but the Ohio Valley and Upper Midwest are experiencing their fewest.”
As Dr. Christy, also a former NASA scientist, observes, “for the conterminous U.S. as a whole, the last 10 years have produced only an average number of records...The 1930s are still champs [for producing the most 100-plus temperature days in a year].
Conveniently omitted in alarmist reports is the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) temperature data for contiguous states, revealing that the number of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees Celsius), which peaked in the 1930s has been in an 80-year overall decline.
Bear in mind that this preceded the 1940s when World War II weapons industries released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, global temperatures declined in fits-and-starts from the mid-1940s until the late 1970s, when most of the climate science establishment and media were predicting the beginning of the next Ice Age with galloping glaciers threatening Manhattan.
A decade later, abetted by then- Sen Al Gore’s feverish 1988 hearings in Congress in concert with the U.N.’s obsession with passing the Kyoto Protocol global wealth redistribution plan capping CO2 in developed countries - mainly the U.S. -its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared an opposite and imminent global warming emergency which continues to give a pass to China, the world’s largest emitter.
Whereas Christy and virtually all other informed climatologists fully recognize that climate obviously changes due to numerous complex natural factors and that a warming trend has ensued since the three-century-long so-called “Little Ice Age” ended in the mid-1800s, we shouldn’t confuse 30-year-long climate attributions with decadal and shorter regional weather patterns and occurrences.
Christy told the Epoch Times that global satellite readings he measured with meteorologist colleague Roy Spencer which go back only to 1979, show that while last July was the warmest by about a quarter of a degree, an “early and strong El Nino” was a “major factor” in the increase.
The term “El Nino” refers to entirely natural, relatively short multi-year periodic events in the Pacific Ocean leading to warmer temperatures in North and South America which are typically followed by La Nina’s that reverse results to cooler circumstances with trade winds that push warm water toward Asia.
All-in-all, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data does show that average global surface temperatures have increased by two degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900), and few will argue that CO2 hasn’t had some (yet unmeasurable) contribution.
Confirming that recent satellite data shows global temperatures rising steadily at about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit every decade, Christy nevertheless emphasizes that we should understand that this current trend is bouncing back from the 19th century, which was one of the coldest in the last 10,000 years.
The Roman Warm Period two thousand years ago was just as warm or warmer, as was the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago - long before mankind introduced smokestacks and SUVs
Let’s also be mindful that CO2 is essential to plant food that satellites reveal is making our world greener, extending growing seasons, feeding more people and other of God’s creatures, and fundamentally extending and improving our lives.
Whereas President Biden claims, “I don’t think anybody can deny the impact of climate change anymore,” where “the No. 1 weather-related killer is heat - 600 people die annually from its effects,” he fails to mention that cold weather conditions kill far more each year.
According to the Breakthrough Institute, heat is responsible for about 500,000 annual deaths worldwide, while cold temperatures account for 4.6 million excess fatalities.
It’s also high time for Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus to come clean and set records straight on WHO’s botched information about COVID-19 before again misrepresenting facts about weather.
----------------
See the years with the highest all-time state temperatures here.
The official site for annual CO2 is Mauna Loa. The station at 11,300 feet high (3,444 meters), has a 131-foot (40-meter) tower that collects air to measure levels of carbon dioxide.
Charles Keeling choose to install an atmospheric carbon dioxide monitoring system on Mauna Loa, a volcanic peak on the Big Island of Hawaii as the remote location would allow only carbon dioxide that had mixed with the atmosphere to be measured.
The latest annual numbers are around 420 which averages 0.04% of the air. Levels are lowest during July as vegetation is using it in photosynthesis and releasing O2.
It varies greatly where we actually live because when we breathe in the air with just 0.04% (420) ppm CO2), when we breathe out, we release 42,000 ppm. CO2 levels are much higher in populated areas and especially when people congregate (churches, schools, restaurants. even you home when the family and pets are there).
ITS NOT POLLUTION
HOME AND OFFICE AND SCHOOLS
Levels exceeding 2000 ppm are found in small offices and Ken. C., a science teacher writes, “In one classroom of 30 students after lunch reached CO2 levels of 4,825 ppm with the door closed. According to ASHRAE, the effects of poor indoor air quality in classrooms has been known for years. Chronic illnesses, reduced cognitive abilities, sleepiness, and increased absenteeism have all been attributed to poor IAQ. There is no direct harm from CO2, the claim is that it reduces oxygen levels.
CARS, TRAINS AND PLANES AND SUBMARINES
Studies found carbon dioxide levels rise to over 3,000 ppm in 30 minutes in an enclosed automobile with a single passenger. In airplane cabins it may rise to 1700 ppm. The alarmists are more interested in the emission from the planes into the atmosphere and want those that fly (and drive or ride the rails) to be held accountable (see the proposed 50 tonnes CO2 per person as a lifetime limit here).
I have always considered myself an environmentalist and conservationist as well as a Meteorologist and Climatologist. I worked on my doctorate with an atmospheric chemistry grant.
In the post WWII boom, we had problems with air pollution from factories, coal plants, cars, inefficient home heating systems and incinerators in apartments. We had serious air quality issues with pollutants. We had problems with particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and lead. The worst episodes that really drove efforts to fight pollution were from a atmospheric chemical reactions - cold season water droplets in fog mixed with SO2 to cause sulfuric acid mist. Smog events in Donora PA 1948 led to 6,000 of the 14,000 population to experienced damaged lungs, and the Great London 4 day 1952 Smog Event produced between 10-12,000 deaths.
We set standards that had to be met by industry and automakers. After my BS and MS work at Wisconsin in Meteorology, I received a grant to study Air Resources/Pollution at NYU while I worked 7 days a week producing the weather fro WCBS TV and radio and the National Network on the Special series on Energy. Many of my colleagues moved into air quality at the EPA and elsewhere, After he work we all did there and at many schools on pollution, we have the cleanest air in my lifetime and here in the U.S. in the world today.
Notice CO2 was not on the list. CO2 is a trace gas (.04% of our atmosphere). It is NOT a pollutant but a beneficial gas. CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. CO2 enriched plants are more vigorous and have lower water needs, are more drought resistant. Ideal CO2 levels for crops would be 3 to 4 times higher. They pump CO2 into greenhouses!
The climate models used to predict the impacts of increasing CO2 deliver warming over 2 times that observed by our NOAA orbiting satellite measurements of the air above the boundary layer where the greatest changes occur diurnally.
The apparent weak correlation to temperatures may be mostly the timing of the natural cycles. Longer term warming correlates with CO2 increases only 40% of the time.
CONCLUSION: CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION BUT A VALUABLE PART OF LIFE ON OUR PLANET
I have 2 CO2 monitors - I bought one - actually using Amazon credits and it arrived the next morning. One high quality model was donated to me to use by the CO2 coalition. I found with my daughter and 2 small dogs in the room, levels rise to over 800. At a football gathering of 8, it rose from 420 to near 1700 ppm. Had our team been doing better, we may have had a gathering with twice a many people and CO2 levels would have been well over 2000. I used and talked about our findings at a church organized meeting.
Many people confuse/conflate CO2 with the potentially deadly CO. That included a decade ago the chair of NH Science and Energy committee when I was one of the testifiers. She said she was taught CO2 was a health hazard (confusing with CO).
I found the story can influence people with open minds. If the CO2 is seen to be locally much higher where people congregate, I am a bit afraid the radical movement and would take that fact on as another cause and try to enforce extreme measures (limiting driving, flying, congregating in large events), to pretend it will keep levels low and it becomes another costly program with much more harm than benefit as their assault on fossil fuel energy usage and the whole COVID episode has been the last 3+ years.
Sep 07, 2023
Scientists avoid key facts to get published
Weather Rant by Professor Art Horn, Meteorologist AMS
“What is necessary for the very existence of science and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself.” - Dr. Richard Feynman
Love that quote by the good doctor above. It’s especially relevant to the story below! Be it scientific journals or from the sea of both established and fledgling media companies, they all have one goal it would seem and it’s not the truth but perhaps just part of the truth so that fits their predetermined narrative. Is a lie of omission really a lie or is it a willful desire to deceive (a lie) by appearing to tell the truth?
The story below is also instructive in that it should make one aware of the fact that the big government that is now in power is throwing BILLIONS of dollars at climate scientists and research facilities via the EPA, The National Science Foundation and a myriad of other federal agencies to propel their narrative that climate change is a serious threat to our future.
Follow
Top scientist Patrick Brown says he deliberately OMITTED key fact in climate change piece he’s just had published in prestigious journal to ensure woke editors ran it - that 80% of wildfires are started by humans
Story by Lewis Pennock For Dailymail.Com
A climate change scientist has claimed the world’s leading academic journals reject papers which don’ ‘support certain narratives’ about the issue and instead favor ‘distorted’ research which hypes up dangers rather than solutions.
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, said editors at Nature and Science - two of the most prestigious scientific journals - select ‘climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives’.
In an article for The Free Press, Brown likened the approach to the way ‘the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause’ of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii. He pointed out research that said 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans.
Brown gave the example of a paper he recently authored titled ‘Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California’. Brown said the paper, published in Nature last week, ‘focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior’ and ignored other key factors.
Brown laid out his claims in an article titled ‘I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published’. ‘I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work,’ the article begins.
‘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,’ he wrote of his recently-published work.
‘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.
“To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.’
A spokesperson for Nature said ‘all submitted manuscripts are considered independently on the basis of the quality and timeliness of their science’.
‘Our editors make decisions based solely on whether research meets our criteria for publication - original scientific research (where conclusions are sufficiently supported by the available evidence), of outstanding scientific importance, which reaches a conclusion of interest to a multidisciplinary readership,’ a statement said.
‘Intentional omission of facts and results that are relevant to the main conclusions of a paper is not considered best practice with regards to accepted research integrity principles,’ the spokesperson added.
Science was approached for comment.
Brown opened his missive with links to stories by AP, PBS NewsHour, The New York Times and Bloomberg which he said give the impression global wildfires are ‘mostly the result of climate change’.
He said that ‘climate change is an important factor’ but ‘isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus’.
Much reporting of the wildfires in Maui has said climate change contributed to the disaster by helping to create conditions that caused the fires to spark and spread quickly.
The blazes, which killed at least 115 people, are believed to have been started by a downed electricity line, but observers have said rising temperatures caused extremely dry conditions on the Hawaiian island.
Brown said the media operates like scientific journals in that the focus on climate change ‘fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it’.
Scientists whose careers depend on their work being published in major journals also ‘tailor’ their work to ‘support the mainstream narrative’, he said.
‘This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper,’ he added. ‘The authors should ignore - or at least downplay - practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.’
He gave examples of factors which are ignored, including a ‘decline in deaths from weather and climate disasters over the last century’. In the case of wildfires, Brown says ‘current research indicates that these changes in forest management practices could completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires’.
Poor forest management has also been blamed for a record number of wildfires in Canada this year.
But ‘the more practical kind of analysis is discouraged’ because it ‘weakens the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions’, Brown said.
Successful papers also often use ‘less intuitive metrics’ to measure the impacts of climate change because they ‘generate the most eye-popping numbers’, he said.
He went onto to claim that other papers he’s written which don’t match a certain narrative have been ‘rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets’.
Brown concluded: ‘We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience to climate. The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out.’
‘The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.’
ICECAP NOTE: See a telling media story on the deadly Maui wildfires real causes here and more here.
------------
Aug 12, 2023
Comments on the Insanity of the EPA’s New Power Plant Rule
By Francis Menton,
We highly recommend this site for science and data based related stories on climate and energy policies in this world where “stupidity rules”.
On May 23, EPA put out its long-expected proposed Rule designed to eliminate, or nearly so, all so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions from the electricity-generation sector of the economy. The proposal came with the very long title: “New Source Performance Standards for GHG Emissions from New and Reconstructed EGUs; Emission Guidelines for GHG Emissions from Existing EGUs; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.” The full document is 672 pages long.
Various not-very-far-off deadlines are set, ranging from as early as 2030 for some changes to coal plants, to at the latest 2038 for the last changes to natural gas plants. But how exactly is this emissions elimination thing to be accomplished? Today a substantial majority of U.S. electricity (about 60%) comes from one or the other of those fuels; and it is inherent in the burning of hydrocarbons that you get CO2 as a product. In all those 672 pages, EPA has only two ideas for how to eliminate the carbon emissions from combustion power plants: carbon capture and storage (CCS), and “green” hydrogen. Either you must implement one of those two ideas to meet EPA’s standards by the deadline, or you must close your power plant. But here’s the problem: both of those ideas are, frankly, absurd.
The deadline for commenting on the proposed Rule was August 8, although comments have continued to pile in after that date. Many hundreds of them have been received. If you have nothing else to do for the next month or two, you can review the comments at this link.
I have by no means made the effort to read all the comments, but I have gone looking for some of the more significant ones. Two that I can highly recommend are this one by a group of 21 red state AGs led by West Virginia, and this one by an overlapping group of 18 red state AGs led by Ohio. Both of those comments do an excellent job of dismantling the concept that either CCS or “green” hydrogen could ever work as a significant part of our electricity generation system. Of the two, the West Virginia comment is the much longer (54 pages) and goes into far more technical detail. But the Ohio comment, at 21 pages, has its share of good zingers as well.
The Ohio and West Virginia comments label the idea of CCS at the high rate demanded by EPA (90%) as either “infeasible” or not “viable,” and include recitations of the history of failed attempts to implement this frankly useless technology. From the Ohio comment (page 4):
A study of 263 carbon-capture-and-sequestration projects undertaken between 1995 and 2018 found that the majority failed and 78% of the largest projects were cancelled or put on hold. After the study was published in May 2021, the only other coal plant with a carbon-capture-and-sequestration attachment in the world, Petra Nova, shuttered after facing 367 outages in its three years of operation.
With the closure of Petra Nova, there remains in the entire world exactly one operating commercial CCS facility at a coal power station, the SaskPower Boundary Dam Unit 3 in Saskatchewan, Canada. That one is supposed to achieve the 90% capture rate that EPA demands, but with constant operating issues it has fallen way, way short:
[T]his [SaskPower] facility is the world’s only operating commercial carbon capture facility at a coal-fired power plant. And it has never achieved its maximum capacity. It also battled significant technical issues throughout 2021- to the point that the plant idled the equipment for weeks at a time. As a result, the plant achieved less than 37% carbon capture that year despite having an official target of 90%…
The West Virginia comment provides lots more technical detail on the failures of CCS. Why can’t a CCS system just easily suck up all the CO2 out of a power plant’s emissions stream? Because the effort to suck up the emissions takes energy from the output of the plant, and the higher the percentage of carbon emissions you seek to capture, the more of the energy output of the plant you consume. (I have previously described CCS efforts as a “war against the second law of thermodynamics."). In the limiting case, you can use up all the power output of the plant on the CCS system and still not capture 100% of the CO2. From the West Virginia comment, page 24-25:
Take efficiency to start. CCS units run on power, too. An owner can get that power from the plant itself. But this approach makes the plant less efficient by increasing its “parasitic load"-and CCS more than triples combustion turbines’ normal parasitic load… This is the cause the Wyoming study analyzed that showed installing CCS technology would devastate plants’ heat rates and lower net plant efficiency by 36%.
And that percentage relates to a system that captures well less than 100% of the plant’s carbon emissions. And these are only the start of the technical issues to be faced. For example, once you have captured all this CO2, where do you put it? Do you build an entire new national network of pipelines (at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars) to transport it to some underground caverns somewhere? And then, are there environmental issues with the chemicals used to snag the CO2 out of the power plant’s emissions stream? From the West Virginia comment, page 27:
The Proposed Rule would force utilities to adopt and communities to accept all aspects of CCS technology without fully understanding the ramifications. For example, the environmental and health effects of CANSOLV-the leading amine-based and EPA-recommended CCS solvent, 88 Fed. Reg. at 33,291- appear unknown; leading CANSOLV studies over the past decade don’t discuss its impact.
And then, if you have to increase the power output of the plant by 50% or so to power the CCS facility, doesn’t that then increase the emissions of nitrous oxides and particulates by a comparable amount? From the West Virginia comment, page 27:
Nearly a decade ago, the European Union’s European Environmental Agency released a study finding that CCS would increase “direct emissions of NOx and PM” by nearly a half and a third, respectively, because of additional fuel burned, and increase “direct NH3 emissions” “significantly” because of “the assumed degradation of the amine-based solvent.”
It goes on and on from there. And then there’s the idea of “co-firing” the power plants with “green” hydrogen, produced by using wind or solar power or something else magical to electrolyze water. EPA’s proposed Rule would impose such a requirement on existing natural gas plants to take them up to 96% hydrogen by 2038. A few insights from the West Virginia comment, page 35:
Most combustion turbines on the market today cannot handle anything more than a 5-10% blend [of hydrogen]; 20% is generally accepted as the absolute technological ceiling… Even in the best scenarios, a hydrogen volume fraction of 20% is usually the most technology currently can do.
And how about the problem (and cost) of producing the amounts of hydrogen that would be required. From the West Virginia comment, page 37:
America currently produces just .5% of the clean hydrogen we need under the Proposed Rule. The industry would have to close a 99.5% supply gap in just 15 years. EPA has offered no evidence showing that this gap will close.
There is much, much more on issues like transporting and handling the hydrogen, cost of production, and so forth.
The conclusion is obvious and impossible to escape: These proposed methods to allow combustion power plants to continue to exist are not real and can never work. EPA intends to force the closure of all such electricity generation facilities. Will we have an electricity system that can still function at that point? They neither know nor care. After all, we have a planet to save here.
Somehow, in the weighing of the costs and benefits here, the bureaucrats appear to have completely lost track of the enormous benefits that reliable access to electricity has brought to the people. They will destroy that without giving the subject a second thought.
This document is an update of an earlier version contained in the following filings with EPA: here (see pages 17-21), and here (see pages 20-24).
Below are a series of fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The contributors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields. For each claim, a brief summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided along with a link to the full text and graphical support of the rebuttal and the names and the credentials of the authors of for each rebuttal.
A paper just issued here “A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events in Trends in Times of Global Warming”, Gianluca Alimonti et al., European Physical Journal Plus, 2022 reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. “None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
Also Ralph Alexander With GWPF has issued a report Extreme Weather, the IPCC’s Changing Tune. This paper compares empirical observations of extreme weather events with their coverage in the 2021 Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The conclusions of AR6 are contrasted with observational data described in recent research papers and reports, particularly in relation to droughts, tropical cyclones, heatwaves (including marine heat waves) and cold extremes. The paper also covers major floods, tornadoes, wildfires and coral bleaching, with a short update of the discussion of disaster risk analysis.
----------
Claim: The globe has experienced among the warmest ever month or year in the entire record back to the 1800s. This claim is recurrent - often monthly.
Fact Check: These claims are totally unsupported by any credible analysis of raw global surface temperature data and its availability. Moreover, this Global Average Surface Temperature Data invalidation alone, invalidates the EPA 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as the subsequent EPA Findings’ claimed link between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the other Climate Alarmist claims - which are also independently invalidated below by relevant empirical data. Thus, all such climate alarmist claims are in reality just politically driven fictions. See details here. See a Timeline of Surface Data versions here
See Bombshell report: 96% of U.S. Climate data is Corrupted:
Satellite data for the lower troposphere shows a fraction of the warming of the surface stations. The greenhouse theory say the heating should be greater in the tropical atmosphere where greenhouse gases are theorized to be trapping the heat (tropical hot spot).
John Robson from Climate Discussion Nexus shows this very well in this video.
And here:
Fact Check as of: 12/16/22
----------
Claim: Heat Waves are more frequent and extreme. Heat waves kill people and greenhouse gases are to blame.
Fact Check: Heat waves like cold waves are a normal part of our global climate. Heat Waves have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally. See details here. See a summary of summer sizzle in 2022 here. See Dr. Cliff Mass’s excellent 2021 post “Flawed Heatwave Report Leads to False Headlines in Major Media Blogpost. “Last week we witnessed a major failure in science communication regarding the Northwest heatwave. A failure that misinformed you and millions of others, and a failure that highlighted glaring weaknesses in the media’s ability to cover important scientific issues. And it revealed the disappointing behavior of some members of the scientific community.” See full detailed analysis here. Roger Pielke Jr, tells “What the media won’t tell you about U.S. heat waves here. See this why amplified patterns, a feature of cooling climates, are behind the warm and cold extremes in 2021 and again this year here. here. Cold not heat is the real threat. Cold kills up to 20 times or more than heat globally and has disastrous economic impacts. See details on why cold not heat is the main danger to humanity here. See more recent mortality studies that show a statistically significant excess mortality for cold over heat here.
Fact Check as of: 09/16/22
----------
Claim: Hurricanes have been increasing in number and/or extremity.
Fact Check: Even with a few very active seasons, the last decade ended was the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. 2020 saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the late 1800s and active periods this past century, but the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE) ranked only 13th highest in 2020. The 1860s and 1880s had the most landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes. See a perspective on Major Hurricane Ian here. See summary through 2022 here. See this June 2021 NOAA study that though 2020 was technically a record, modern technology is likely a reason including the ability to see storms over the open oceans of the central and eastern Atlantic with satellites that would not have been seen and counted in the pre-satellite era. See 2020 season similarity to late 1800s here. See a perspective on deadly 2021 CAT4 hurricane Ida and a similarity to Camille in 1969 here. See the summary on 2018 here.
Fact Check as of: 12/24/22
----------
Claim: Tornadoes have been increasing as the world has warmed due to human influences.
Fact Check: More active months and seasons occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present. Warmer cycles feature fewer big tornado seasons. The number of strong tornadoes has declined dramatically over the last half century. That will reverse as we go into the next cold phase. Even with a major, deadly outbreak and long track storm in December, 2021, the year ended in the lowest 25th percentile for tornadoes. Through October, 2022 also fell in the lower 25th percentile for tornadoes with no level EF5 major tornadoes now for the last 11 years, the longest stretch in the entire record despite better detection. A return to more active seasons would eventually occur as the earth cools with the colder Pacific and low solar. . See in the full updated story how the 2022 started strong early but has quieted to below the 25th percentile here
Fact Check as of: 01/05/23
----------
Claim: Droughts and Floods are becoming more severe worldwide due to global warming.
Fact Check: Droughts and floods here has shown no statistically significant trends. Each year wet and dry areas are seen but their locations change, related to ocean warm and cold pools that drive atmospheric patterns that persist for months at a time. This year, the Atlantic and Pacific ocean configurations supported drought issues in the central which verified. See details here. See how claims that drought from climate change is causing Lake Mead water levels to plunge us wrong on both counts here. See Viv Forbes reports on La Nina floods in Australia in Floods and Droughts are Nothing New here.
Fact Check as of: 10/16/22
----------
Claim: Wildfires are increasing due to drought and increasing heat.
Fact Check: Wildfires diminished very rapidly in size and numbers after the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See update with Smoky days in June 2023 here See details here. See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here. See A Growing Sea of Snags: North Umpqua River Wildfires, 2002-2022 - Risks and Recommendations here. See a telling media story on the deadly Maui wildfires real causes here and more here. See Australia Wildfire story here
Fact Check as of: 09/06/23
----------
Claim: Snow is decreasing as the earth warms, threatening the winter sports industry.
Fact Check: This is one claim that has been repeated for decades even as nature showed very much the opposite trend with unprecedented snows even to the big coastal cities. Every time they repeated the claim, it seems nature upped the ante more. Alarmists have eventually evolved to crediting warming with producing greater snowfall, because of increased moisture but the snow events in recent years have usually occurred in colder winters with high snow water equivalent ratios in frigid arctic air. The eastern United States as an example had 28 high impact winter snowstorms in the 10 years ending on 2019/20. No prior ten-year period since 1950 had more than 10. Winters in the last decade or so produced snow records and snowcover that lasted well into the spring. Snowcover in the Northern Hemisphere, North America and Eurasia has been increasing since the 1960s in the fall and winter but declining in the spring. However, as NOAA advised around 2000 might be the case, snowcover measurement methodology changes (automated instead man/machine) at the turn of this century may be responsible for most of the warm season differences. “Warming is not causing snow to disappear.” See more here. See the story on the incredible winter snows of 2022/23 in the west here. Fact Check as of: 10/03/23
----------
Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate threatening coastal cities
Fact Check: The rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See details here. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here. to better fit the theory. See how between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km2 more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).
Fact Check as of: 04/05/23
----------
Claim: Ice in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctic is melting at an alarming rate.
Fact Check: The polar and glacial ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See details here. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar cycles and Arctic temperatures. See here how the South Pole had its coldest winter on record last season (with readings averaging -78F at the South Pole Vostok station!). Records began in 1957 here. Note the polar ice is this season (2021/22) is the 16th lowest on record with a nice rebound. NSIDC continues to hide data before 1979 which shows the changes are cyclical.
The alarmists jump on any yearly anomalies if they suit their theories. See the latest claims here. See the real story here and here. See the Alaskan winter temperature extremes that are characteristic of La Ninas with long brutal cold spells and warm spikes. The media ignore the extreme cold but focus on the warm days shown here. Also see the failures of the arctic’s demise in this post on “Is the Arctic Ice to Disappear?” in Human Progress here. See how the polar bears are thriving even in the warmer periods here.
See Tony Heller’s check on NYT’s Paul Krugman’s latest flawed article on the heat and Norway warmth.
Fact check as of: 12/28/22
----------
Claim: Climate change is endangering food supply.
Fact Check: The vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. See the update here. See also in Science how growing forests provide conflicting effects on the temperatures here. See Patrick Moore’s interview here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------
Claim: Carbon pollution is a serious and growing health hazard.
Fact Check: The term “carbon pollution” is a deliberate, ambiguous, disingenuous term, designed to mislead people into thinking carbon dioxide is pollution. Thanks to the use of clean burning natural gas and other measures, the amount of particulate matter and other criteria pollutants identified by the EPA have declined over 77% and are well below the standards set. The United States had in 2020 the cleanest air in the world according to NASA and the World Health Organization (WHO). See details here. See this detailed scientific proof that Particulate Matter in Indoor/Outdoor Air Does NOT Cause Death here.
Fact Check as of: 01/29/23
----------
Claim: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life.
.
Fact Check: Ocean acidification (really only slightly reduced alkalinity) is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated the robustness of multiple marine plant and animal species to ocean acidification when they are properly performed under realistic experimental conditions. See more here. See also Peter Ridd’s recent finding of a New Record High Coral Cover of the Great Barrier Reef here.
Fact Check as of: 02/03/19
----------
Claim: There is a 97% Consensus of the world’s scientists that climate change is serious and man-made.
Fact Check: The claim of a 97% scientific consensus is a contrived fiction. CO2 is not a pollutant but a beneficial gas, particulate matter is. But as shown above, small and large particulate matter is not an issue. As also shown above all the claims of dangerous effects on the climate are also shown to be exaggerated or outright falsifications. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 11/22/22
----------
Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and links.
See how the global deaths related to all the extremes have declined dramatically the last century.
See Professor Ole Humlum’s review or the State of the Climate using real data here:
Apr 04, 2023
The challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”… Michael Crichton
Thursday April 6th, 2023
Why are we in such a huge hurry to dismantle what we know works for something that is very likely impossible to do?
Certainly China and India aren’t falling for the most recent UN claim that “This is our last chance” to do something to stop climate change. They are continuing to build coal fired power plants. Oh, China may give lip service to reducing carbon dioxide emissions but their actions speak much louder than their words! Weather balloons my ass!
The UN has been saying “This is our last chance” for forty years. You would think by now someone in government and the news media would realize that crying wolf when there is none should call into question the credibility of those doing so.
Whenever the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) comes out with another dooms day report as they recently did, it’s treated as a sacred cow. Virtually no major media outlet ever questions the motives of the people behind the curtain at the UN.
Are they completely unaware of why the IPCC was created in the late 1980s? Have they not read the words of those in charge? Are they unaware that the true goal of the UN is to destroy free markets and in doing so eliminate freedom itself?
Below is an article from February 10th, 2015 published by Investors Business Daily. It spells it out clearly what the UN is really up to.
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 year that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, workdays have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Figueres has also said that even if the whole science of climate change is wrong we would still be doing the right thing. The right thing? The right thing to her and those around her is to eliminate freedom of choice and bow to the UN and its way of running the world. A one government world with no regard to what most people want, freedom.
The letter below makes a lot of good points.
Letter to the Editor from the Waterbury Republican American 4/5/23
AMERICANS ARE BEING BLINDSIDED IN THEIR CHASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
In pre-industrial times, you knew who the butcher, baker, candlestick maker were. You knew where your meat and potatoes came from.
Even in the early 20th century, you knew that Henry Ford made your Model T in his factory in Dearborn, Mich. You knew the gas came from Texas.
Today, few of us consumers have a clue or even care where our meat and potatoes come from, and few folks complain about their iPhones being made in China or the stores being full of imported stuff.
The same is true of electricity. Who makes it? Where is it made? How is it made? How does it make it to the marketplace?
The vast majority of the public is unaware or doesn’t care. As long as the lights stay on and they don’t get a shut-off notice, it’s all good.
Today, the problem I see with such an uneducated public is they have less than zero understanding of the electric power industry, and they are taken in by the green crowd who are scaring us with horror stories that we must go green by 2030, or the earth will be “over the tipping point” (according to a recent United Nations press release) if we don’t give up oil.
I think electric vehicles (EVs) are OK if they are kept to 5-10% of the U.S. market; the grid could probably support that, but it is uneducated madness to expect that in 10 years vehicles must go 100% electric.
After the meltdown accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and in Fukushima, Japan in 2011, it’s not likely the U.S. public will support new zero-emission nuclear power plants. Even if we started building a network of them today, it would be decades before they could be operational, due to lengthy approvals, local opposition, lawsuits, and very expensive, lengthy construction times.
Even the very green-leaning Bill Gates has stated that nuclear power is the only system that can crank out enough power to juice up 300 million EVs in the U.S.
I highly doubt any new, massive hydroelectric power plants will ever be built. Who wants to flood a pristine valley?
Solar and wind, have proven to be unreliable for mass consumption, and not all regions receive enough wind or sunlight.
The new 350-foot deep pit mine now being dug in Nevada to unearth the lithium needed for EV batteries will only supply 5% of the U.S. market; the rest must be imported from China on - you guessed it - oil-guzzling container ships! Ask how many more ships will need to be built to transport the millions of tons of raw materials needed to build 300 million EV batteries. (And no, those ships will run on diesel fuel, not batteries or solar panels.)
Do the math. Where and how do you mine, transport, and manufacture 300 million 1000-pound batteries for the 300 million new EVs needed to replace every gas-powered car in the country? And how would you do this in the next decade?
Aren’t most of the rare metals and chemicals in each new EV battery not recyclable?
Mindless groupthink is never a good thing ... General Patton once said, “If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking.”
I think the average American consumer had better wake up and start asking questions about not just where their meat and potatoes come from, but where their electric power comes from. Then they should ask if EVs are really that green, and if we are creating a cure worse than the alleged problem we are being sold.
Apr 04, 2023
Scientific Societies Risk Reputations by Endorsing Climate Scare
Statements of scientific societies are often used to justify extreme measures for dealing with a supposed climate emergency.
“The scientific community is telling us in no uncertain term,” began a statement addressing the climate issue on the 2020 campaign website of doomsayer Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Such statements make me nervous. They assume unanimity among us scientists that does not exist and confer on us an authority we don’t want. To me, this is simply a way for a politician to say, “Do what I tell you!”
These proclamations by scientific societies are almost universally false and do real harm. For instance, the American Physical Society, or APS, the one I most closely associate with, states: “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.”
It is not difficult to show that the statement and others like it are incorrect. All one needs to do is look at an National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration graph of world temperature from 1880 to 2022. It will show that the temperature rose a total of about 0.6 degrees Celsius in the 30 years from 1910 to 1940 and about 0.8 degrees during the 40 years from 1980 to 2020. In other words, the rates of increase were about the same before and after carbon dioxide began its increase in the atmosphere. The APS statement is indisputably false.
OK, the rates of increase are about the same, but surely the NOAA graph shows that the current temperature is the highest ever measured. Wrong again.
Oxygen comes in two isotopes: 99.9% is oxygen-16 with eight protons and eight neutrons in the nucleus, and 0.1% is oxygen-18 with eight protons and 10 neutrons. Water containing the two isotopes evaporates at slightly different rates depending on temperature. This information was used to figure out a way to determine the temperature at various historical times from isotope ratios at different levels in the Greenland ice cores.
These analyses revealed a variety of warmer periods over the course of human civilization, as reported in The Good Earth Energy Blog. Deciphering this from raw data was a major triumph, mostly done by physicists. Rather than ignoring this discovery to ingratiate itself to what the Danish author Bjorn Lomborg has called the “climate industrial complex,” APS should proudly embrace this remarkable accomplishment.
Scientific data is hardly the only evidence of these warmer periods. Hubert H. Lamb, often called the father of climate science, wrote the basic text “Climate, History and the Modern World.” Figure 46 in the book shows that the world’s northern boreal forests during the Holocene optimum 4,000 years ago extended approximately 200 miles farther northward than they do today. Obviously, the world was warmer then. Lamb presented many other such examples.
There is also well-known archaeological and historical evidence of similar warming in the Roman optimum 2,000 years ago and medieval optimum 1,000 years ago. In the former, Romans grew wine in England right up to Hadrian’s wall. As cold-weather grapes had not yet been developed, this meant a much warmer England than today. In the medieval optimum, Vikings grew fields of barley in Greenland, something not possible to do today because of today’s cold.
While Lamb did not ignore CO2-based warming, he did not mention it until page 330 of his book. He estimated that increasing atmospheric CO2 from today’s 400 parts per million to 800 ppm would increase global temperature by approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius. At the current rate of CO2 input, it would take 200 years for such a doubling to occur. Amazingly, very detailed recent calculations by two of the world’s main authorities on the subject produced about the same result.
Why would APS ignore so many decades of climate research? After all, much of it was the work of physicists and appeared in classic textbooks.
This author cannot read the minds of APS leadership. However, two possibilities are hard to dismiss: (1) The organization was so completely taken in by what renowned physicist Richard Lindzen has called a “mass delusion” that carbon dioxide threatens climate doom that APS did not even perform minimal due diligence or (2) even worse, APS knows that there are big-dollar grants for alarmists, but none for skeptics. It may have sold its soul to the devil.
APS would be doing an enormous service for both the profession and humanity by removing its statement and issuing one that is more measured and scientifically correct. If it does not, this APS life fellow thinks our organization will be on the wrong side of history and that posterity will not look kindly on us.
This commentary was first published at The Washington Times, April 11, 2023, and can be accessed here.
Wallace Manheimer is a life fellow of the American Physical Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He is the author of more than 150 refereed papers and is a proud member of the CO2 Coalition of Arlington, Virginia.
The media is promoting disinformation on the cause of the reservoir’s record-low level.
Lake Mead (Michael Vi/Shutterstock)
The water level in Lake Mead is reaching record lows and the popular narrative maintains that drought brought on by human-caused climate change is to blame. But the government’s own data from the Bureau of Reclamation shows this is not true.
Imagine a large city has been built in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Since no precipitation falls there, a large man-made reservoir is created with water piped in from a thousand miles away. The desert city grows over time, but the water supply does not. Over the years, the desert city must ration water as the reservoir is drained due to overuse. In this hypothetical situation, would it be rational to blame the water shortage on drought and global warming? No.
Yet, this is the situation we have with Lake Mead.
As can be seen in the Bureau of Reclamation’s official estimate of the yearly natural water flows into Lake Mead, there has been no long-term trend in water flow into the reservoir.
Yearly natural water flows into Lake Mead at Lees Ferry, Nevada, since 1930. The measured flows have been corrected for upstream diversions created over time to provide a best estimate of whether climate change has caused drought-induced reductions in water supply to Lake Mead. Details of those corrections are described here. Data source here.
Most of the water supplying the Colorado River at this location comes from snowmelt in the upper Colorado River watershed. The April snowpack in that region also shows no trend.
Upper Colorado River watershed snowpack as estimated each April from 1938 to 2022. Department of Agriculture data source here.
So, why is Lake Mead losing so much water? The answer is overuse. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, published in 2012, showed that water demand from Lake Mead increased rapidly over the decades but remained less than water supply until around 2000, after which usage exceeded the available water supply in most years. This is what can be expected when we build cities in the desert (e.g. Las Vegas) and grow crops on arid land where there is insufficient natural precipitation.
That virtually every news story we read blames the water crisis on climate change or drought leads to widespread disinformation on the causes of falling water levels in Lake Mead. This then leads to expensive and misguided solutions to the problem. For example, on July 22, Forbes published an article titled “Why Is Lake Mead Shrinking? Climate Change Is a Major Reason.” Also in July, NASA published ”Lake Mead Keeps Dropping,” in which the agency stated the reservoir “provides a stark illustration of climate change.”
In fact, climate change does not even predict reductions in precipitation in the region that feeds water to Lake Mead.
CMIP6 climate model projections of yearly precipitation over the upper Colorado River watershed. Climate model data archived here.
Rational approaches to climate change, to the extent it exists, must be informed by accurate data. This is why Dr. John Christy and I created and continue to maintain and update a satellite-based global temperature dataset at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. That global dataset shows less global warming than scattered surface-based thermometers, which are prone to increasing spurious heat sources over time.
But in the case of Lake Mead, the datasets (such as those in the three graphs above) are not even in question. The problem is that lazy and biased reporting - even in some scientific reports - has led to the widespread misperception that climate change is responsible for Lake Mead losing water. It’s not.
Lake Mead is being drained. It’s not climate change.
Roy W. Spencer is a Ph.D. meteorologist and climate researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and was formerly an award-winning NASA Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.
Amidst the clamor surrounding the intensive use of coal in China and India, one may not realize that these nations have some of the world’s largest renewable energy installations.
In fact, I hail from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu which is often compared to Scandinavia for its large number of wind farms. Accounting for 25 percent of the country’s wind capacity, the state has the largest share of such generating assets in a nation of 1.3 billion people.
Yet even Tamil Nadu relies heavily on coal to meet its electricity demands, with power emergencies and blackouts being the order of the day anytime there are shortages of fuel. It is much the same across the country, where 70 percent of the electricity comes from coal.
The much-touted wind farms are of little help in such emergencies. Yes, they generate electricity, but it is highly insignificant, only 4.6 billion units compared to coal’s 92 billion units. Despite wind accounting for 10 percent of total installed capacity in the country’s power sector, its total contribution to generation is less than three percent. Wind farms simply cannot produce on-demand electricity, and certainly not in the amount needed by large cities.
“Yet again, power cuts have become the norm in Tamil Nadu; there is already a huge impact on people’s lives,” said the former chief minister of the state.
Last month, Tamil Nadu’s chief minister pleaded for more coal as supply was critically low: “The Chief Minister M K Stalin wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding his intervention to ensure the supply of 72,000 (million tonnes) of coal per day.”
Even a small hiccup in the supply of coal results in widespread blackouts across an entire state. This reveals that the wind capacity of the state is an exaggerated asset that cannot deliver when power is needed. The wind farms work well only during optimum wind months, which means they are useless for more than half of the year.
The officials in charge of delivering power to people are aware of this pathetic situation and, hence, continue to invest in fossil fuel energy sources, especially coal.
The state recently approved the construction of an additional 2,640 megawatts of capacity at a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired plant despite opposition from various quarters. A total of 607 hectares were acquired for the installation of stages 2 and 3 at the Super Critical Thermal Power Project at Udangudi. The plant will look to import 30 percent of its coal from Indonesia, South Africa, Australia, and China.
Further, the federal government of India has now decided “to tackle the power crisis by invoking Section 11 of the Electricity Act, mandating all imported coal-based projects to generate power at full capacity.”
Instead of curtailing coal plants, as climate doomsayers demand, India is increasing its coal dependency. With a forecast of severe shortage in the coming months, the federal government is stepping in to import more coal and avoid more blackouts. “Coal India would import coal for blending on a government-to-government basis and supply ... to thermal power plants of state generators and independent power producers,” the federal Power Ministry said in a May 28 letter.
The federal government has asked coastal plants to import as much coal as possible and promised to provide loans to do so. Electricity demand from coal plants is so high that the state of Tamil Nadu and a few others have allowed plants to increase prices.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.
First published here at Human Events on June 6, 2022.
Over time, I have had many posts on the scientific method, most recently in January 2021 here. You posit a falsifiable hypothesis. Then you collect and examine the evidence. If the evidence contradicts your hypothesis you must abandon it and move on. Really, that’s the whole thing.
Then there is woke “science,” most visible these days in the arenas of response to the Covid-19 virus and of climate change. Here the principles are a little different. In woke “science” there is no falsifiable hypothesis. In place of that, we have the official orthodox consensus view. The official orthodox consensus view has been arrived at by all the smartest people, because it just seems like it must be right. The official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted, particularly by the little people like you. Based on the official orthodox consensus view, those in power can take away all your freedom (Covid) and/or transform the entire economy (climate). After all, it’s the “science.”
But what if evidence seems to contradict the official orthodox consensus view? I’m sorry, but as I said the official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted. Today’s news brings a couple of extreme examples of that, one on the virus front, and the other relating to climate. Both of these are from Europe, so you may not have seen them.
On the virus front, we consider the case of Germany. For some reason, Germany has been relatively lightly hit by the virus, at least so far. According to the latest from Worldometers, Germany has had 940 deaths per million population to date. This compares, for example to 2,593 deaths per million in Czechia (worst of all countries), 1,864 in the UK, and 1,732 in the U.S. But starting in about mid-March, Germany has seen a renewed “surge” of cases. Why? Some might say that the virus is just going to get you sooner or later. But on March 23 German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a new three-week “lockdown” of the strictest variety, which included the forced closing of most stores from April 1 to 5. And with that three-week period about to expire, the website No Tricks Zone (German speakers) reports today that even further extensions are under consideration:
The German government is looking to impose even stricter lockdown measures. Liberty has been suspended indefinitely in Europe.
The problem here is that if the proposition that lockdowns work were a falsifiable hypothesis, it would have been falsified by now. The most striking data come from here in the U.S., where strict lockdown states like New York (2642 deaths per million as of today), New Jersey (2800), Illinois (1878) and Michigan (1759) continue to get shown up by wide open places like Florida (1584) and Texas (1705). Try to find any actual data for the efficacy of lockdowns, and you can’t. That is, except for their efficacy in generating an unemployment rate of 13% in New York City versus 4.8% in Florida.
But Germany, like the blue U.S. states, operates by the alternative principles of woke “science.” After all, data or no data, all the smartest people know that lockdowns must work. No Tricks Zone reports today on a news conference that took place on Friday (April 9) in Germany. An independent journalist named Boris Reitschuster got a chance to pose a question to Oliver Ewald, a spokesman for the German Ministry of Health. Here is the question (translation from NTZ):
Herr Ewald, [a journalist] at the WZ wrote in a report that the German government has no proof of the effectiveness of lockdowns. So my question is: what scientific studies do you have? Thank you.”
And here is the initial response, plus some further back and forth:
Ewald: Herr Reitschuster, you know that as a fundamental rule, we do not assess comments from journalists, and so here I will stick to that.”
Reitschuster: There’s a misunderstanding, Herr Ewald, I only brought up a quote and then followed it up with a stand-alone question, and this question has nothing to do with the quote. I’ll gladly repeat the question once again; what scientific study...”
Ewald: When you read one sentence from this comment here and request an assessment without, so to speak, providing further context or basis, I can’t say anything on that.”
Reitschuster: Completely without the sentence, for the third time, what scientific study does the German government have? Thank you.”
Ewald: I’ve said what I have to say say on that!”
NTZ comments: “We all know there is no study that supports lockdowns, and so spokesman Ewald is clearly trapped.” However, you should expect the lockdown to continue in Germany.
Over to the subject of climate change. As you may have read, last week brought record-breaking cold to much of Europe which, given that we are well into April, caused substantial damage to crops in their early stages of Spring growth. Actually, it’s likely that you didn’t read about that at all. That’s because the U.S. mainstream media mostly only report on record warmth, not record cold. As an example, I can’t find any mention of the subject of Europe’s cold snap in the New York Times (although I do find an article in the Washington Post).
But, particularly given the extensive crop damage, let alone the readership personally experiencing the bitter cold temperatures, the European press can’t avoid reporting on the subject. Doesn’t this extreme cold kind of undermine the official orthodox consensus view that the climate is rapidly getting warmer?
Here is the story from France’s Le Figaro, April 9 (my translation):
A bout of severe frost struck numerous crops this week in France. Temperatures plummeted, in some places, below 0 degrees C (32 F) at a speed never seen since 1947 for the month of April.
Quick, somebody needs to explain how that is consistent with “global warming.” Le Figaro calls in one Thierry Castel, identified as a “climatology researcher.” Here’s his explanation:
This is well linked [to global warming]. The differences in temperatures between the polar zones and the mid-latitudes are decreasing. That process modulates the undulations of the jet stream (the fast winds over the North Atlantic that play a big role in atmospheric circulation). Because of that, we are faced with the descent of cold Arctic air, and the more important northward movement of warm air.
Sure, Thierry. Meanwhile, the UAH guys report another substantial drop in world atmospheric temperature in March 2021. The global temperature anomaly for the month is -0.01 deg C (as against the 30 year average of 1991-2020). That brings us back down to about the same temperature we had back in 1988. Needless to say, Le Figaro was way too polite to confront M. Castel with this information.
Here is the latest UAH chart of global temperatures, going back to 1979:
I traveled to Oregon last week at the invitation of a CO2 Coalition supporter. Besides being completely off the grid at a lodge on the scenic Rogue River, I gave a presentation to about 50 people from southern Oregon after returning from the wilderness. As you can imagine, the climate zealots are in full-on crisis mode in the Beaver State. For my talk, I examined Oregon-specific temperature data. The top image shows Annual Mean Temperature that reveals about a 1-degree Fahrenheit (F) increase since 1895 which is hardly a crisis.
Interestingly, maximum temperatures were basically flat going back 125 years, while the low temperature readings had increased by 2.0 degrees F. Increasing night-time low temperatures benefits agriculture by extending growing seasons. Sleep well, Oregonians. There is no climate crisis.
So, what will the citizens of Oregon get for going to net zero? Analysis using the MAGICC simulator indicates that, had the state attained zero emissions in 2010, the warming averted in 2050 and 2100 would be 0.0007 and 0.0018 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. These are theoretical effects that could not be measured and would make no difference.
Oregonian scientist Dr. Gordon Fulks commented.
“About ten years ago, I downloaded this chart from NOAA ‘Climate at a Glance:’”
Tony Heller responds: “The reason for the change in graphs is that NOAA is now cooling Pacific Northwest temperatures prior to 2008 between 0.5 and 1.F, and warming recent temperatures by 0 to 0.5F”
I’ve been studying Neftel, et al. (1988). CO₂ record in the Byrd ice core 50,000-5,000 years bp. Nature 331(6157), 609-611.
It’s a fine-grained record of dO-18 and ice core CO₂ across the Holocene transition. I digitized the CO₂ and dO-18 depth data from their Figure 4 and then used to conversion expressions in Hammer, et al., (1994) Electrical conductivity method (ECM) stratigraphic dating of the Byrd Station ice core, Antarctica. Annals of Glaciology 20,115-120 to convert meters to years.
A polynomial fit to each data set followed by taking first derivatives of the fits, allowed estimation of the timing of phase turnover for CO₂ and dO-18 presaging the Holocene.
The result is the attached figure. Air temperature (dO-18) rose about 1000 years before CO₂ began to rise.
Neftel, et al., themselves say, “The dO-18 record is shifted by 12m towards greater depth to compare the same age for both records. This assumes an age difference of 600 years between the ice and the mean age in the bubbles. The dO-18 ratio starts to increase between 200 and 1,200 years before the CO₂ concentration starts to increase. At the time the CO₂ starts to rise, the dO-18 ratio increase is already 20-30% of the total shift at the glacial/interglacial transition. According to these results the ?...” (my underline).
Neftel, et al., was published on 1 February 1988, 4 months before Jim Hansen’s 23 June 1988 testimony before Congress sparked the CO₂ frenzy.
So in June 1988, scientists in the field already knew that the only good hard data in hand disconfirmed the CO₂-temperature connection. And they pretended surprise when the later VOSTOK record appeared, confirming the Byrd result.
Did Jim Hansen know? Did he go ahead with his testimony knowing it had been empirically contradicted? That seems to be a very fair question, going to integrity.
Four leading Italian scientists have undertaken a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ is not supported by the data.
Reviewing data from a wide range of weather phenomena, they say a ‘climate crisis’ of the kind people are becoming alarmed about “is not evident yet”.
The scientists suggest that rather than burdening our children with anxiety about climate change, we should encourage them to think about issues like energy, food and health, and the challenges in each area, with a more “objective and constructive spirit” and not waste limited resources on “costly and ineffective solutions”.
During the course of their work, the scientists found that rainfall intensity and frequency is stationary in many parts of the world. Tropical hurricanes and cyclones show little change over the long term, and the same is true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity show no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. Regarding ecosystems, the scientists note a considerable “greening” of global plant biomass in recent decades caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Satellite data show “greening” trends over most of the planet, increasing food yields and pushing back deserts.
The four scientists are all highly qualified and include physics adjunct professor Gianluca Alimonti, agrometeorologist Luigi Mariani and physics professors Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. The last two are signatories to the rapidly growing ‘World Climate Declaration’. This petition states that there is no climate emergency and calls for climate science to be more scientific. It also calls for liberation from the “naive belief in immature climate models”. In future, it says, “climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science”.
‘Extreme’ weather events attributed by climate models - somehow - to anthropogenic global warming are now the main staple of the climate alarmist industry. As the Daily Sceptic reported on Monday, Sir David Attenborough used a U.K. Met Office model forecast in the first episode of Frozen Planet II to claim that summer Arctic sea ice could be gone within 12 years. But the likelihood of hardy swimming galas over the North Pole by 2035 seems somewhat remote, not least because Arctic sea ice has been growing in many summers since 2012. According to a recent report from the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center, at the end of August “sea ice extent is likely to remain higher than in recent years”.
Hurricane and cyclones are favorite subjects for green alarmists. It is unsurprising why they focus on these storms, since the Italian scientists note that historically around 60% of all economic damage caused by global disasters is the consequence of U.S. hurricanes. On May 27th, the Met Office predicted that the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June to November, would “most likely” be above average, with a “likelihood” of 18 named tropical storms including nine hurricanes and four major hurricanes. In fact, the current Atlantic hurricane season has had its slowest start for 30 years. At the end of August there have been no hurricanes, and only three named storms, none of which produced winds of 74mph or higher.
There is plenty of evidence that hurricane and cyclone frequency and intensity has changed little over the recent historical record. “To date, global observations do not show any significant trends in both the number and the energy accumulated by hurricanes,” note the Italian scientists. The two graphs below demonstrate this.
The IPCC has reported that hurricanes have increased in frequency in the North Atlantic since 1878, but the scientists note that observations were relatively low during the first decades of the 20th century. After adjusting for lack of observational capacities in the past, there is a nominal upward trend. This trend, they explain, “is not significantly distinguishable from zero”.
The scientists accept that there has been a recent increase in heatwaves, which they attribute to the 1C rise in global temperatures, although they note global heatwave intensity trends “are not significant”. They also point out that only a limited number of weather stations have observed an increase in global rainfall.
Corresponding evidence for increases in flooding remains elusive, they say, “and a long list of studies shows little or no evidence of increased flood magnitudes, with some studies finding more evidence of decreases than increases”. So far as drought is concerned, the scientists note the AR5 finding of the IPCC that “conclusions regarding global drought trends increasing since the 1970s are no longer supported”. Several studies are said to show no increase in the main indices regarding global droughts.
In fact, a slightly warmer and wetter planet and a little extra CO2 seem to have done wonders for global crop yields. For the period 1961-2019, maize, rice, soybean and wheat global average yields are reported to have grown every year by 3.3%, 2.4%, 2.6% and 3.8% respectively.
Well-researched, fact-driven, credible scientific papers such as this are crucial in the battle to stop green activists and rentiers having a free run to catastrophise every bad weather event in the interest of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Attempting to attribute single weather events to humans burning fossil fuels is the product of feverish imaginations and ‘garbage in, garbage out’ climate models. Rational, evidence-based science should be promoted at every opportunity.
Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.
Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.
The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order
Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.
The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.
Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.
Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.
“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....
“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”
Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.
“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.
Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.
Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.
At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.
At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.
Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”
Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
-----------
An orchestrated movement:
Puppet masters (Government agencies, NGOs, billionaires and politicians), many who believed the world has too many people that consume too much of the world’s resources decided to move us towards one world government to control both.
They use the UN as the organization that would unify the word around their agenda using the lure of money (redistribution of wealth). They take control of the science through funding.
They take control of the universities and research labs again through funding efforts that supported their agenda, purging or silencing the faculty not tenured and making life miserable for those that were tenured who did not go along, firing lab employees who resisted. Take control of the curriculum from K-8 to college on science and social issues.
Take control of the professional societies - easy to do since most were academics riding the grant gravy train - have many work on statements endorsing their theory as fact never voted on by their members.
Take control of the major journals used by scientists, removing editors who allowed papers that challenged the tenets of the theory, ensuring at least one reviewer would be assigned to every submitted challenging paper who would reject it.
Take control of the media (easy since 95% are sympathetic to the ‘cause’. The Society of Environmental Journalists actually published a handbook on how to deal with doubters and slant their coverage. The NJOS, WH, Media Matters provide talking points to the media after official reports are issued.
They demonize skeptics - using words like climate change deniers, claim they were funded by big oil (when big oil was funding their side - BP $500M to UC Berkeley, Exxon $100M to Stanford and all told well over 1 Trillion.. They claim we don’t publish in the major journals they control, though many thousands have published real science in journals that they do not control.
Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.
From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Dear Professor Hoj:
As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material? Course
Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.
It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.
Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.
Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.
A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link.
My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.
John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.
Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.
As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.
I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.
This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.
Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.
Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science
In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.
----------------------
See the Galileo Movement here.Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”
----------
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
-----------
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
--------
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
NOTE:
See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.
Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
---------------
Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s 2013 report detailed information from almost 4,000 papers.
Science and Public Policy Institute here. SADLY BLOCKED ACCESS NOW.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here. REMOVED AND REPLACED BY ZERO VALUE NONSENSE FROM the radical WEATHER UNDERGROUND
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)
See samples on WeatherBELL Facebook
Support Icecap efforts to combat scientific fraud and environmental fanaticism with generous donation via a secure access to Paypal
. The Society of Environmental Journalists actually published a handbook on how to deal with doubters and slant their coverage. The NJOS, WH, Media Matters provide talking points to the media after official reports are issued.
