Precision Forecasts image image
Jan 13, 2022
Are Climate Lockdowns Coming Because of a ‘Climate Emergency’? (No, It’s Not a Conspiracy Theory)

by Dale Hurd

In early December, the Washington Post reported that because of climate change, snow in the Mountain West “may vanish for years at a time.”

The headline did not age well.

Only days later it started to snow in the West.

And snow.

And snow.

An incredible photo on Twitter showed a towering wall of snow on Donner Summit in California around Christmas.

image

Lake Tahoe got 18 feet of snow in December, an all-time record.

In Virginia, some motorists were stuck on I-95 for more than 24 hours after snow and ice made the road impassable.

A Long String of Failed Climate Change Predictions

Add the Washington Post headline to a long string of failed climate change predictions.  A now-deleted headline from the London Independent in 2000 predicting no more snow is more than 20 years old.

Climate experts now seem to have hedged their bets, saying global warming will both increase and decrease snowfall.

Weatherbell Meteorologist Joe Bastardi, the author of The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War, says more snow or less snow, it’s called a normal winter.here. It might be more snow in one place and less snow in another place, but then it balances out.”

“The weather is always going back and forth,” Bastardi said. “This is within the realm of what you can expect in the kind of winter we have

New Calls for ‘Climate Lockdowns; (And It’s Not a Conspiracy Theory)

But climate activists continue to insist that we face a worldwide climate emergency, and there has been more talk of the need for “climate lockdowns.”

Over the holidays, environmentalists staged what they called “Occupy Biden” - an 8-day protest outside Joe Biden’s Delaware home, demanding that he take action on the climate.

“Occupy Biden” Spokesman Ted Glick said, “We want Joe Biden to issue an executive order declaring a climate emergency. He’s already said it’s a code red emergency.”

Dozens of nations have declared climate emergencies, including the entire European Union.

And now, after accusing climate skeptics of inventing a conspiracy theory about future climate lockdowns, there has been increasing talk of instituting climate lockdowns, modeled after COVID lockdowns, and under what’s being called environmental authoritarianism, in which your right to drive a car, fly on a plane or own a big house could be suspended by the government in order to fight climate change.

Climate Lockdown: Less Driving, Flying, and Eating Meat

“Americans are going to have to deal with less,” warns Marc Morano, author of Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse Than You Think. “We’re gonna drive less, fly less, eat less meat. They’re already talking about sustainable housing and shutting down the suburbs.”

“This is the progressive vision of how you make people do with less in a climate emergency,} Morano says.

A recent article in the influential magazine Foreign Policy suggested Democracy may not be compatible with reaching climate goals.

The Weather Record Shows There is Not a Climate Problem

This climate extremism is all escalating even though the weather record shows there is not a serious problem with the climate. The Environmental Protection Agency’s own website says our air continues to get cleaner year after year. Statistics also show the number of wildfires is much lower than it was decades ago.

Theoretical Physicist Dr. Steven Koonin, former Undersecretary of Energy during the Obama Administration and author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, says the weather record shows there is no climate emergency.

Heatwaves in the U.S. are now no more common than they were in 1900 and they haven’t gone up in 60 years,” Koonin said, “No global trends in drought or in floods. Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t melting any more rapidly now than it was 80 years ago. There’s no long-term trend in hurricanes over the last hundred years.”

But climate activists are advancing their agenda anyway, and new government regulations continue to punish and de-fund more reliable fossil fuel sources in favor of less reliable renewable energy sources.

Occupy Biden’s Glick said Joe Biden “should issue, have the federal agencies oppose any new fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Environmental expert Dr. Marlo Lewis at the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, “Basically this political movement has declared war on fossil fuels. And a lot of people have concluded in the industry, and also people who are investors, that this sector has no future.”

The Cost to ‘Stop Climate Change’? $1 Quadrillion

Rising energy prices this winter could be only the beginning. A recent study in the journal Nature found that meeting reduced carbon emission targets will cost more than $2 trillion annually - that’s more than $5,000 per American per year - with costs by the end of this century totaling $1 quadrillion dollars.

This piece originally appeared at CBN News and has been republished here with permission.

Lake Tahoe got 18 feet of snow in December, an all-time record.

In Virginia, some motorists were stuck on I-95 for more than 24 hours after snow and ice made the road impassable.

A Long String of Failed Climate Change Predictions

Add the Washington Post headline to a long string of failed climate change predictions.  A now-deleted headline from the London Independent in 2000 predicting no more snow is more than 20 years old.

Dozens of nations have declared climate emergencies, including the entire European Union.

And now, after accusing climate skeptics of inventing a conspiracy theory about future climate lockdowns, there has been increasing talk of instituting climate lockdowns, modeled after COVID lockdowns, and under what’s being called environmental authoritarianism, in which your right to drive a car, fly on a plane or own a big house could be suspended by the government in order to fight climate change.

Climate Lockdown: Less Driving, Flying, and Eating Meat

A recent article in the influential magazine Foreign Policy suggested Democracy may not be compatible with reaching climate goals.

But climate activists are advancing their agenda anyway, and new government regulations continue to punish and de-fund more reliable fossil fuel sources in favor of less reliable renewable energy sources.

Occupy Biden’’s Glick said Joe Biden “should issue, have the federal agencies oppose any new fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Environmental expert Dr. Marlo Lewis at the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, “Basically this political movement has declared war on fossil fuels. And a lot of people have concluded in the industry, and also people who are investors, that this sector has no future.”

The Cost to ‘Stop Climate Change’? $1 Quadrillion

Rising energy prices this winter could be only the beginning. A recent study in the journal Nature found that meeting reduced carbon emission targets will cost more than $2 trillion annually - that’s more than $5,000 per American per year - with costs by the end of this century totaling $1 quadrillion dollars.

This piece originally appeared at CBN News and has been republished here with permission.i

Jan 06, 2022
The Wayback Machine, a snow story

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

I posted recently on my career long adventures in climate (here). Although it covered drivers for extremes and the observed cycles of relative warmth and coldness, my entry into the field and focus after was on winters and snow.

image
Enlarged

My first memory was being lifted as an infant to the window to see the huge snow piles on the street in Brooklyn, NY. It was the suddenly snowy winters of the late 1950s and early 1960s 1960/61 that grabbed by attention. The winter of 1960/61 with three big storms including the Kennedy Inauguration and the crippling snow of early February that was the clincher. Snow was nearly waist high on the my street in Park Slope.

I attended the University of Wisconsin for Meteorology BS and MS degrees.  My Master’s Thesis though was focused on why coastal winter storms can explosively develop (bomb). We showed certainly dynamics were involved but diabatic processes (sensible and latent heat) as cold air over the warm water creates instability that creates strong convection when the lid due to subsidence in high pressure is removed. This process, by the way is similar to what happens in tornado season where storms explode as the cap (lid) is removed as cold fronts displace high pressure as they descend from the western mountains and also the trade wind inversion in the subtropics is removed with a strong easterly wave that allows convection on increase and organize.

I worked on my doctorate at NYU while I was weather producer for WCBS-TV and radio and the CBS network program Energy. I had only 1 memorable storm in my tenure there - the big ice storm of December 17, 1973. I was working a weekend forecasting for the radio and TV. I was one of the first to use the new tools available and saw that the cold air which delivered a some snow on Sunday, would hold at the surface in the city and to the north even as warm air aloft invaded. I predicted an ice storm. The TV producer barged into the weather office and challenged the ice forecast based on the radio NWS and other forecasters. I explained my reasoning but he changed the TV script. The radio stayed with the ice forecast. The producer took a leave of absence.

I stayed another year before moving north to help Merle Woodall build the met program at Lyndon State College. With efforts like the Winter Storm Conference (still going), AFROTC, summer internships, forecasting/radio and cable TV broadcasting programs, the program grew from 37 to 137 in 6 years. I left the program in 1980 though to join John Coleman in Chicago as Weather Producer for Good Morning America and year later as the first Director Meteorology at The Weather Channel. Many of my students joined me to help make that a huge success. I was there in the late 1970s when the worry of Global Cooling and the possibility of a developing Ice Age due to the natural cycles amplified by the ‘human volcano’ - particulate matter blocking. incoming solar radiation was at its peak and getting media coverage.

I left TWC to join WSI as Product Marketing Manager in 1989 where we built weather workstations, value-added products and an early internet service Intellicast. As Dr. Dewpoint, my focuses was in climate and weather attribution studies and statistical approaches for predicting winter weather and even a SNOW INDEX for seasonal snow forecasts for major northeast cities. When the dot com bubble burst, management panicked and shut down Intellicast operations.

I left WSI to be a partner in a hedge fund where we hit home runs for 3 years including the frigid northeast northeast January 2004, the hurricanes of 2005. In year 3, we were ranked 2nd of 167 plus hedge funds with less than 50 million under management. But again a hedge fund panic had us not reach contracted amount of $100 million in 4 years and disbanded. I returned to WSI as Dr. Dewpoint and ag forecaster and then joined Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell Analytics, who like me had spent much of his career trying to understand what was behind weather events and seasonal weather.

Since 2007, I started and built Icecap. We have had 10000 posts and 164 million page views.

With Intellicast and Icecap local visibility as Dr. Dewpoint, I became a fixture at the NWS Eastern Region and BHO Annual Winter weather Workshops where I presented my winter outlook and reasoning and even debated a Gore disciple - turned the audience around from 75% believers to 75% skeptical.

I did many interviews and was asked to challenge special reports about the disappearance of snow the media was quick to pounce on in every less snowy winter. I posted responses on
Icecap. Like this one.

Big winters usually had someone say that greenhouse warming was responsible for that too (all extremes become a non-falsifiable hypothesis).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that is involved heavily in college programs, did a report on Mt Washington in the summer of 2007, saying global warming marked the end of the ski industry and would lead to the demise of the Maple Sugar Industry as Maple trees would pack their bags and headed to Canada.  That winter set all-time records for snow in northern New England. Ouch. But that doesn’t stop them as they come back as they did in 2015 as a warm El Nino approached. I assembled a team of a dozen real scientists and we responded here point by point.

I did many shows on cable here in NH and had a weekly newspaper column. I was asked finally to debate the UNH professor at the Science Technology and Energy Committee - an hour for each of us. The professor started by saying he was not a modeler but a data guy and spent his hour presenting DATA FROM THE CLIMATE MODELS. I responded by showing the real data that each claim was wrong. One of the members of the committee asking how I could explain snow disappearing from the Himalayas. My answer was that the claim was false. The Himalayas cover approximately 1,500 mi (2,400 km) and pass through the nations of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Bhutan and Nepal. 100 peaks are over 7,200m - 23,622 feet. I told her outside a few intense hurricane eyes, temperatures at 18,000 never rise over 32F. The snows are not at risk of melting there, here in NH and in the hemisphere.

BTW, the last decade was the snowiest for the hemisphere (fall and winter) and for the major cities of the east.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Dec 28, 2021
Beware the Useful Idiots

Thanks to Gary in Fatherly Advice and Rants for the key points in Beware the Useful Idiots expounded on below:

Saul Alinsky died almost 50 years ago, but his writings influenced people on “The Left” with vast political control of our nation today. It has been advanced for decades in a subliminal way - COVID and the election of Biden and a radicalized democratic party has exposed the underground movement.

Hillary did her college thesis on Saul Alinsky’s writings and Obama has written about him in his books. 

Alinsky’s rules for radicals:

How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

1. Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people.

2. Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6. Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school.

7. Religion - Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.

8. Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.

You should see that all eight of his ‘rules for radicals’ are currently in play in the media and social media. The greenhouse climate change hoax is being used to control the energy sources, which is with transport issuea is causing 40 year level inflation, shutting down many small businesses who had been successful because of a great work ethic and sacrifices of their founders over their entire lives. The leftist plan would eventually impoverish a large segment of the population, allowing the government to take control of every aspect of our lives. 

Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as “Useful Idiots.”

Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S. “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

The book Rules for Radicals is a very informative read. You can find it in many places online for free, or CLICK HERE for a copy. It’s a short read but an important one. BTW, Alinsky dedicated the book to Lucifer as the “original radical” in his fight against God, and he is Alinsky’s hero.

We need to share these tactics just as the CRT was exposed by home remote classes for our COVID restricted students. You need to challenge politicians and media that are pushing this radical agenda. If we don’t, we won’t very soon have the country which not many months ago we felt so fortunate to be a part of, the land of the free and the brave.

Jan 14, 2022
Wind Power - the background story the greens and media hide

That little yellow thing is a bulldozer. It is burying windmill blades used for green energy. Why? Because these blades need to be disposed of and there is presently no way to recycle them. That’s how green energy works!

image

Who knew? Maybe the people that make them knew. Why would they let that cat out of the bag, after all they are government subsidized with tax payer money. After all It’s all about the money every time! Just like the oil industry powers every electric car.

Also politicians do not want those huge eye sores in their backyard.

image

Right now the average wind farm is about 150 turbines. Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we’re not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude… 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year.

It is estimated that a little over 3,800 turbines would be needed to power a city the size of New York… That’s 304,000 gallons of refined oil for just one city.

Now you have to calculate every city across the nation, large and small, to find the grand total of yearly oil consumption from “clean” energy.

Where do you think all that oil is going to come from, the oil fairies? Well thanks to Biden it now comes from our enemies in the Mideast.

Not to mention the fact that the large equipment needed to build these wind farms run on petroleum. As well as the equipment required for installation, service, maintenance, and eventual removal.

And just exactly how eco-friendly is wind energy anyway?

Each turbine requires a footprint of 1.5 acres, so a wind farm of 150 turbines needs 225 acres; In order to power a city the size of NYC you’d need 57,000 acres; and who knows the astronomical amount of land you would need to power the entire US. All of which would have to be clear-cut land because trees create a barrier & turbulence that interferes with the 20mph sustained wind velocity necessary for the turbine to work properly (also keep in mind that not all states are suitable for such sustained winds). Boy, cutting down all those trees is gonna anger a lot of green-loving tree-huggers.

Let’s talk about disposal now.

The lifespan of a modern, top quality, highly efficient wind turbine is 20 years. After that, then what?  What happens to those gigantic fiber composite blades?

They cannot economically be reused, refurbished, reduced, repurposed, or recycled so guess what...? It’s off to special landfills they go.

And guess what else..? They’re already running out of these special landfill spaces for the blades that have already exceeded their usefulness. Seriously! Those blades are anywhere from 120 ft. to over 200 ft. long and there are 3 per turbine. And that’s with only 7% of the nation currently being supplied with wind energy. Just imagine if we had the other 93% of the nation on the wind grid...20 years from now you’d have all those unusable blades with no place to put them… Then 20 years after that, and 20 years after that, and so on.

Hello there, how green is that?

Oops, I almost forgot about the 500,000 birds that are killed each year from wind turbine blade collisions; most of which are endangered hawks, falcons, owls, geese, ducks, and eagles.

Apparently smaller birds are more agile and able to dart and dodge out of the way of the spinning blades, whereas the larger soaring birds aren’t so lucky.

I’m sure the wildlife conservationist folks are just ecstatic about that.

I’m so glad the wind energy people are looking out for the world.

Here’s another little problem with windmills-

The generator and switching equipment operate at high power and voltage. Everything in the windmill nacelle is compact due to limited space, so there’s danger of arcs and electrical fires. This is prevented by putting all the electrical equipment in a pressure vessel filled with sulfur hexafluoride, a synthetic gas that has dielectric properties that suppress arcs and fires.

Problem is, windmills leak this gas, something around a pound each per year. SF6 has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and is 22,800 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

WANT MORE

The wind doesn’t always blow, often on the coldest nights or hottest days. And when ice storms occur as we saw last February in Texas, they freeze and the users are in the dark. Over 100 died last year when temperatures after the snows dropped as cold as 16 below zero in the southern plains.

image

image

Jan 08, 2022
Tyranny in the Name of Climate Change

By Anthony Watts

A recent paper published by Cambridge University Press titled “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change” is raising serious and worrisome questions about the role of academia in our national political debate on climate change.

The paper was written by Ross Mittiga, who self-describes as an “assistant professor of political theory at Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, specializing in climate ethics.” He also labels himself an “environmentalist, vegan, and occasional gadfly.”

Mittiga’s paper explicitly argues society must prioritize climate action over democratic principles and adopt an authoritarian government if society fails to politically act on climate change. Or, in the words of the political left: “my way or the highway.”

This is disturbing because it completely ignores the will of the people to self-govern, favoring a totalitarian approach in order to tackle what Mittiag deems a “climate crisis.”

Key points of the paper in the abstract:

Two brilliant doctors explain what’s really going on with COVID

Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature—which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights—would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.

The problem with Mittiga’s paper is that he doesn’t offer up a single reference or shred of evidence that a “climate crisis” actually exists. It appears he simply assumes it to be fact-based on the frequency of political discussions that have embraced the term for several years.

If a “climate crisis” actually existed, there would be human impact data to support the claim. Yet, Mittiga cites no such evidence.

However, this lack of evidence did not stop him from making this bold claim: “A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety.” We should be able to test the “graver threat to public safety” that the “climate crisis” supposedly creates.

If the global “climate crisis” was causing public safety to suffer, we’d surely see an increase in global deaths related to supposed climate-driven events. To determine if this is true, we turn to data collected by the most trusted global database on events that create mortality, the International Disaster Database.

This database covers all types of natural disasters, including meteorological, hydrological, geologic, and volcanic.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg has been tracking climate-related disasters from the database since 1920. This includes floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures. His conclusion from the data is clear and simple: fewer and fewer people are dying today from supposedly climate-related natural disasters. As seen in the figure in this peer-reviewed article, the trend is clear.

Lomborg writes:

Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.

This is even true of 2021—despite breathless climate reporting, almost 99% fewer people died that year than a hundred years ago.

Why is this consistently not reported?

In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,885—97% lower than the 1920s average.

For 2021, which is now complete, we see an even lower total of 6,134 dead or a reduction since the 1920s of 98.7%.

The media reported on many deadly weather- and climate-related catastrophes in 2021—the deadly U.S./Canadian heat dome and heatwave, huge wildfires in the Western United States, the December 2021 tornado outbreak in the United States, large-scale flooding in Europe, and the Valentine’s Day winter storm. All of these events and related deaths are included in the disaster database and the graph.

And there are other disasters. Many people in the West never saw media reports of the disastrous floods in India during the monsoon, which killed more than a thousand people, or the flash floods in Afghanistan, which killed dozens, or the typhoons that hit China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India, killing a total of 776 people. The database also has more than 200 other catastrophes in 2021.

There is a known bias in the database where there is much more reporting on heat deaths, but recent science from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet reports that globally, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 9:1, suggesting that “global warming” isn’t as big a problem for human mortality as we’ve been told.

The number of reported weather disaster events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, and better accessibility, i.e., the 24/7/365 CNN effect. Just because such events are reported more today doesn’t translate directly to more events resulting in more deaths. In fact, the opposite is observed in the data.

Illustrated by the mortality data portrayed in the figure, it is simply incontrovertible that disaster-related deaths have declined, and have done so dramatically. This is because our wealthier, technologically advanced, and more resilient societies are much better able to warn for such events, protect their citizens, and mitigate damage and deaths. In fact, recent peer-reviewed science demonstrates a “decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident.”

So, I ask, where is the so-called “climate crisis” that is portrayed as a certainty by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press?

According to the disaster database, there isn’t any “climate crisis” at all. In fact, during the 40-plus years of modest warming during which we have been told that global warming aka “climate change” will worsen the human condition, mortality has improved dramatically.

Sadly, and frighteningly, as illustrated by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press, the green socialist left is increasingly embracing tyranny in the form of authoritarian power to act on their viewpoint on climate change. But clearly, real-world data don’t support their viewpoint let alone their call to action.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.

Dec 21, 2021
The real drivers behind the climate and a concern many of us share

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

While many in government, the universities and media want to focus on the small (mostly very local) influence we have on climates (one of my favorite course when a college professor was Microclimatology where we studied in the field and literature the local factors, natural and man-made). That spurred focus on urbanization in climate data as most stations became increasingly urbanized and warmer at night. However I spent much of my career in 5 major enterprises studying the larger scale natural factors that influence global climate regimes and have been able to explain not only the observed cycles in properly measured temperatures but changes in extremes of weather. I found the most significant drivers included ocean cycles, solar cycles and volcanism. Man’s contributions were primarily local and related to land use changes including as I noted most importantly urbanization.

I had the good fortune to meet at an AMS Annual Meeting Jerome Namias, NWS first Director for Weather Bureau’s (now NWS) Long Range Forecasting (started being 5 days) Branch (now CPC or the Climate Prediction Center) who showed ocean warm and cold pools explained the flip to the cold winter of the late 1970s. After the super El Nino of 1982/83 just after the birth of The Weather Channel, as the first Director of Meteorology, we did the first features on the phenomenon. We began seasonal outlooks often consulting with Namias who had moved to Scripps). When CPC found in the late 1980s, that El Nino and La Nina had global implications, first observed by Sir Gilbert Walker more than 60 years before (an idea rejected by scientists at the time), we knew we had another tool to forecast seasonal weather. In the 1990s, ocean fisheries scientists at University of Washington discovered the PDO - a longer term Pacific cycle that helped explains shifts in salmon fish populations on the west coast. It also explained tendencies for strength and frequency of El Nino and La Nina. The warm mode favored longer and stronger El Ninos and the cold more frequent and stronger La Ninas. You can see the cold PDO mode has dominated since the Super Nino of 1997/98,

image
Enlarged

The behavior mimics the cold PDO from the 1940s to the middle 1970s.  Both had a significant El Nino a few decades in (1957/58 and 2015/16).

image
Enlarged

See the behavior described below.

image
Enlarged

The Atlantic too has a multidecadal cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (also first published in the 1990s) which affects high latitude blocking events. It has been in the warm mode and stays there for now.

image
Enlarged

The two oscillations in their positive mode favors global scale warmth, the negative mode cold. See much more here

image
Enlarged

The cycles are now out of phase but when the both are positive, the world is at the warmest level, both negative, cold. See the strong correlation.

image
Enlarged

Individual El Ninos always brings a spike in temperatures globally, La Ninas a cooling.

image
Enlarged

The effect is modulated by major volcanism. See how El Ninos in the 1980s and 1990s were suppressed by the sulfate aerosols thrown into the high atmosphere from the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, El Chichon and Pinatubo.

image
Enlarged

The sun is important - much more than they want you to believe (see). The number of sunspots correlates with other solar factors to drive global temperatures. It is in a century-scale decline period that should, with some delay, enhance a cooling trend. We are coming off the short cycle minima but still are having spotless days.

image
Enlarged

Solar activity is most similar now to the cold early 1900s or even the early 1800s, the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period aided by the cooling after Mt. Tambora 1815 eruption

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Though at the moment the Pacific and solar favor cold developing, volcanism is at the moment not significant and thus not an enhancing factor and the Atlantic Basin is in the warm phase though declining.

image
Enlarged

That does not mean we won’t get extreme cold at times in places this year as they found in both polar regions (a record cold winter at the South Pole (since record began in 1957), a brutal November in Alaska and the very early freeze off the Russia Arctic coast trapping ships and in much of the southern hemisphere in their entire winter and spring.  There is in most years where the ENSO state is modest to weak have variability in season as waves propagate through the topics and affect the locations of the troughs and ridges in the jet stream that influence where the cold and warm, and storms travel. Such a wave turned off the cold here in the US in December for a time but it will soon move to locations that open up the floodgates from the arctic.

We are especially vigilant and concerned at Weatherbell as the energy grid operators and suppliers are warning that an extended period of strong cold would mean rolling blackouts and energy supply issues as we saw last winter in Texas when over 100 died as temperatures dropped to well below zero with the power out. That is something the factors at play have been suggesting would happen this winter. After that upcoming global weather pattern reorganization, we see the arctic cold beginning later this upcoming week.

Below is a Christmas present you may consider for family and friends that have wood stoves or fireplaces, they are not expecting to use. 5 packages could keep the family warm for several days. Local firewood companies still have dry firewood. It is always best to have the chimney checked out - a small investment that could save problems.

image
Enlarged

Stay warm and safe… and open minded.

Jan 05, 2022
Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM Link

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 authors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields. For each claim, a brief summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.
----------

Claim: The globe has experienced among the warmest ever month or year. 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 more details here.
Fact Check as of: 05/02/21
----------

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 Dr. Cliff Mass’s excellent “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. See this why amplified patterns, a feature of cooling climates, are behind the warm and cold extremes in 2021 here. Cold is the real threat. Cold kills up to 20 times more than heat globally and has disastrous economic impacts. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

Claim: Hurricanes have been increasing in number and/or extremity.

Fact Check: Even with a few very active seasons, the decade just 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 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 details hereSee 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 and global comparisons here.  See a perspective on deadly CAT4 hurricane Ida and a similarity to Camille in 1969 here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

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. This may signal a return to more active seasons as the earth cools with the colder Pacific and low solar.  See full story here.
Fact Check as of: 01/05/22
----------

Claim: Droughts and Floods are becoming more severe worldwide due to global warming.

Fact Check: Droughts and Floods. 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. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

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 details here. See Australia Wildfire story here.  See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

Claim: Snow is decreasing as the earth warms, threatening the winter sports industry.

Fact Check: Snowfall has actually been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. with many records being set. This has been true not only in mountain areas but even to coastal cities and urban areas where snow had been rare. See more here.
Fact Check as of: 04/26/21
----------

Claim: Melting of the glaciers and ice caps are causing sea levels to rise 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.
Fact Check as of: 11/22/21
----------

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 this year (with readings on the continent as low as -144F!). Records began in 1957 here
Fact check as of: 10/10/20
----------

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.
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 has now the cleanest air in the world according to NASA and the World Health Organization (WHO). See details here.
Fact Check as of: 08/05/21
----------

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 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: 08/04/20
----------

See the detailed rebuttals here. Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and links. 

See the peer reviewed science story here.

Nov 20, 2021
Gov. Baker At Long Last Drops His TCI “Boondoggle”

Chip Ford’s CLT Commentary

To everyone’s surprise and to the delight of many, yesterday Gov. Baker dropped his obsession with his multi-state Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) vanity project.  We who have been vehemently opposing it for over two years couldn’t help but high-five each other long-distance and celebrate an unexpected early victory.

We’d just submitted to town clerks around the state all the signatures sheets our volunteers had collected since September for a ballot question to block TCI by the deadline on Wednesday, only the day before.  That was the day after the governor of Connecticut, Ned Lamont, dropped his support for TCI.  Gov. Baker followed the day after our delivery.

Whether or not the petition had any influence on their decisions, we’re still looking to go ahead with the ballot question if we’ve qualified with enough signatures to move forward.  Just because a politician says something today doesn’t mean he’ll say the same thing tomorrow.  And there’s no telling what a new governor and administration will do.

From the beginning of the early opposition to TCI over two years ago, Paul Craney’s strategy and that of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance was to invite and recruit other aligned opposition groups (such as CLT) and public policy think tanks from the effected 14 states to coordinate and work together, build our own “multi-state” opposition coalition to take on Gov. Baker’s “multi-state compact.” The goal was to delay and prevent reaching the critical mass of states that Gov. Baker deemed necessary for TCI to succeed.  Though the governor’s goal line shifted as more states rejected TCI, in the end there was only Massachusetts and tiny Rhode Island left standing, alone.  Gov. Charlie Baker finally pulled the plug on the Bay State’s lonely participation in “Baker’s Boondoggle” yesterday.

Our opposition coalition ally in Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, issued a news release today:

Providence, RI - On Thursday, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker followed the surrender to reality by Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont earlier this week by publicly divorcing themselves from the Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) gas tax. The rejection of TCI by the powerful two New England Governors leaves Rhode Island as the only state among the original 14 states that is still considering imposing a crushing fuel tax on motorists.

Despite the rejection by Baker, a founding member and primary driver of this plan to systematically restrict the supply of gasoline, Ocean State Governor Dan McKee and Speaker of the House Joseph Shekarchi are still on record as supporting the TCI gasoline cap-and-trade scheme.

“It’s time for the Governor and Speaker to throw in the towel and admit defeat. In no reality-based scenario could any politician support a unilateral major gas tax hike in the coming election year, especially given the historically high gas prices that we are already seeing due to misguided energy policies advanced by climate alarmists,” suggested Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity. “The defeat of TCI is a tremendous victory for the 14-state #NoTCItax coalition we are part of, which has been fighting against this job-killing initiative for many years.”

Again thank you to all those who collected signatures to hopefully put stopping TCI on the 2022 ballot.  If its threat alone didn’t change minds of its former backers, it still might provide a backstop if the situation changes.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg News

Progressives say the only way to achieve their climate goals is to raise the price of fossil fuels. Their problem is that consumers don’t want to pay more for energy, and as the latest proof behold Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s retreat this week from a Northeast state climate pact.

Last December the Governors of Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts and the mayor of Washington, D.C., joined a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce carbon emissions from fuel. Wholesalers and distributors would have to buy emissions credits at auction. The proceeds would be sent to the states to spend on electric vehicles, public transportation and “climate justice.”

Over time the cap on emissions would decline, and fuel distributors would have to spend more to buy credits. This would increase fuel prices. The Lamont administration estimated the scheme would add about five to nine cents a gallon to gasoline prices in the first year. Prices would rise in the other states too.

Which is why all three Governors failed to pass the scheme in their overwhelmingly Democratic legislatures this year. “There are some people who are living on such a tight margin that anything that adds to their regular expenses is going to put a squeeze on them and put them in a tight hardship,” Connecticut Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney said.

Mr. Lamont finally gave up trying to pass the scheme this week. “Look, I couldn’t get it through when gas prices were at historic lows. So I think the legislature has been pretty clear it is a tough rock to push when gas prices are so high,” he said. Massachusetts GOP Gov. Charlie Baker then threw in the towel too, causing the climate pact to effectively combust.

Mr. Lamont is running for re-election next year.

The Beacon Hill Institute had analyzed the TCI here:

THE NORTHEAST PETRI-DISH - MASSACHUSETTS CASE STUDY

Massachusetts lawmakers have been aggressive in enacting policies they believe to combat climate change. Policymakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative intending to reduce the state’s GHG emissions. As a result you can see Massachusetts ranks all the other lower 48 states in the cost of electricity according to the EIA (176.6% of the average of the lower 48 states). Right up there with Massachusetts are all the other northeast RGGI states and not surprisingly California.  Connecticut is #1 now with 187.6%.

image
Enlarged

For Massachusetts this is before the introduction of the Transportation Climate Initiative or TCI, the next big over the cliff proposed effort to kill fossil fuels

The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research produced a very detailed report Transportation Climate Initiative: Its Economic Impacts on Massachusetts

They write “The Transportation and Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (TCI) describes itself as “a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia that seeks to improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.” Massachusetts is a participating state.

The founding document for the TCI is a “Declaration of Intent,” issued in 2010 and signed by transportation and environmental officials in 11 states. The declaration states that the purpose of the TCI is “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize our transportation system’s reliance on high-carbon fuels, promote sustainable growth, address the challenges of vehicle-miles traveled and help build the green energy economy.”

The Initiative is “facilitated” by the Georgetown Climate Center, which worked closely with the Obama administration in its to design and implement climate change (fossil fuel elimination) policies.

BHI examined three scenarios - plans for 20%, 22% and 25% reductions of CO2 emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles.

The midpoint TCI analysis for the period 2022-2026 for a 22% reduction of gasoline and diesel emissions would lead to a total loss of 36,533 jobs with increased energy cost per household of $3,037 in Massachusetts.

The Green New Deal presented the ideal radical left desires to change life as we know it.  It is more likely change will continue to be incremental. And these studies show, the actions are not supported by real data and honest science, and the pain will be significant.

--------

“If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else.” Yogi Berra

Sep 14, 2021
Solid Reasons To Push Back On The Dangerous Globalist Radical Environmental Plans

UPDATE: Before you read and trust any of the government, AMS, research center or environmental advocacy organization “state of the climate” nonsense see one that can be trusted by Professor Ole Humulm here.

See Buddy Menton’s Biden’s Presidency: The Dopes Have Taken Full Control.

Also Dr. Charles Battig in American Thinker on A Winning Trifecta for Climate Science and rationality here.

Also Bjorn Lomborg’s well resourced book False Alarm (How Climate Change Panic Cost Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.

We should note a 1 degree F change since 1979 is in the noise compared to a normal 30F range in an average day, seasonal variations of 50F from coldest to warmest month, and extremes in temperatures that range from coldest to warmest ever for all states except Hawaii that exceeds 100F with 31 states over 150F (as high as 187F in Montana).

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

See how as CO2 has increased the number of 90F days has declined.

image
Enlarged

-----------

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Government agencies, energy companies, auto and major corporations are increasing their support of decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives). This has proved to be a disaster where this unwise radical agenda has been imposed.

CO2 - NOT A POLLUTANT BUT THE GAS OF LIFE

CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost.

image
Enlarged

Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted recently “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”

Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity.says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.

Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.

It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to ‘climate change’. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop.  Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030.  Last summer, at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow has increased.

image
Enlarged

The greenhouse climate models used to predict the future have all failed miserably.

image
Enlarged

That is because they have used failed assumptions and models tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data.  Dr. Mototaka here exposes that:"The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”

See detailed peer reviewed studies on this here.

I have spent 50 years focusing on attribution science - starting with my Master’s thesis on what caused bomb east coast snowstorms in winter. I have spent the decades doing correlations of weather patterns and extremes with natural factors.  The last few years, I worked with a team of scientific experts evaluated today today’s 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all either unfounded and explainable by natural factors - see here.

Tony Heller has a kick butt video that exposed the fraud using a unique data tool that exposed their tricks and the real story.

Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 22 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records.  The 2010’s was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850. It was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (last spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record).

Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1800s.

Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s.  They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.

In the U.S., with low cost energy, low taxes and elimination of stifling regulations, we had the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we had the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The climate scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May 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. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our levels.

Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Politicians in the northeast states are bragging that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. In Concord, they are now scurrying to try and explain why electricity prices are 50 to 60% higher than the national average here and are speculating they have not moved fast enough with wind and solar.  Several states have even established zero carbon emissions. This will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase well over $10,000/year
(based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted or planned, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat. Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.

image
Enlarged

REALITY CHECKS LARGELY GETTING NO MEDIA ATTENTION

There are a few recent important reports that show what the impact of these plans are likely to be.  The radical environmentalists and globalists believe that people are stupid and can be counted on to believe what government leaders, progressive think tanks and the well paid scientific cabal say.  There are a few recent reports that show what the real impact of some of these plans now on the drawing board are likely to be and they are very scary.

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE’S GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE’S ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES 2020

Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.

Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.

Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon +)

Right now COVID-19 has taken up all the country’s (world’s) attention and coverage. After the country goes back to work and before the election we need to work hard to increase awareness of the fraud behind the scare and the extreme damage that could result from the ideologically driven policies. It is an uphill battle for those of us fighting it and one with little or no support.

Apr 12, 2021
Lessons In Woke “Science”: Covid-19 And Climate

Francis Menton

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:

image

Aug 18, 2020
Green California Has the Nation’s Worst Power Grid

By Steve Goreham

image

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Washington Examiner.

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability. 

At 6:30 pm on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 pm. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to two million customers until 11 pm.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency, the first Stage 3 emergency since 2001. Spot power electricity prices soared to over $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.

In 2018, 19 percent of California’s electricity came from roof-top and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 pm each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run the air conditioners during hot summer evenings.

California has the least reliable electrical power system in the US. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the state leads the US in power outages every year, with more than double the outages of any other state over the last decade.

image

The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups, which in order of importance are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.

For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.

In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional 3 converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal plant.

California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.

Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10 percent since 2013, with additional reductions planned.

Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 pm on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power when the wind subsided and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.

The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On September 10, 2018, then Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue erode grid reliability.

As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10 percent of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.

California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.

California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

Jan 24, 2020
Climate Alarmists = Chicken Little, Majority of real scientists not on the take are skeptical

By Frank Lassee

Climate alarmist are telling you a false story line

It’s really about spending huge sums of taxpayer money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control over our lives

Greenland’s name wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there

There is so much good news because of our gently warming world that you gotta wear shades - more food and less poverty

Be aware of the climate alarmist Trojan Horse

--------

On Tuesday evening, I appeared on the PBS program Chicago Tonight, with Alderman Matt Martin for a discussion about Chicago’s so-called “climate emergency.”

During the segment, we debated the merits of his resolution, “Declaring a Climate Emergency and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate.” As you may know, several cities throughout America have passed similar measures, which are more about virtue-signaling than pragmatic solutions.

In essence, these misguided resolutions are all about spending huge sums of money on a non-existent problem and vastly expanding government control to boot. Just think about a city saving the earth. Oh, the hubris! Coincidence? I think not. These resolutions - including the Green New Deal - are not intended to avoid a climate cataclysm. They are really about increasing the power of politicians, so they can exert maximum control over our lives while reaching even deeper into our wallets and purses.

It isn’t about the climate, because we are not, nor have been, on the brink of a climate apocalypse. The manufacturing of the “climate crisis” is a stealth maneuver to increase the size and scope of government under the guise of global warming - don’t ever forget it.

In reality, we are threatened more by the Climate Delusion than we are by a worldwide climate catastrophe. In fact, over the past 170 years, our world (thankfully) is warming at a very gentle rate. This is natural, as all planets tend to undergo periodic cycles of warming and cooling. I don’t think it is a coincidence that without the presence of mankind, Mars is also experiencing a gentle warming cycle.

This warming/cooling phenomenon has been occurring for millennia, well before humans discovered and put petroleum to use for our benefit. For instance, there once was a time when humans actually walked from Asia to North America - not because they could walk on water, but because ocean levels were much lower, exposing a land bridge between present-day Russia and Alaska. Believe it or not, our planet has experienced several cooling and warming periods.

Greenland is called Greenland because from 900 to 1300, humans could actually grow crops in the then-warmer soil and climate of Greenland - it wasn’t just a clever marketing ploy by the Icelandic Vikings to get suckers to move there. This Medieval Warm Period was preceded by the cold and dark Middle Ages. Which was preceded by the Roman Warm Period from 700 BC to the time of Christ.

The Romans wore togas and shorts for a reason, it was warm way back then. When it is warm, it is better for plants, animals, and people. CO2 is plant food, worldwide crop harvests are up, up, up. Fortunately, we are in the midst of a natural warm and wet period, which is a good thing. In fact, more people die from exposure to cold than heat every year. I could go on and on, with mountains of facts, but I digress.

I know you are fed a steady diet of lies by the radical, legacy media. Unfortunately, like Alderman Martin, they are telling you a false story line. Taking this into account, I understand if you are skeptical in regards to The Heartland Institute’s perspective of climate realism. We at Heartland have done a deep dive into this topic and offer you a truthful, fact-based, realist perspective.

Martin’s resolution claims “WHEREAS, the death and destruction already wrought by current average global warming of 1 degree C [this is America for goodness sake, why isn’t this expressed in Fahrenheit?] demonstrates that the Earth is already too hot for safety and justice, [whatever that means] as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods and rising seas, diseases, droughts and extreme weather.”

This alarmist rhetoric is quite alarming, and should immediately trigger your skeptical side. This type of doom and gloom propaganda is precisely why I call those who have joined the climate change movement (to some it has become a religion) climate alarmists, aka the green extreme. This is a classic case of the Chicken Little folk tale in action. Even worse, it is a world-wide false alarm, the sky is not falling and it isn’t burning up either.

At present, the world is experiencing less hurricanes that are less severe than in the past.

There are also less tornadoes in the United State than in many times in the past.

Australia, the desert continent, is getting wetter.

NOAA temperature data points to no heat increase in the U.S. over the past two (actually even 9) decades.

The oceans have risen 4 inches a century for the past 170 years, and are holding steady.

I have witnessed Lake Michigan at very high and very low levels. In my life, global warming and now climate change were blamed for both the highs and the lows. Wow, you can’t make this stuff up.

For decades, climate alarmists, like children (and Chicken Little) have simply made stuff up. And their highly unqualified predictions have been proven false time and time again. Over and over, they parrot the same dire projections and yet they carry on as if nothing has happened as these predictions fail to materialize, again and again and again.

Here is a primer on their poor predictions. Polar bears are going to die! There are more than ever. We will all be dead in a few years! We are not. Everyone will starve! Meanwhile, more people are well-fed and global poverty is at its lowest rate ever!

Being from Wisconsin, I ask: why would Wisconsinites not welcome a North Carolina-like climate? Why would people who live in northern Alberta, Canada not welcome Wisconsin-esque weather? Land values are up in northern Alberta, because the land is able to be used for more productive purposes. Put another way, humans can grow more crops when it is warm. There is so much good news because of our gently warming world - not in spite of it. We are being fed a steady diet of lies by the prophets of doom for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends; not for the benefit of ordinary, hard-working Americans - like you.

Be aware!

Sincerely,
Frank Lassee

---------

Surveys show the public largely does not prioritize climate change policies.

image
Enlarged

--------

Also see A CLIMATE AND ENERGY PRIMER FOR POLITICIANS AND MEDIA by contributing author Allan MacRae and has helped make Alberta the shining star of Canadian energy over the decades. There too the politicians and media and the public have been programmed by false claims and green energy frauds and are willing to toss the low cost clean fossil fuel energy legacy out and replace it with unreliable and expensive green energy. Greens expect population to adapt its consumption to the available supply and simply come to accept rationing and power interruptions, of the sort that are unfortunately still common in underdeveloped countries. They insist that is the necessary price for averting the phoney climate apocalypse.

--------------

Peer-reviewed study reveals majority of scientists are skeptical of ‘global warming crisis’

By Thomas Lifson in American Thinker

Without the claimed “scientific consensus” on global warming or climate change, the Green New Deal becomes just another progressive con game, but with the highest stakes ever.

Writing in Forbes, James Taylor shows that the supposed 97% “scientific consensus” on global warming is false:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.  Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.  By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.  Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model.  The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.’

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The genesis of the 97% figure was always questionable, but now, with an actual peer-reviewed study, it is time for the junk heap.

Shhhh!  Nobody tell Ocasio-Cortez:

Trump: When I’m on the debate stage with one of these maniacs, I mean, how do you get to Europe?  We haven’t figured that one out, we don’t use airplanes anymore.  You saw what I’m doing in California, right, they have a fast track, the fast train goes from San Francisco to Los Angeles.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The genesis of the 97% figure was always questionable, but now, with an actual peer-reviewed study, it is time for the junk heap.

Sep 26, 2021
Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth

Claim: 23 Million Year Old Fossilized Leaves Offer Proof of CO2 to Greening the Planet link
Anthony Watts

From the we told you so department.

image
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS

The links between rising carbon dioxide levels, and greening trends have been supposedly confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.

Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in atmospheric CO2 during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between CO2 and greening in the fossil record.

This is something NASA satellites have already observed in the modern-day era. Recent satellite surveys suggest rising CO2 levels are responsible for greening patterns across the planet, including Arctic and drylands ecosystems.

The latest research suggests that greening trends are likely to continue as CO2 levels approach those recorded during ancient period of warming.

According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions. In addition, previous studies suggest increases in rates of photosynthesis can prevent staple crops from absorbing calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health.

By comparing the fossilized leaf structures, including microscopic veins, stomata and pores, to those of modern leaves, researchers designed a model to more accurately predict CO2 levels.

“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study co-author William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. “This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”

Well, it may :"all fit together’ but the plants sure seem happy as of late.

------------
NASA: Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth
By Brooks Hays

image
A map of the world visualizes the change in leaf area, or greening, over the past 30 years. Photo by Boston University/R. Myneni
Enlarge Photo

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI)—New research confirms rising CO2 levels are driving the “greening” Earth effect observed by satellites.

Greening is evidence of accelerated plant growth and heightened rates of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a main source of fuel for plants—and thus, all life on Earth—and previous studies show a rise in CO2 results in plant growth.

But other sources of nutrients and external factors can accelerate photosynthesis and greening, including changes in nitrogen levels, land usage, temperature and weather.

An international team of researchers isolated each of these factors and ran them through a series of computer models. The results suggest rising CO2 levels best explain the increase in leaf cover, or greening, measured by NASA and NOAA satellites.

Mar 31, 2021
It takes big energy to back up little wind and solar

Depending on weather-dependent energy for jobs and living standards takes money, resources

David Wojick

Power system design can be extremely complex, but one simple number is painfully obvious. At least it’s painful (and terribly inconvenient) to advocates of wind and solar power - which may be why we never hear about it, why it too often gets deliberately hidden from view. It is a big, bad number.

To my knowledge, this big number has no name, but it should. Let’s call it the “minimum backup requirement” for wind and solar, or MBR. The minimum backup requirement is how much generating capacity a system must have if it is to reliably produce the electricity we need when wind and solar don’t.

For most places, the magnitude of MBR is very simple. It is all the juice needed on the hottest or coldest low wind nights. It is night, so there is no solar. Sustained wind is less than eight miles per hour, so there is no wind power. It is very hot or very cold, so the need for power is very high.

In many places, MBR will be close to the maximum power the system ever needs, because heat waves and cold spells are often low wind events, as well. Both heat and cold are often caused by large high pressure systems that have very little wind in them.

During heat waves, it may be a bit hotter during the day but not that much. During cold spells, it is often coldest at night, when people need power the most, so they don’t freeze to death in the dark. Think Texas.

Thus what is called “peak demand” is a good approximation for the maximum backup requirement. In other words, there has to be enough reliable generating capacity to provide all the maximum power the system will ever need. For any public power system, that is a very big number; as big as it gets, in fact.

Actually, it’s even a bit bigger, because there also has to be margin of safety, or what is called “reserve capacity.” This is to account for something not working as and when it should. Fifteen percent is a typical reserve in American systems. This makes MBR something like 115% of peak demand.

We’re often told wind and solar are cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear power. But that does not include the MBR for wind and solar. What is relatively cheap for wind and solar is the cost to produce a unit of electricity under optimal conditions. This is often called LCOE or the “levelized cost of energy.”

What we really need to be talking about has to reflect the need to add reliable backup energy to give people the power they need, when they need it. This total cost makes wind and solar very expensive.

In short, the true cost of wind and solar is LCOE + MBR. This is the huge cost you never hear about. But if every state goes to wind and solar, then each one will need to have MBR for roughly its entire peak demand. That is an enormous amount of generating capacity.

It means more than doubling the normally needed generating capacity… the raw materials to build that dual capacity ...and the real costs of having insufficient, widely dispersed, land-intensive, weather dependent, unreliable wind and solar, plus that minimum backup requirement. Simply put, it takes big energy to back up what is often too little wind and solar power.

Of course, the cost of MBR depends on the generating technology. Battery storage is out, because the cost is astronomical for the billions of half-ton battery modules that would be needed to store enough power for a city, state, region or country during multiple days of low wind and low sun.

Gas fired generation might be best, but it is fossil fueled, as is coal. If one insists on zero fossil fuel, then nuclear is probably the only option. Operating nuclear plants as intermittent backup is stupid and expensive, but so is no fossil fuel generation - or no electricity generation. And getting new nuclear plants built almost anywhere on Planet Earth is all but impossible in today’s political climate.

What is clearly ruled out is 100% renewables, because there would frequently be no electricity at all. That is unless geothermal could be made to work on an enormous scale, which would take many decades to develop. (And many of the best traditional geothermal sites are in or near national parks, and other scenic or natural areas, like Yellowstone, making environmentalist opposition a foregone conclusion.)

It is clear that the Biden Administration’s goal of zero fossil fuel electricity by 2035 (without nuclear) is economically impossible because of the minimum backup requirements for wind and solar. You can’t get there from here.

We shouldn’t have to wonder why we almost never hear about this obviously enormous cost for wind and solar. Bringing it into the open would seriously undermine the case for “affordable, clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy. So the utility companies I’ve looked at avoid it with a clever trick.

Dominion Energy, which supplies most of Virginia’s juice, is a good example. The Virginia Legislature passed a law (the 2020 Virginia Clean Energy Act) saying Dominion’s power generation had to be zero fossil-fueled by 2045. Dominion developed a Plan explaining how they would supposedly do this.

Tucked away in passing on page 119, the company says it will expand its capacity for importing power purchased from other utilities. This increase happens to be to an amount equal to their peak demand.

The plan is to buy all the MBR juice from the neighbors! But if everyone is going wind and solar, no one will have juice to sell. In fact they will all be trying to buy power - which cannot possibly work.

Don’t forget, the high pressure systems that cause low wind can be huge, covering a dozen or more states. They can last for days. For that matter, no one has that kind of excess generating capacity today, when we still have abundant coal, gas and nuclear power for primary electricity generation and backup.

Most utilities are barely covering their own needs as it is. Once every utility, in every state, is required to go 100% zero fossil fuel, it will be a guaranteed debacle, over and over.

Big cities like New York won’t be able to buy their way out of repeated blackouts.

To summarize, for every utility there will be times when there is zero wind and solar power, combined with near peak demand. Meeting this huge need is the minimum backup requirement. The huge cost of meeting this requirement is part of the cost of wind and solar power - the part nobody wants to talk about, especially politicians, environmentalists and utilities. MBR makes wind and solar extremely expensive.

The simple question to ask the Biden Administration, the states and their power utilities is this: How will you provide power on hot or cold low-wind nights?

When you ask that question, stay by the microphone, so that you can demand more than the doubletalk, phony assurances and outright lies you will assuredly get when they first respond to this vitally important, inconvenient, anti-woke question.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

Mar 15, 2021
The social costs of carbon fiasco

Paul Driessen

Prelude: see this video from Princeton’s William Happer

The social costs of carbon cancelation

Banning carbon-based fuels will impose enormous costs that Team Biden deliberately ignores

Paul Driessen

Fearing that incessant warnings about man-made climate cataclysms would not be enough to end US fossil fuel use, the Obama-Biden Administration instructed a special Interagency Working Group to concoct a “social cost of carbon” concept. The SCC would “scientifically” calibrate the dollar value of damages that a ton of carbon dioxide emitted today in America would inflict on the USA and world in the future.

The price tag was set at $22/ton in 2010, raised to $36/ton in 2013, and just as arbitrarily increased to $40, before finishing the Obama era at $51/ton. President Trump disbanded the IWG and had the SCC slashed to less than $10/ton. Within hours of taking office, President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022.

This “updated” version will reflect “recent developments in the science and economics” of climate change, including the costs of other greenhouse gases, the White House said. It will also factor in US commitments under the Paris climate treaty, and especially “considerations of environmental justice and intergenerational equity.” Climate “scientists,” economists, “ethics experts” and “diverse stakeholders” will all participate in the process, which many expect will devise a final SCC of $100 or even $200/ton.

The IWG methodology for developing SCC estimates is so infinitely flexible, so devoid of any rigorous standards, that it could produce almost any estimates that Biden and his climate czars feel is needed. Adding “justice” and “equity” to the mix makes it doubly malleable, doubly prone to abuse by an administration and Democrat Party that are obsessed with “manmade climate change” (even Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Defense appointees must be committed to ending the “climate crisis") and are determined to make America “carbon neutral” by 2050.

Social cost of carbon is intended to advance that agenda and a 981-page “CLEAN Future” bill requiring that electricity generators provide 80% carbon-free energy by 2030 and 100% “clean” power by 2035.

Right now, over 80% of all US and global energy come from fossil fuels - and China, India and other countries are building thousands of new coal-fired power plants, on top of the thousands they already have. So even total cancelation of fossil fuel use and CO2/greenhouse gas emissions by the United States would be imperceptible and irrelevant amid the world’s enormous and increasing levels of both.

Social cost of carbon is a key tactic in a war on reliable, affordable American energy; on jobs, human welfare and human rights; and on US and global lands, wildlife and environmental quality. It will be used to justify raising carbon taxes and prices to at least $160 per ton of CO2 and imposing Covid-on-steroids lockdowns every two years, supposedly to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees C from pre-industrial/post Little Ice Age levels, which alarmists claim would be catastrophic.

The SCC enables agencies and their allies to attach any price they wish to every conceivable cost of using fossil fuels: hotter and colder, wetter and drier climate and weather; more frequent and intense hurricanes; reduced agricultural output; forest health and wildfires; floods, droughts and water resources; “forced migration” of people and wildlife; worsening health and disease; flooded coastal cities; even “reduced student learning and worker productivity,” due to warmer planetary temperatures.

The SCC also lets practitioners completely ignore the obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels, and emitting carbon dioxide - such as enhanced productivity via affordable air conditioning in summer and heating in winter; improved forest, grassland and crop growth (and greening deserts) due to more CO2 in the air; greater home and human survival rates amid extreme weather events; and having the jobs, mobility, living standards, healthcare and longevity of modern industrialized life.

In fact, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh costs by 50:1, 400:1 or even 500:1! Will Team Biden and others in the anti-hydrocarbon movement acknowledge any of this?

Unless compelled to do so by our courts, the odds are probably 500:1 against it. They won’t even admit that the sun and other natural forces still play dominant roles in climate and weather, as they have throughout history. In their minds, every SCC cost is directly and solely due to fossil fuels. (For a reality check, read Indur Goklany, Patrick Moore, Gregory Wrightstone, Marc Morano and Jennifer Marohasy.)

In fact, eliminating carbon-based energy and carbon dioxide emissions will impose far greater human and ecological costs. It is fossil fuel replacements that will inflict incalculable damage to people and planet.

Replacing coal, oil, natural gas and internal combustion vehicles would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, millions of acres of biofuel plantations, a complete overhaul of electrical grids and infrastructures, on millions of acres. That will require billions of tons of steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, plastics and other materials - which will require digging up and processing hundreds of billions of tons of ores and minerals.

Under Team Biden, Democrats and Big Green, little of this will take place in the US, under our rigorous laws and regulations. It will be done overseas, in China, Mongolia, Africa, Bolivia - often with slave and child labor, and with few or no workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic substances, endangered species or other rules. Don’t their health, human rights and environmental quality mean anything?

The technologies may be clean and emission-free in the USA - but won’t be in any of these countries.

Even manufacturing the turbines, panels, batteries and other technologies will be done overseas - again with few or no pollution, health, safety or fair wage rules - because expensive, unreliable, weather-dependent, blackout-prone electricity will send America’s manufacturing and other basic industries into oblivion, along with millions of good jobs. Minority and blue-collar families will be hammered hardest.

The proliferation of “clean, climate-friendly” wind and solar energy will pummel wildlife and habitats. Wind turbines already slaughter a million birds and bats annually in the USA - far in excess of what Big Wind admits to - and that’s from a “measly” 60,000 turbines. The same thing is happening in Europe.

With the best wind sites being along migratory bird flyways, raptor hunting grounds, bat habitats, and Great Lake and sea coasts, the slaughter will get worse with every passing year. I just put new bluebird, hummingbird and wood duck nest houses around my home and neighborhood. It is terribly depressing that such efforts in suburban areas will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of death in our wildlife kingdoms. As forests, grasslands and deserts get torn up for turbines and blanketed by solar panels and biofuel crops, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and wild plants will also disappear.

Team Biden, Democrats, Big Green and Big Media will loudly deny these realities. They will insist that any wildlife losses are “inadvertent.” As though the wildlife are less dead because it was inadvertent; as though negligible inadvertent deaths from fossil fuel extraction and pipelines were bad, but these are OK.

Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries have short life spans - and are difficult or impossible to recycle. Where will we bury millions of 300-foot-long fiberglass-composite turbine blades? billions of solar panels? Will we just keep sending solar panels overseas, where parents and children burn them in open fires to recover the metals- breathing toxic fumes all day long?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of adverse impacts from SCC/Green New Deal policies. Any honest, accurate, complete social cost of carbon analysis would require that every one of them be fully accounted for, before we make any decisions on fossil fuels. Will oddsmakers even take bets on that happening? 

Will courts step up to the plate? Will state attorneys general? Will Republicans become better informed about our energy lifeblood, better organized, less focused on less critical issues - and more willing to mount passionate, principled opposition to this irresponsible insanity?

Or will Democrats just ram this through, because they can, because they control the House, Senate, White House and Deep State Executive Branch - perhaps with bare 1-10 majorities, but arrogant totalitarian control nonetheless?

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

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.

See the quotes here.

---------

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’wink. 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.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

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.

image

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

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

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,

image

“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.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

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.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“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.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

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 latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

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)