Precision Forecasts image image
Dec 03, 2021
Cold in the News

New South Pole Winter Cold Record

The average temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station between April and September, a frigid minus 78 degrees (minus 61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average at this remote station, which is operated by United States Antarctic Program and administered by the National Science Foundation. The chill was exceptional, even for the coldest location on the planet.

image
Enlarged

Several ships trapped in ice after Arctic sea freezes early near Russia

An early and unexpected freeze has trapped at least 18 cargo ships in the Arctic Sea off the coast of Russia. Ice up to 30cm thick has formed across most of the Laptev Sea and East Siberian seas, according to the Barents Sea Observer, a Norwegian news site.

That comes after Dr Paul Tepes, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, said: “… As has been observed elsewhere in the world, ice loss in the region is accelerating. As the climate continues to warm, significant ice loss in the Russian Arctic will have clear impacts for sea level rise.”

It was a very cold November 2021 in Alaska:
image
Enlarged

And now there is a blizzard warning in Hawaii for winds exceeding 100 mph.

Heavy Snows are falling in Europe.

image
Enlarged

This is just as it did last winter and spring.  Here is how they spun it by attacking ‘deniers’ here. It is concerning because it is happening again as they are removing nuclear plants.

We often hear about the dangers of heat. But research shows cold is far more deadly than heat (10x more in Brazil, 20X more in South Africa. The authors estimate in 2019, “the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available.” Cold effects were most pronounced in China and in New Zealand.

Meanwhile, the UAH Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2021 was +0.08 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2021 value of +0.37 deg. C. This is consistent with the La Nina rebound.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Nov 17, 2021
Claims including warmest month or year are in reality politically driven fictions

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Virtually every month and year we see stories in the once reliable media and from formerly unbiased data centers that proclaim the warmest such period in the entire record back to 1895 or earlier (often 1850).

In the ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modeling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming. That is made even more true given that 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean and the only ocean data prior to the satellite era began in the 1970s was limited to ship routes mainly near land in the northern hemisphere.”

According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from Antarctica to the equatorial regions.

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented."(Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511(link))

In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. “Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route.”

image
Enlarged

This finding was amplified recently by MIT graduate Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in a book on “the sorry state of climate science” titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

He wrote: “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.”

image
Enlarged

See how few land stations were in the databases in the early decades of the data window.

image
Enlarged

The National Academy of Science recognized this in their first attempt at determining a trend in temperature in the 1970s, which they limited to the Northern Hemisphere land areas. It showed a dramatic warming from the 1800s to around 1940 then a reversal ending in a matching cooling by the late 1970s when even the CIA wrote that the consensus of scientists we might be heading towards a dangerous new ice age.

image
Enlarged

The first real-time temperature trend tracking was in 1989 - and was the US only as the US had the best surface station network and urban contamination was accounted for.

image
Enlarged

Tom Karl whose paper in 1988 defined the UHI adjustment for the first version of USHCN (which was removed in version 2) wrote with Kukla and Gavin in a 1986 paper on Urban Warming: “MeteoSecular trends of surface air temperature computed predominantly from urban station data are likely to have a serious warm bias… The average difference between trends, urban siting vs. rural, amounts to an annual warming rate of 0.34C/decade. The reason why the warming rate is considerably higher may be that the rate may have increased after the 1950s, commensurate with the large recent growth in and around airports. Our results and those of others show that the urban growth inhomogeneity is serious and must be taken into account when assessing the reliability of temperature records.”

The NY Times reported the US Data failed to show warming trend predicted by Hansen in 1980.

image
Enlarged

Even in 1999, the temperature still trailed 1934 - James Hansen noted “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934.”

When the data centers were pressured to do the same with global data they faced a dilemma as station coverage was poor and station quality was unknown. The result without station quality control was a warming post 1980.

image
Enlarged

Even as the stations incorporated increased in number and coverage, their reliability became a challenge, with many large continents having a large percentage of missing months in the station data. That required the data centers to guess the missing data to get a monthly and then annual average.

image
Enlarged

You may be surprised to see that continues today. This required guesswork allows those whose job is to validate their models the opportunity to make adjustments in ways to confirm their biases. See the initial data regions in September 2018 that were filled in by algorithms. It includes in a large data void region a record warmth assessment (Heller 2018).

image
Enlarged

In our assessments, we found that each update cooled past years more and more which serves to make over time the trends more consistent with their model scenarios.

Here is the NASA GISS adaption of the NOAA GHCN data. Each update cools the past to make the trend upward more significant.

image
Enlarged

Even in areas with better data, station data was adjusted (corrupted) by the analysts to turn a cooling trend into the desired warming. We picked just three of many examples - one in Australia, the second in Iceland and the plot for the state of Maine.

For Australia, many examples have been uncovered including Darwin and here Amberley. Blue was the original data plot, red is the one after adjustment in Australia.

image
Enlarged

The NASA GISS plots for the Iceland raw and the adjusted data shows a cycle replaced by a linear warming ramp. The adjusted data was refuted by the Icelandic met department.

image
Enlarged

A new version of the US data appeared by 2010 and showed similar adjustments.

NOAAs Maine temperature trend was accessed in 2011 and again after 2013. The first showed no statistically significant trend from 1895 (-0.01F/decade) with the warmest year 1913. The second had a trend of +0.23F/decade with 1913 adjusted down almost 5F.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

See the Climate Reference Network (stations sited by spec away from heat sources) plot of Monthly Average US temperatures since inception in 2005.

image
Enlarged

And the average monthly maximum temperatures for the US climate divisions.

image
Enlarged

Climategate emails exposed the true state of the data bases used to drive global policy decisions. Their own developers and their chief scientist were exposed and forced to acknowledge the data flaws.  Ian ‘Harry’ Harris, the lead CRU climate data programmer and analyst in the ‘Climategate’ emails admitted to “[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) data base. No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found… There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations...and duplicates… Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!” http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

The CRU scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal at East Anglia University, Phil Jones after he thought the jig was up, made a candid admission on BBC that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years and it has cooled 0.12C/decade trend from 2002-2009.  Jones specifically disavowed the “science-is-settled” slogan.

Attempting to compile a ‘global mean temperature’ from such fragmentary, disorganized, error-ridden, geographically unbalanced ever-changing data with strong evidence of manipulation is more politically driven fraud than science. 

As for the claims of increasing extremes - see a revealing fact check here.

The data supports the findings of the research mentioned above:

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.”

Support Icecap efforts to combat scientific fraud and environmental fanaticism with even a small donation via a secure access to Paypal - The safer, easier way to help online!

Nov 15, 2021
When the Costs Hit Home, Nobody will Give Up Fossil Fuels; Be Thankful That COP26 Has Ended

Francis Menton

When The Costs Hit Home, Nobody will Give Up Fossil Fuels - November 19, 2021

As noted in my post this past Sunday, no amount of fake happy talk in the so-called “Glasgow Climate Pact” can obscure the obvious fact that nobody agreed to anything.  To read the text of the “pact,” everybody claims to think that this whole “decarbonization” thing to “save the planet” is real.  We’re all going to do something really, really significant, but it will be next year, or maybe the year after that.  And meanwhile, nobody has made any remotely serious effort to cost this thing out.  Are we talking about a ten percent increase in the cost of energy for this decarbonization project, or will it be a doubling, or maybe a tripling - or maybe even a multiplication by ten?

With tens of trillions of dollars at stake in the world economy, let alone the majority of humanity at risk of energy poverty, you would think that we would be far down the road toward detailed engineering studies of what the decarbonized energy world will look like and exactly how much it will cost.  But it is exactly the opposite.  Everywhere - or at least everywhere in the Western countries - government functionaries with degrees in English or Political Science (or maybe Gender Studies) issue edicts that carbon emissions will be reduced “50% by 2030” or “90% by 2050,” without any knowledge or understanding of how that may be accomplished.

So, as the costs of attempting to “transition” away from fossil fuels start to hit home, will anybody actually go through with the project?  I think that the chance of that is about zero.  China and India show how it works.  To judge by their actions (rather than their words), they have long since figured out that solar and wind energy can’t succeed in running a modern economy, so they mouth empty platitudes to placate the Western zealots, make unenforceable promises that only come due after everyone is dead, and forge ahead with massive development of coal power.  And even more telling are recent developments in Western jurisdictions.  When the first hint arrives that fossil fuel restrictions are going to impose cost increases large enough for meaningful numbers of voters to notice, even the bluest of blue U.S. states take about three minutes to abandon their “decarbonization” promises.
.....

...perhaps most notable is what has happened in recent days in some of the bluest of blue U.S. jurisdictions.  In 2010, some twelve Northeast states, plus the District of Columbia, entered into a kind of agreement to agree to form something called the “Transportation and Climate Initiative.” The language of the official document was all about “reducing greenhouse gas emissions”; but in practice this was from the get-go intended as a cap-and-trade scheme, which would use a restricted and decreasing supply of permits to gradually force up the price of transportation fuels (mostly gasoline), and thereby force the people to use less of them.  The signatories to the initial document included all of the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. 

The Boston Herald has a piece yesterday (November 18) summarizing the TCI program and its current status.  First, as to the intent of the program and how it would work:

TCI would have capped carbon emissions by forcing fuel companies that exceeded limits to buy additional permits and invest those proceeds into green transportation and climate-resilient infrastructure. It aimed to reduce vehicle emissions by 26% by 2032.

Well, gasoline prices are now up about 50% since President Biden took office in January 2021.  Perhaps you might think that the TCI states would be unable to contain their excitement, and would be plowing ahead to raise prices still further and force a rapid decline in consumption.  But actually the opposite is occurring.  First of all, only a handful out of the twelve original states plus DC moved forward to join the compact:

Initially, 12 states plus the District of Columbia were in talks to enter the agreement, but just Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and D.C. eventually signed a memorandum of understanding by December 2020. 

And now, with gas prices rapidly rising, what politician wants to be seen as forcing them up still higher?  So even the few deep-blue states that had joined TCI are now heading for the exits.  The Herald reports that Connecticut pulled out of the compact on Tuesday (November 16); and yesterday (November 18) Massachusetts followed:

Gov. Charlie Baker has pulled the plug on a regional climate initiative that would have capped tailpipe emissions and was projected to hike gas prices at a time of record inflation, admitting the multi state-deal is “no longer the best solution.” He backs out of the Transportation and Climate Initiative just days after Connecticut did.

A Massachusetts group called Mass Fiscal Alliance calls it correctly:

“TCI is a regressive gas tax scheme that would have hurt (the) middle class and the working poor the most. It’s such wonderful news to see that Massachusetts families will not be forced to endure the economic hardship TCI would have imposed upon them,” said [Mass Fiscal Alliance] spokesperson, Paul Diego Craney.

Meanwhile, New York moves ahead with its ignorant bureaucrats issuing edicts for the end to fossil fuels a few years out.  At this point the voters remain almost entirely unaware of what is coming.  But when the costs start to hit home, will we actually stay the course?  No, we won’t.  It will be fun watching the process unfold.

--------

November 14, 2021

If you have been following the news at all for the past several weeks, you know that the latest gigantic UN “climate” conference, going by the name COP (Conference of Parties) 26, has been taking place in Glasgow, Scotland.  Mercifully, it ended yesterday, Saturday, November 13.  All of those hundreds of private jets have now flown home. 

Every time one of these UN confabs takes place, you have to hold your breath fearing that some tremendously damaging result will emerge.  But, reviewing the final outcome of this latest conference, my comment is that we climate realists have gotten about the best result we could have hoped for.  If you read some mainstream news sources, you may well get exactly the opposite impression.  So let me give my reasoning.

At this point, there are basically two paths that the world might take in the movement toward so-called “decarbonization” of the energy system:

Path 1 is the path of strict world socialism.  Of course, this is the preferred path of climate activists and UN bureaucrats.  In this scenario, the entire world is forced, through binding international agreements, into an energy straight jacket, mandating reduction and then elimination of the use of fossil fuels within two or three decades at most. 

Path 2 is what happens when there are no compacts with material binding worldwide energy restrictions.  On this path, everybody talks a good game about decarbonization but, lacking meaningful binding agreements, most of the countries, with most of the population, continue to pursue whatever energy system is most reliable and cost effective.  In practice that almost inevitably means fossil fuels for most to all applications.  Meanwhile, a small number of wealthy, small-population jurisdictions that somehow become obsessed with the perceived virtue of eliminating fossil fuels - likely examples being Germany, California, New York, the UK, and perhaps South Australia (aggregating about 2-3% of world population) - will push the limits of decarbonization and intermittent renewable energy sources.  They will then be the guinea pigs for the rest of the world to find out whether a decarbonized energy system can be made to work, and at what cost.

The end of the COP26 conference has shown that we are not on Path 1, and are unlikely to go there.

The key difference between the two scenarios is what happens in the nearly inevitable circumstance where the new “decarbonized” energy system fails to work cost-effectively or reliably, leading to enormously increased prices, shortages, and/or frequent blackouts.  On Path 1, when that happens, the world’s people get forced into universal energy poverty with no obvious way to escape, and the bureaucrats and left wing press undoubtedly find some way to blame oil companies or some other capitalist bogeymen for the disaster.  On Path 2, the 97-98% of the world that has not committed energy suicide can sit back and observe while the guinea pigs self-destruct.  Eventually, the people in the guinea pig jurisdictions will catch on that they are being forced to pay a multiple of a reasonable price, and for energy that does not work very well, and they will replace their politicians. 

How long will it take for these suckers to catch on?  It could take a long time.  Note that California and Germany, with self-inflicted energy prices well above those of surrounding jurisdictions, continue to double down and vote for more of same.  But then, they are very wealthy jurisdictions, and it is their own problem.

And by the way, if the guinea pigs succeed in decarbonizing at little to no cost in either money or reliability, I will be the first to congratulate them.  But they won’t succeed.

So let’s take a look at the outcome of COP26, and consider where this is going. See MORE here.

Nov 22, 2021
Two decades on the battlefield - more important now than ever

Joseph S. D’Aleo, Jr., CCM, AMS Fellow

My whole career has focused on weather and climate attribution - my Master’s thesis was on the role of diabatic heating in explosive development (bombogenesis) in east coast storms. I taught my students how to think not what to think. We focused on the natural factors that causes the patterns, changes and extremes we see. 200 young men and women went on to make a significant contribution to weather forecasting, broadcasting and other related careers. Over 20 worked with me at The Weather Channel.

Decades later, after giving major addresses at AMS broadcast conferences (and chairing one), at NWS/BHO meetings, I was made chair of the AMS Weather Analysis and Forecasting committee and the first private sector meteorologist chosen by their peers to be on the AMS council. In my first council meeting in Boston, in the cocktail hour, I was attacked in a conversation stopping shouting match by a biologist Paul Higgins, now Director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program for not bowing down to ‘the accepted science’.

On the committee where I hoped push ideas to increase the value of the society to meteorologists but had instead to push back on the AMS increasingly one-sided position on climate change and top 4 goal of climate policy advocacy. Early on, we discussed a statement on Climate change which was written in part by Lawrence Livermore Lab that ignored natural factors. The AMS posted the statements on the back pages of AMS site for feedback and usually got by with little blowback. I brought attention to it and encouraged comments back in the community and submitted my own 44 page comment challenging it point by point. Despite this, no changes were made though they went forced to go through the motions much as the IPCC did for the Summary for Policymakers which wrote the summary before the scientist combined their findings and conclusions - dismissing any scientist challenges base on their favorite paper, predominance of papers or the latest paper.

My challenges pushed me to establish Icecap which we launched with a booth at the AMS Annual meeting. Kevin Trenbeth pointed me out to the late Pete Leavitt (well known meteorologist and closet skeptic and a good friend) who was leaving our booth and complained “do you believe the AMS voted in a skeptic on the council - how do we let that happen?”

When Lou Dobbs had a show on CNN, I was asked to answer 7 questions on climate on videotape. A cameraman and crew came to my home and asked the questions to which I responded in crisp sound bites with pertinent facts. The producer on their end was not pleased and as my mic was being removed told them to put it back on and asked me a question that made no sense. My answer was less crisp and the producer ensured that is what was used. The morning and daytime meteorologists on CNN played my other questions and answers the next morning and it appears some actually lost their jobs as management were angered.

I gave a talk at the St. Johnsbury Museum in Vermont with a large crowd including some coming to challenge a doubter. I actually turned the crowd around and some became skeptics and one even started a skeptic organization in Vermont. There were attacks on me in the media claiming I must be dirty with coal.

Years later a women’s group in the area wanted a lively debate at that Museum but I was not available and I asked two of my colleagues to attend but their warmist choice refused to come if skeptics were to be included. The museum gave way and they had a lively one sided debate.

I was invited similarly to debate by Vermont Public Radio, but again their warmist choice, a cloud physicist who considered himself state climatologist and bragged about the tens of millions of dollars he has made from grants after coming to the US, refused to participate if I was included and my invite was withdrawn. I listened to the show and his presentation was full of attacks on Fred Singer and others claiming bad science and questionable funding.

I was always very impressed by the state climatologists and many became friends - over 75% were skeptics. I watched as the universities who appoint the scientist to that role, removed 50% of them and in many cases, where they could removing them from their role at the universities or limiting what they can teach. I could detail many examples. I also have stories that would curl your hair about how honest scientists were treated for daring to voice a different science data based opinion.

20 Climate Alarmists, most sitting on tens of millions of dollars in funding threatened to use RICO against skeptics who they claimed were doing so because they are getting major funding from big oil. Fortunately they were beaten in court.

I used to do stories in the local weekly here in southern NH. I got many thumbs up but an occasional complaint about why anyone would doubt the science and politicians. A few years ago, a hard hitting story got a nasty editorial from a California transplant claiming I was lying because it was well known I was enriched by big oil. I responded back strongly, and got a second supportive editorial from a former student who lived in the area. But he came back again with more false claims, but before I could respond back, the newspaper shut down. Cancel culture in action.

Please help us fight back. The site has 9000 posts and 162 million page views and the search capability that finds past information on most any climate topic. For the posts, I am most of the time now a one man band. The site requires a secure hosting which costs almost $500/year. A donation (secure PAYPAL button on the left column or here) would help me keep it going. Thanks.

Nov 13, 2021
At COP 26, Scant Mention Of Those Dying From Extreme Energy Poverty

By Robert Bryce
Forbes Energy

About 115 people were burned alive after a fuel tanker caught fire in Sierra Leone.

The defining inequality in the world today is the staggering disparity between the energy rich and the energy poor. That disparity came into gruesome focus yet again last week in Sierra Leone.

On November 5, while several thousand policymakers, researchers, and climate activists at the COP 26 meeting in Glasgow were trying to forge agreements on how to slash consumption of hydrocarbons, about 115 people were burned alive while trying to collect gasoline from a damaged fuel tanker truck near Sierra Leone’s capital city of Freetown.

According to the Washington Post, “People had crowded around the crash to collect leaking fuel when the tanker blew up, witnesses said. Anything spilled was viewed as wasteful in a community where many struggled to afford gas.” One witness described the scene, “dead bodies all around...There are people screaming, people burning alive.”

One witness said, “The firefighters came, but there was nothing they could do...The blaze was so much. There was nothing they could do to contain the inferno.”

Accidents like the one in Freetown are chillingly common. Since 2019, more than 400 people have died in accidents similar to the one in Freetown. The circumstances are almost always the same: a fuel tanker truck gets involved in an accident. Large crowds of desperate people assemble, excited about the prospect of free fuel. Then, due to an errant spark or a careless cigarette, the fuel is ignited and dozens of people are immolated.

These deaths - all of them - are deaths of extreme energy poverty. While energy elites insist we need to drastically reduce our use of coal, oil and natural gas, hundreds of millions of people are living in grinding energy poverty and they will do whatever they have to do to get the energy they need.

The disparities in global energy consumption are gobsmacking. Today, about 3.3 billion people are living in places where per-capita electricity use is less than what’s used by an average American kitchen refrigerator. All over the developing world, people die premature deaths due to indoor air pollution caused by the use of poor-quality cooking fuels.

The average African consumes about 15 times less energy than the average resident of North America. The situation in Sierra Leone, a small country on Africa’s west coast, is even more dire. Electricity use in Sierra Leone is so low that the World Bank doesn’t publish data for it. By my calculations, based on the country’s population of about 8 million, the average resident of the country uses less than 40 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. That is not a misprint. For comparison, the average resident of the U.S. consumes about 13,000 kilowatt-hours of juice per year, or about 300 times as much.

I’ve been collecting stories about death-by-immolation among the energy destitute. Here are a few of them.

In January 2019, in Hidalgo, Mexico, about 85 people were burned alive while trying to collect gasoline from a pipeline that had been illegally tapped. The Associated Press report on the accident was somber and elegiac. “The lure of free fuel was irresistible for many: They came like moths to a flame, parking vehicles on a nearby road.”

The report continued, “This particular section of pipeline had come back into service after being offline for nearly four weeks when somebody punctured the line again....Hundreds showed up at the spigot, carrying plastic jugs and covering their faces with bandanas. A few threw rocks and swung sticks at soldiers who tried to shoo them away. Some fuel collectors brought their children along...What ignited the gasoline, no one seems to know. After the explosion, soldiers formed a perimeter around an area the size of a soccer field where townspeople were incinerated by the fireball, reduced to clumps of ash and bones.”

In May 2019, in Niger, 76 people died after an overturned tanker truck exploded as crowds tried to collect spilled fuel.

In July 2019, in Nigeria, a similar accident killed at least 45. As reported by the BBC: “People had gathered around the crashed tanker after the crash, with some attempting to salvage fuel.”

In August 2019, about 64 people were killed in a similar accident in Tanzania. Per a news report, “People were trying to recover fuel from the vehicle, which had overturned on a major road, when it exploded.”

In July of this year, in Kenya, at least 13 people were killed in yet another accident. “People had rushed to the scene with jerrycans to siphon off fuel from the overturned tanker before it exploded.”

About a month later, in Lebanon, which is in the midst of an ongoing energy crisis, at least 28 people died when a fuel tank exploded. According to Reuters, the Lebanese army “had seized a fuel storage tank hidden by black marketeers and was handing out gasoline to residents when the explosion occurred.”

On Wednesday, at the COP 26 confab in Glasgow, a draft agreement was being circulated that called for “just transitions to net-zero emissions.” But the rhetoric doesn’t match the reality. Amid the never-ending talk about net-zero and bans on hydrocarbons, it’s essential to remember those 400 dead, those mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters in Sierra Leone, in Lebanon, Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere who were burned alive.

Those people didn’t die because of climate change. They died trying to get the fuel they need to live.

Robert Bryce is an author, journalist, filmmaker, and the host of the Power Hungry Podcast. He has been writing about energy, power, innovation, and politics for more than three decades. Bryce has authored six books in which he has covered Enron’s bankruptcy, corn ethanol, digital drilling rigs, renewables, batteries, nuclear energy, and the future of the electric grid. His latest book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, was published in 2020. His articles have appeared in numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New York Post, and Sydney Morning Herald. His feature-length documentary, Juice: How Electricity Explains the World, is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime, and myriad other streaming services. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife, Lorin, who is an art teacher, photographer, and master potter.  Follow Bryce on Twitter: @pwrhungry.

Oct 17, 2021
Economic trouble to worsen for ALL Americans (and Europeans)

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Energy prices are rising rapidly as the administration is pushing a green agenda with a ban on pipelines and drilling. Energy prices have doubled the last year.

image
Enlarged

This has caused inflation to explode. Energy is the lifeblood for the economy. You can’t move to renewables by just blocking fossil fuel to appease the climate activists. The effects as we have seen in Europe and Australia, is soaring energy prices which increases the cost of manufacturing and transportation and the costs of all goods and services.

image
Enlarged

White House chief of staff Ron Klain endorsed former Obama administration economist Jason Furman’s claim that the country’s inflation, supply chain, and other economic problems only affect a small part of the U.S. population. Furman, the chairman of former President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and an economics professor at Harvard University, tweeted Wednesday night that “most of the economic problems we’re facing .... are high class problems.”

But after we had achieved energy independence and low energy prices, going down the path that the early adopters of the extreme green agenda followed, would lead to lower income families and retirees spending over 40% of their income on energy.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

They are seriously suffering now as energy prices have doubled and the costs of all goods and services are skyrocketing. And the worst is yet to come if the congress succeeds with a program the start of decarbonization efforts. It is so misguided and so 2021. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm laughed at a question about boosting America’s domestic oil production, calling it “hilarious.” Bloomberg host Tom Keene noted America’s rising gas prices and asked the energy secretary, “What is the Granholm plan to increase oil production in America?” Granholm immediately began laughing.  “That is hilarious,” she said. “Would that I had the magic wand on this. Secretary Granholm appeared in 2018 video singing about end of gasoline, fossil fuels. But it is not a laughing matter,

CBN News reported October 21, “Experts are forecasting that the cost for heating oil could rise more than 40%, natural gas could shoot up 30%, propane, 54% and electricity, 6%. If it’s a bad winter, prices could go even higher, with propane costs doubling.”

And our forecasts for December and the winter for the U.S. and Eurasia is for bitter cold periods, which means blackouts and brownouts and like Texas found last February, would lead to many deaths and pain.

image
Enlarged

Cornwall Alliance Board Member Dr. David Black, Director of 2nd Vote Advisers, an investment firm, and Founder of 2ndVote.com, which rates corporations on the morality of their charitable giving, said in response to the news:

The attack on fossil fuels will lead to increased costs for all consumer items, since products must be transported to brick-and-mortar stores or delivered via FedEx, Amazon, et al., and because petroleum extracts are used as an ingredient in so many commercial products. Sadly, the lowest on the economic ladder will be harmed the most.

Historically high home heating costs have resulted in the poor trying to use kerosene space heaters, home gas ovens, or other devices to heat their homes, often with the tragedy of house fires or carbon monoxide related deaths.

And all for naught. CO2 is a beneficial gas - the gas of life - ask your plants.

image
Enlarged

Any apparent correlation with the rising phase of the 60 year cycle is coincidental. Many such false correlations can be found in real life.

image
Enlarged

Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Energy Accountability Report. “...elected official have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled this boom-hydraulic fracturing (HF), or fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if hydraulic fracturing was banned? In this report, the Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question. 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 for gasoline as oil prices spike to $130 per barrel. The report also details the impacts that a ban would have on seven states, including five that are major energy producers - Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Not surprisingly, the results would devastate each of those energy states’ economies. But a fracking ban’s impacts would be felt well beyond energy producing regions, so the report also examines the impacts of a ban on the economies of Michigan and Wisconsin, which are large manufacturing states. There, too, the results are significant. For example, cost-of-living impacts to residential consumers in Wisconsin and Michigan would grow by approximately $4,700 and $5,100 respectively between 2021 and 2025.

Should the radical green agenda be approved, these numbers would more than likely double. Now if you factor in the risk if extreme cold outbreaks in the North America and Europe, which means blackouts and brownouts and as was previewed in Texas last February when sub zero cold and heavy snow invaded and the wind turbines froze in place throwing millions into the dark. 210 died. Deaths on the U.S. could be in the thousands this winter when energy sources are being blocked.

image

How did we get to the point when our government get to the point where energy independence and record low unemployment in a booming economy is rejected. This was predicted over half a century ago and repeated over the years - it is all about power (political not electrical) and control.

In his Farewell address to the nation Dwight Eisenhower in the speech remembered for comments on the military industrial complex also had a lot to say about politically driven science: “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.  The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Maurice Strong , UN Executive Director in 1970s saw CO2 as a tool to Proselytize for One World Government. “...Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial civilization collapse...isn’t it our job to bring that about”

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming...would fit the bill...It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or...one invented for the purpose.” Club of Rome advisor to the UN “First Global Revolution” 1991

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, U.S. Senator, president of the United Nation’s Foundation

Dixie Lee Ray, Washington State Governor wrote: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UN, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises- whether real or not - is expected to lead to - compliance.”

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

UN Climate Chief Christine Figueres said “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system (destroy capitalism).”

UN IPCC Lead Author Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing”...nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. “ “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at al,” Saikat Chakrabarti said in May.

“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 a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

Please help us spread the word. The markets love the idea of government money but history has shown this path has always led to misery and poverty except for the elitists and an economic freefall. Europe and Asia are fearing a cold winter with given the state of the energy systems - renewable energy has proven unreliable for base load with blackouts and brownouts. Remember 210 deaths in Texas occurred with the subzero cold and snow last February. Devastating freezes - worst in decades occurred in Brazil this past winter.

--------

Climate NEXUS fact checks the 2000 National Climate Assessment

And see the miserable model failures that are being used to impoverish hard working Americans to keep the warmists money coming in and the politicians in control.


Nov 22, 2021
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. See full story here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

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.  Please support this effort with a secure donation (see left column).

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)