Precision Forecasts image image
Jul 11, 2019
Inconvenient Energy Realities

Mark P. Mills

The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden: of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem."55

He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.

Herein, then, is a summary of some of bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation and citations.)

Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80% of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

2. The small two percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than 2% of the global energy.

3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace 5% of global oil demand.

5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” 10-fold.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons use - America uses 16% of world energy.

8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33%, the economy grew 80% and global energy use is up 40%.

9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70%, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50%.

10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50%, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

14. To make enough batteries to store two-day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year - and rising.

16. Every $1 billion spent on datacenters leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on datatcenters is more than $100 billion a year- and rising.

Realities About Energy Economics

17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hour, the shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41% and 29% capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as 10 percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improving at about 0.7% per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to 50% increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

23. Over 90% of America’s electricity, and 99% of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25-30% of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70% of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20% since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

Energy Physics...Inconvenient Realities

26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon - permanently.

27. The common cliche: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliche is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33% of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26%.

32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60% of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45%.

33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500% greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

38. It takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc. - and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70% coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel - doable with elaborately expensive logistics - than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University, and author of Work in the Age of Robots, published by Encounter Books.

Jun 22, 2019
Climate Apocalypse? Ireland To Ban Private Cars, Import 1M Third-World Migrants

Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionise’ people’s lifestyle and behaviors, according to local media.

“Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boosting the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration.

In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals - which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide - are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports.

Launching the plan in Dublin, leader Leo Varadkar outlined his vision for an Ireland of ‘higher density’ cities consisting of populations whose lifestyles and behaviors have been totally transformed by ‘carrot and stick’ policies outlined in the climate plan.

“Our approach will be to nudge people and businesses to change behavior and adopt new technologies through incentives, disincentives, regulations, and information,” the globalist prime minister said.

“We are going to change how electricity is produced and consumed, how our homes and workplaces are heated; the way we travel; the types of vehicles we purchase; and how food is produced.

‘Put an Empty Space to Better Use’: Irish Urged to House Migrants in Spare Beds

Irish Urged to House Migrants in Spare Beds

Homeowners in Ireland have been asked to pledge spare rooms as part of the government’s Irish Refugee Protection Programme.

“It’s about vibrant, populated city centers, liveable, with excellent amenities and transport as we embrace higher densities.”

The document, which was unveiled on Tuesday, features more than 180 measures to decarbonize the Irish economy including making private car ownership prohibitively expensive - with petrol and diesel car sales banned by 2030, a date by which it says general carbon tax will be increased from Euro20 a tonne to “at least” Euro80.

In addition, the plans demand that coal and peat-fired power stations are replaced with wind farms and other “green” energy sources in order to meet the requirement that 70 percent of electricity will be generated from renewables by 2030.

Irish People Fear Country ‘Changing Too Quickly’, ‘Too Politically Correct’

While Ireland’s establishment backs “social justice” and open borders, a poll reveals most citizens feel uneasy about its transformation.

But plans to dramatically slash carbon emissions by ditching tried and tested energy sources such as coal and nuclear in favor of renewables will necessarily result in a collapse in living standards according to scientists including Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly, who has previously explained that such proposals “represent total madness”.

“In energy terms the current generation of renewable energy technologies alone will not enable a civilized modern society to continue,” he asserted in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2016, pointing out that renewables such as solar, wind, and hydropower supply just seven per cent of electricity needs globally while “the rate at which fossil fuels are growing is seven times that at which the low carbon energies are growing.”

The Hughes Medal-decorated physicist cautioned:

“The call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 can now only be described as glib in my opinion, as the underlying analysis shows it is only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”

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

See the effect of offshore wind farms off Ireland on bird populations here.

Isle Of Man Seabird Populations Plummet As Wind Farms Overwhelm The Irish Sea

Herring Gulls are down 82%, European Shag down 51%, Razorbills down 55%. The list goes on....
* The world’s biggest offshore wind farm is just a few miles away.
* Isn’t there a conspicuous connection?

The Isle Of Man wildlife charity Manx Birdlife has reported a shocking 40% decline in the populations of many species of sea birds around the island’s coast.

The worrying figures emerged following a comprehensive census that took place over two years. Whatever the reason for the sharp decline of the birds, it illustrates that something has gone very wrong.

I’ve noted with interest that this unprecedented drop in populations, of several of the island’s maritime species, coincides with the proliferation of wind farms in the Irish Sea - something which has worried me during the past few years, as I have witnessed the frenzied development of the wind industry in the waters off the western coasts of England and Wales.

World’s Biggest Offshore Wind Farm just a few miles away…

We know that offshore turbines kill birds and bats, though it is almost impossible to estimate the number of casualties because there are no retrievable carcasses to count at sea....
It is also highly likely that wind farms adversely affect many marine mammals.

The world’s largest offshore wind farm is now in operation off the Cumbrian coast at Walney, just 40 miles or so from the Isle of Man, and, with the news that nearby bird populations are in free-fall, we must seriously ask whether the huge turbines might be killing more birds than we ever anticipated.

The Isle of Man study was, ironically, partly supported by the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Project. How paradoxical would it be to find that the project itself, with its giant 640 feet turbines, was responsible for the plummeting numbers of sea birds.

The report is full of depressing statistics. Herring Gulls are down 82%, European Shag down 51%, Razorbills down 55%. The list goes on.

Marine Protected Areas “may not necessarily be major barrier to new projects...”

I’ve been increasingly concerned at the feverish pace of industrial offshore wind farm development in this country and especially in the Irish Sea. Such a high density of turbines in a confined area - an area renowned for its wildlife - has been watched with dismay by many environmentalists, especially since large parts of the sea have been designated Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s), supposedly limiting the scale of industrial development in precious areas that provide important habitat for so many species.

Alas, development has been allowed in vast parts of the sea that fall just outside the protected zones - and there have even been hints that the MPA’s themselves may not be off limit for future wind farm expansion.  Last year, a report carried out for the Welsh government suggested that ‘this protection may not necessarily be a major barrier to new projects”’ - which sounds shockingly irresponsible to me.

Isle of Man plans might seriously threaten birds’ survival

Though the Isle Of Man currently has none of its own offshore wind farms, their government is reportedly close to approving industrial wind development off the island’s coast as early as next year. Such plans might seriously threaten the survival of species already struggling to cope with the industrialization of their habitat.

Wind energy companies might flaunt their green ideologies for all to see - but their industry nevertheless hides a grim reality. Their ‘green’ energy kills wildlife.

Money Vs Wildlife…

Speaking about the alarming drop in bird populations, managing director of Manx Birdlife, Neil Morris, suggested that “there are a number of causes for these declines and the solutions, such as protecting nesting sites, restoring food chains and mitigating climate change, will be challenging.”

It will be interesting to see whether more research will be carried out into just how many birds are being killed by the Irish Sea wind farms. My hunch is that many people would rather keep that information under their hats. So much money invested in offshore wind means that bad publicity would be very unwelcome and it is common for critics of the industry to be ridiculed.

​It seems likely that vast swathes of our coastal seas are likely to be further industrialized by the wind giants - even if it is at the expense of wildlife.

image

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

See how Washington plans for a carbon tax would affect you here:
https://cei.org/content/cei-releases-new-video-explaining-how-carbon-tax-would-punish-american-families


Jun 03, 2019
Global Warming: Is There Anything It Can’t Do?

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

Would even a 1 or 2 degree change be noticed given the great range of extremes in every state.

image
Enlarged

Note: see also this post Will The Democratic Candidates Ever Notice That The Climate Change Thing Is Over?

The general interest newsmagazines of the world have been in serious decline for years.  Time, Newsweek, U.S. New and World Report - what ever happened to them?  Although all of them still exist in some form, they are all shadows of their former selves. 

But then there is The Economist of London.  These people put out what at least looks on the surface to be a serious print edition every week.  They devote real resources to gathering news from around the world.  If you want to find out what’s going on in, say, Argentina or the Congo or Uganda, this is one of the few places that you can find it.  But can you trust anything they say?

I’ve been a long-time subscriber to The Economist, and had long regarded them as relatively sensible, generally less infected by leftist groupthink than most mainstream sources.  But then, a few years ago - I can’t pinpoint the exact date - they made what appears to be a corporate-level decision to go all in for global warming alarm.  Henceforth, every issue would contain one or several global warming stories, always with the slant of trying to scare the readership about the allegedly terrible crisis at hand. 

Since then, it’s been a steady downhill slide.  But how low can this go?  In the issue of May 25-31, 2019, we seem to have hit bottom, with an editorial headlined “How to think about global warming and war.” Yes, they have now descended to attempting to blame all world warfare and strife on the universal bogeyman of “global warming.”

How would that even work?  Supposedly, through this obvious chain of logic:

[F]uture-gazers are right to warn that global warming has made some wars more likely than they would otherwise have been, and will make others more so in the future. It is never possible to pinpoint a specific war and say that it would not have happened in the absence of climate change, just as it is impossible to say that a particular flood or typhoon was caused by it. Rather, climate change is causing environmental upheaval that destabilizes regions and raises the risk of bloodshed.

Can you fill us in on what is the supposed “environmental upheaval”?  The answer is, we will just repeat the usual mantras about “extreme weather” and droughts and floods, without bothering to check the underlying facts in any way:

Some things are clear.  Accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme droughts and floods in some regions.  Seasonal rains and monsoons are becoming more variable and less predictable.  As one area grows parched, its inhabitants encroach on land traditionally farmed or used for grazing by others.  Disputes erupt, some of which are already turning violent…

What is the supposed evidence of “increasing frequency and intensity of extreme droughts and floods”?  The closest thing in this article to evidence is a single picture, presumably from the Sahel region of Africa, showing what looks like severe drought conditions:

image
Sahel photo.

But is there actually a measurable trend somewhere in the world showing that so-called “extreme” weather conditions are increasing?  Of course, it’s the opposite.  The people at AC (Alarmist Claim) Research have just updated their work on fact checking many of the usual alarmist claims about global warming, from droughts and floods to sea level rise to hurricanes and tornadoes and many others.  The summary report, with a revision date of May 20, 2019, can be found here.  The more detailed report as to the sub-topic of droughts and floods can be found here. (See this story on the flooding this spring and May tornadoes). From the introduction on the droughts and floods topic:

In testimony before Congress Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. said: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.  Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.”

Go to the link for an abundance of charts and graphs showing U.S. and worldwide trends in droughts and floods, which universally are either flat or downward, not upward.  The article in The Economist mentions specifically the Sahel region of Africa as one place where strife is supposedly increasing due to long-term drought.  They seem completely unaware that the Sahel specifically has been experiencing increasing rainfall over the past several decades.  Here is a 2011 Briefing Paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation specifically on the subject of that trend in the Sahel, titled ”The Sahel is Greening.” Excerpt:

The Sahara is actually shrinking, with vegetation arising on land where there was nothing but sand and rocks before. The southern border of the Sahara has been retreating since the early 1980s, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa. There has been a spectacular regeneration of vegetation in northern Burkina Faso, which was devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago… Vegetation has also increased significantly in the past 15 years in southern Mauritania, north-western Niger, central Chad, much of Sudan and parts of Eritrea.

For more recent data on Sahel rainfall and greening, see this April 2019 article from Nature.  But then, who needs facts when there’s a narrative to advance?  The problem for The Economist is that the total abandonment of facts in favor of advancing a political narrative ultimately destroys their credibility on all issues. 

Jun 05, 2019
Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants’: Greenpeace founder

ICECAP.US is 12 years old with 117 million views.  We also maintain other sites like Redneckusa, THSResearch, and ACResearch). All these are done pro-bono. I have been part of and produced many cable TV weather shows on weather and climate including Winds of Change series for educators, also pro bono. I recently gave a talk to NH Taxpayers and am producing a four part series on Preparing for the Inevitable. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 

We have a timely addendum to the tornado and drought/flood alarmist claim rebuttals relative to the May tornado streak and spring flooding. The image at the top of the page can take you to the full updated alarmist claim rebuttal site with the latest updates on the 11 most common claims as each season passes.

Addendum to tornado claims here. Addendum to flooding claims here.

Here is a video and post by Tony Heller on the laughable Union of Concerned Scientists

Link to post here.

A commenter Johansen said:

I just find this interesting...one determined citizen, armed with a computer and using publicly available information, “completely demolishes” a 52-page(!) bloated scientific piece written by 10(!) senior scientists over several months, plus 17(!) additional team members - no doubt funded by a $75,000 grant - published in one of our “best” scientific journals, complete with giant photographs of suffering people which have no connection to the story-line...and does it in one afternoon after lunch using quantitative-historical analysis. This illustrates so many thing…

Icecap worked with 14 real scientists to respond to a press release in 2014 by UCS rebutting all 8 claims here.

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

Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants’: Greenpeace founder

image

By Patrick Moore

March 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) - Conservatives have long argued that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a politically motivated distortion of climate science. Now that argument is being bolstered by an unexpected source: the co-founder of the leading environmental organization Greenpeace.

Patrick Moore, who is also a former president of Greenpeace Canada, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight for an interview with Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

“Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign,” he said, adding that proponents of AGW - the view that human activity rather than natural phenomena is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate - is also fueled by “guilt” that “you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

Moore argued that on top of “the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public” and the “media echo chamber ... repeating it over and over and over again to everybody,” the narrative is bolstered by “green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials” and “the green businesses, the rent-seekers, and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this.

“And then, of course, you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants,” he continued. “Most of the scientists - put it in quotes, ‘scientists’ - who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money[.] [M]ost of what these so-called scientists are doing is simply producing more fear so that politicians can use it to control people’s minds and get their votes because some of the people are convinced, ‘Oh, this politician can save my kid from certain doom.’”

AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers, such as East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings.

Left-wing activists continue to claim there is a “97% scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number is a misrepresentation of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals. Sixty-six point four percent expressed no opinion on the matter; the 97% number refers only to the minority who did, and even that is disputed. The authors of the overview emailed the papers’ 29,083 authors, only 4% of whom responded at all. Many of the authors identified as endorsing the “consensus” later spoke out to say the overview had misrepresented their position.

“It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff,” Moore went on. “If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.”

Moore’s retelling of the Galileo story reflects a prevalent myth rather than the historical facts. The point, per Moore, is the disconnect between AGW proponents’ conduct and their self-image as champions of scientific inquiry.

“This abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” he declared. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science. It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

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

Icecap note: The AGW movement has indoctrinated the youth - following the Hitler meme “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future” Adolf Hitler

May 31, 2019
Rebutting claim: The active tornado season and spring flooding are caused by CO2 warming

Note the following is an addendum to the tornado alarmist claim rebuttals relative to the May tornado streak. The image at the top of the page can take you to the full updated alarmist claim rebuttal site with the latest updates as each season passes.

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Just like the hurricane impact spikes in 2017 and 2018 after a record almost 12-year period without a landfalling major hurricane, tornadoes have bounced back big-time after 7 quiet years ending in 2018, the quietest in the entire record. But we will show you it was not global warming but actually a pattern with extreme persistent central and southwestern cold and precipitation that led to the tornado rebound and also the flooding that accompanied it.

image
Enlarged

This has been a cold winter and spring in much of the nation (except the southeast) and that has lingered through the entire spring.

In the cold air, snowpack has persisted in the west. Water and snowpack in the mountains of California ran 30% above normal for the Water Year (since October 1). This is true into the Rockies. The Denver Post on May 22 reported:

One year has made a massive difference in boosting Colorado’s snowpack.

Statewide snowpack was at a remarkable 202 percent of its season-to-date average as of Tuesday, according to official data from the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website. This year’s snowpack is approximately five times larger than it was a year ago at this time. An NRCS estimate placed this year’s Colorado snowpack at 519 percent of May 21, 2018 levels.

Some parts of the state are running at more than three times their typical snow levels for the third week of May. In the San Juan Mountains, snowpack was at 302 percent of its season-to-date average. Here is a May 28 image from Silverton, Colorado.

image
Enlarged

That deep and very cold for May western trough helped pump up a warm southeast ridge the last few weeks.

image
Enlarged

During the winter and spring the pattern was very wet for most of the nation but especially the central. The soil moisture is at the highest levels - above the 99% percentile in parts of the central and the areas of drought is at the lowest level of the record.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

The late winter and spring rains, snowmelt and runoff from over frozen ground led to waves of extreme, in places record flooding.

image
Enlarged

When heat energy built in the ridge in Mid-May, the thunderstorms bringing heavy rains in the disturbances became increasingly severe, a phenomenon meteorologists call the ring-of-fire. 13 straight days of tornado outbreaks increased the tornado totals to well over 400 in May. The final tally will take months to reconcile as they remove duplication (often15%). May is the climatological peak but June is a close second.

image
Enlarged

The early season was active, mainly in the Gulf, fitting climatology. Since April, action has moved to the central and points east.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

In 2011, the last active tornado season, we had very extreme severe weather in the spring. It quieted in June.

image
Enlarged

We currently trail 2008 and 2011 year to date.

image
Enlarged

Claims that the increased storms are the result of climate change/global warming are not supported by the data.

2018 was the quietest tornado season with 170 tornados in May compared to 442 to date this year. 2018 had a very warm May. Storms require contrast of warm and cold. We had very strong contrast this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent strong tornados.

image
Enlarged

Major storms that produce heavy rains and outbreaks of severe weather occur with a rich moisture environment and strong jet streams that result from a significant contrast of warm and cold. In 2019, the U.S. faced high moisture levels and, as shown below, a very large temperature differential this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent and strong tornados.

image
Enlarged

Major storms that produce heavy rains and outbreaks of severe weather occur with a rich moisture environment and strong jet streams that result from a significant contrast of warm and cold. In 2019, the U.S. faced high moisture levels and, as shown below, a very large temperature differential this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent and strong tornados.

The most commonly used measure of the Pacific Basin temperatures is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. When the eastern Pacific is cold, the PDO is negative.
The chart below depicts in orange columns, the number of strong EF3+ tornadoes per year since 1954. The annual PDO is the blue dashed lines. As shown in the figure, tornados are more frequent and likely to be stronger when the eastern Pacific is cold as it was from the 1950s to mid-1970s, as well as around 1999 and 2008 and 2011. This is because, as occurred this year, a cold eastern Pacific favors cold winters and springs in the west and central U.S. as well as warmer southeastern states.

image

The official, final value for the number of EF3+ storms in 2018 has not yet been released, but the number of EF3+ storms reported unofficially was less than half that of 2017, a new low.

Notice how cold eras and years tend to correspond with increased tornadic activity. This year, the PDO has behaved as it did in 1999, 2008 and 2011 when there were spikes in tornadic activity as noted above. Over at least the past century, the PDO has had a multi decadal cycle, and the warm phase is now over 40 years old. Thus, totally unrelated to CO2 emissions, a return of the cold PDO mode resulting in more tornadoes on an annual average basis is certainly now possible.

May 29, 2019
We Shouldn’t Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That’s Always Been The Greens’ Goal

Note see also Shutting down middle and blue collar America by Paul Dreissen here.
Michael Shellenberger

The Green Party’s success in last weekend’s European elections will likely result in demands to expand and extend decades-old subsidies to renewables.

Like a lot of people, I used to think that subsidies to promote the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind would be a one-time thing. Once a solar or wind farm was built, I thought, it would produce electricity forever, without further subsidy, because sunlight and wind are free. Renewables would thus allow a “sustainable” and even “circular” economy without waste or mining because everything would be recycled.

But it turns out that only nuclear can produce sufficient clean energy to power a circular economy.  That’s partly because nuclear plants have seen their efficiency increase dramatically. Nuclear plants used to operate for just 50% of the year. Now, thanks to greater experience in operations and maintenance, they operate 93% of the year. Nuclear plants were expected to run for 40 years, but thanks to greater experience, they’re expected to run for 80. And simple changes to equipment allowed the amount of power produced by existing nuclear plants in the US to increase the equivalent of adding eight full-sized reactors. 

By contrast, the output of solar panels declines one percent every year, for inherently physical reasons, and they as well as wind turbines are replaced roughly every two decades. As for circularity, solar panels and wind turbines are rarely recycled because the energy and labor required to do so are much more expensive than just buying raw materials. As a result, the vast majority of solar panels and wind turbines are either sent to landfills or join the global electronic waste stream where they are dumped on poor communities in developing nations.

And that’s just at the level of the solar and wind equipment. At a societal level, the value of energy from solar and wind declines the more of it we add to the electrical grid. The underlying reason is physical. Solar and wind produce too much energy when we don’t need it and not enough when we do. In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity. Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California’’s electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables. In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.

And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States. The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high.

Two weeks ago, Der Spiegel reported that Germany spent $36 billion per year on renewables over the last five years, and yet only increased the share of electricity from solar and wind by 10 percentage points. It’s been a similar story in the US. “All in all,” wrote the University of Chicago economists, “consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy.”

Some renewable energy advocates protest that more evidence is needed to prove that it is renewables and not some hidden factor that is making electricity expensive.

But there is a growing consensus among economists and independent analysts that solar and wind are indeed making electricity more expensive for two reasons: they are unreliable, thus requiring 100% back-up, and energy-dilute, thus requiring extensive land, transmission lines, and mining.

After The Los Angeles Times failed to plainly connect the dots between California’s simultaneous rise in electricity prices and renewables, a leading economist with the University of California pointed out the obvious.

“The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” James Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”

Renewables Are For Degrowth

We shouldn’t be surprised that renewables are making energy expensive. For as long as Greens have been advocating renewables they have viewed their high cost as a feature, not a bug. Environmentalists have for decades argued that energy is too cheap and must be made more expensive in order to protect the environment. Greens viewed energy as the source of humankind’s destruction of the natural world and sought to restrict energy supplies in order to slow and eventually reverse the destruction.

Indeed, the reason environmentalists turned against nuclear energy in the 1960s was that it was cheap and effectively infinite. In the early 1970s, the Sierra Club’s Executive Director advocated scaring the public about nuclear to increase regulations to make it more expensive. And that’s what his organization, and many others, proceeded to do over the next four decades. But Greens got the relationship between energy and the environment backward.

As people consume higher levels of energy the overall environmental impact is overwhelmingly positive, not negative. As we consume greater amounts of energy we can live in cities, stop using wood as fuel, and afford to have fewer children.

And as humans use more energy for agriculture in the form of tractors and fertilizers, we are able to grow more food on less land, allowing marginal lands to return to grasslands, forests, and wildlife.

Over time, rising electricity consumption, such as for high-speed trains in population-dense places like Europe and Asia, drives the transition from fossil fuels to zero-emissions nuclear.

Engineers and other critics of renewables often assume Greens are simply misinformed. Many if not most of them are. I certainly was.

Few university environmental studies students today, for example, ever learn of the mostly positive relationship between rising energy consumption and environmental protection.

Fewer learn that the energy density of the fuel, whether wood, coal, sunlight, wind or uranium, determine energy’s environmental impact.

Because sunlight is energy-dilute, solar panels are the most extractive of all energy resources, requiring 17 times the resources as nuclear while returning just 2% the energy invested.

But the ideologically-driven leadership of European Greens and American environmentalists knows renewables make energy expensive and view raising energy prices as a high priority.

In 1994, then-Vice President Al Gore pushed an energy tax as a central plank in the Clinton administration’s environmental agenda, which later evolved into a complicated and corrupt “cap and trade” proposal. Such taxes hurt the poor the most and were wildly unpopular. As energy taxes failed politically, environmentalists in the US and Greens in Europe focused instead on subsidizing or mandating renewables.

At bottom, renewables make electricity expensive by returning so little energy relative to the energy invested. For instance, solar panels with storage deliver just 1.6 times as much energy as is invested as compared to the 75 times more energy delivered with nuclear. Greens and environmentalists also seek to make food, another form of energy, more expensive. They do so by making agriculture more labor-intensive, land-intensive, and resource-intensive.

Moving to organics, as Greens demand, and away from synthetic fertilizer to manure, would require doubling the amount of land required for agriculture. Currently, humans use a whopping 38% of the ice-free surface of the earth for agriculture. Moving to organics would thus decimate the 15% of the ice-free surface of the Earth that humans have to date protected for wildlife conservation, and destroy much beyond that, too.

Making farming more labor-intensive would take humankind back toward an agrarian economy where far more people work in farming, and everybody is much poorer.

Unlike the original New Deal, a Green New Deal would thus result in what Greens call “de-growth,” not growth. The idea of de-growth came out of efforts by Malthusian Greens in the 1960s and 70s to persuade developing nations to cede control of their natural resources to Earth scientists under the auspices of the United Nations.

Originally the Green Party in Britain advocated “deindustrialization, a return to living in small peasant communities, the sterilization of women and an end to all immigration.” It was only in the last decade that Greens started insisting that the renewables transition would “create jobs” as part of a Green New Deal. What they rarely mention is that the jobs are usually low-paying and low-skill, like spreading low-yield solar and wind collectors across landscapes, or collecting and spreading manure at organic farms.

Circling Down

There is a perfect fit between the abstract physical theories, economic predictions, and real-world effects of renewables. It was predictable that energy-dilute renewable fuels like sunlight and wind would require far more land than either fossil fuels or nuclear, and they do. It was predictable that renewables with such a low return-on-energy-invested would fail to produce enough energy to make recycling worthwhile, and they have.

And it was predictable that such unreliable technologies would make energy so expensive, and they did. Consider that while our high-energy economy can produce solar panels and wind turbines, a low-energy economy cannot. Imagine solar panels powering the mining, trucks, and factories needed to manufacture solar panels. There would hardly be any energy left over for society’s other needs.

In that sense, the renewables-powered economy is circular, but not in a way that produces abundant energy for infinite recycling. Rather, renewables-powered economies are circular in the sense of spiraling downward, as in a drain, or like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left.

Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

Jul 04, 2019
The Cost to Society of Radical Environmentalism

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng. ( I dropped my P.Eng. June 30, 2019)

Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. Banning DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice blinded and killed tens of millions of children.

Green energy and CO2 abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.

The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century - Stalin, Hitler and Mao - radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to their resulting environmental damage and human suffering… and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.

The full article is supported by highly credible scientific and technical references.

Jun 22, 2019
MIT Climate Scientist Slams Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data’

In a newly released Kindle book that is set to peeve established climate science, an MIT doctorate climate researcher blasts alarmist claims of a warming planet and illustrates how temperature data are untrustworthy and far too scant to draw sound conclusions.

By Kirye and Pierre Gosselin

Dr. Kiminori Itoh just brought to our attention a recently released Kindle version Japanese climate skeptical book authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. an scientist who received doctorate from MIT.

The book’s title translated in English: “A climate scientist’s profession - Global warming theory is unproven, only a hypothesis”.

image
Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy”, “falsified”.  Image: http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/people/nakamura.php

In his book, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on.

“Not backed by demonstrable data”

He writes that although many people, including a lot of climate researchers, believe it is a confirmed fact that global surface mean temperatures have been rising since Industrial Revolution, it is however “not backed by demonstrable data”. He points out:

Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

Prestigious career

Dr. Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

Failed climate models

Nakamura’s book demolishes “the lie of critical global warming due to increasing carbon dioxide”, exposes the great uncertainty of “global warming in the past 100 years” and points out the glaring failure of climate models.

Only 5% of Earth’s surface adequately measured over past 100 yrs

According to Dr. Nakamura, the temperature data are woefully lacking and do not allow in any way the drawing of any useful conclusions.

Presently the book is available in Japanese only. What follows are translated/paraphrased excerpts.

For example, Dr. Nakamura illustrates how scant the global temperature data really are, and writes that over the last 100 years “only 5 percent of the Earth’s area is able show the mean surface temperature with any certain degree of confidence.”

Ocean data extremely scant…

Then there’s the desolate amount of data from the massive oceans. Later Dr. Nakamura describes how the precision of the observed mean temperature from the ocean surface, which accounts for roughly 75% of the Earth’s surface, are questionable to an extreme.

He writes, “The pre-1980 temperature data from the sea and water are very scant” and that the methodology used for recording them totally lacks adequacy.

To top it off: “The climate datasets used for the sea surface water temperature data have added various adjustments to the raw data.”

1 station per 10,000 sq km almost meaningless

Dr. Nakamura also describes how the number of surface stations used globally cannot provide any real accurate temperature picture. He writes: “Experts cannot just decide that 10,000 sq km per station is representative of temperature.”

Later he explains: “If you accept the Earth surface mean temperature’s warming since the Industrial Revolution as the truth, it means you agree with the idea that the Earth surface mean temperature rise can be determined by a biased tiny region on the globe. It is nonsense. Looking at the regions with long term temperature data, you can see that some regions warmed, and some other regions cooled.

Nakamura’s harsh judgement: “No scientific value”

Finally, Nakamura blasts the ongoing data adjustments: “Furthermore, more recently, experts have added new adjustments which have the helpful effect of making the Earth seem to continue warming”. The talented Japanese scientist deems this “data falsification”.

He concludes:

Therefore, the global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

--------

BTW: Mark Albright reports the Antarctic in a deep freeze - Over the past 30 days the interior of Antarctica has been running 13 F below normal.

image

Jun 14, 2019
Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote Climate Change

Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote Climate Change

Icecap Comment:

Thank you Tom and Jay. You are exactly right. It extends to all societies. It is a sad day for science. See this earlier post.

“When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore.”

Dr. Patrick Frank

--------

By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr May 24, 2019

image
(Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)

When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago.

But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members’ financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud. In particular, they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels is leading to environmental catastrophe. You have been hearing about it for the past decade and more, with 21 candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the next election promoting some form of a Green New Deal - a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar power thereby returning society to the lifestyle of the 1880s.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in 1994 that radical greens had taken over the organization after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving him no choice but to resign. The takeover of environmental institutions by extremists is now almost complete, the most important of which may be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Donald Trump is aggressively trying to win back the EPA in the best interests of the nation, but it is an uphill battle as the climate cult has also taken control of academia, political parties, and governments themselves.

An example of how professional societies have apparently been hijacked by extremists concerns the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA). Allan MacRae, a prominent long-time member of APEGA, was named to receive its most distinguished lifetime achievement award in 2019. Then APEGA staff learned that MacRae had written publicly about the damage done to humanity and the environment by radical greens. APEGA leadership strongly condemned his comments and his award was withdrawn. It led MacRae to write ”Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age,” which explains the APEGA award withdrawal and to support his contention that radical greens have done enormous harm to humanity and the environment with their destructive, misguided policies. MacRae writes, “APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground.”

One commenter responding to MacRae’s essay posed a question, the answer to which tells an important story: “How did the Greens get control of APEGA?” Another commenter answered:

The same way they have taken over every other professional organization.  The actual members are too busy building their careers and actually working in the field to spend much time worrying about the day to day operation of the organization. As a result, they are taken over by lawyers and activists whose interest is in pushing their own agenda, not advancing science for humanity.

Another reader commented:

“The long march through the Institutions” as proposed by the Frankfurt school back in the 1930s was launched knowing it would be a generations long policy. Here we are three generations on and they have now taken control of all the western institutions as planned. The socialists do not stop just because their prime construct, the USSR failed in 1990. They regard that failure as simply work in progress. The climate as a tool which can never be tamed, was a genuine piece of strategic genius by the COGS (constantly offended green socialists). They will not stop. The destruction of humanity is too big a prize, they view this activity as pressing the Earth’s reset button.

The same thing is happening in the United States, where feathers were really ruffled at the American Physical Society (APS) when Dr. Hal Lewis, emeritus professor of Physics at the University of California, sent his resignation letter to the Society after being a member for 67 years. In his letter, he described the joy of working with brilliant physicists for decades, when no one expected to get rich in this field. Lewis explained how studies done within the society had effective oversight that enabled members to stake their reputations on the work of the organization. He said that has all now changed. Open dialogue has disappeared and all organization policies follow the new politics of the organization leadership rather than the membership. It is apparently focused on the money that accrues to the organization and its members by going along with popular concerns.

Lewis’ letter can be found here. A telling quote from that letter follows:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.  It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone that has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents which lay it bare.

Lewis went on to state that he recruited over 200 members of APS to oppose the new APS policy that fully supports the global warming fraud. Their request for a hearing on the issue was completely ignored.

On March 31, 2019, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) issued a press release announcing the launch of The Climate Solutions Community, a broad committee to identify viable solutions to mitigate, adapt, and become resilient to the effects of climate change. They totally buy into the dangerous man-made climate change hypothesis with no consideration of alternative points of view. AICh’s description of their efforts highlight the fact that employment can be gained for their members as a result of the climate scare.

The Geological Society of America (GSA) has fallen into the same trap. In April 2015, GSA issued a Position Statement asserting that:

Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.

The GSA backs up the statement with vague evidence from paleoclimates and offers their full support for the reports of the widely discredited United Nations International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC).

As is evident from the process described on the GSA Position Statement FAQs web page, the full membership of GSA is not polled after the development of Position Statements. Consequently, it is unknown what fraction of the membership actually support the final statement. However, clearly, GSA leadership recognize that such a position offers employment to many of their members trained in geology.

The lockstep march of professional societies in support of climate alarmism has been going on for years. For example, fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and a leading Canadian energy expert, the late “Archie” Robertson of Deep River, Ontario, explained in the April 28, 2006, edition of the National Post what happened in Canada:

To claim that the IPCC-2001 assessment was “supported by the Royal Society of Canada” is stretching the truth. Prior to last year’s Montreal conference, the president of the Royal Society of London, whose manner of promoting Kyoto has been criticized, drafted a resolution in favor and circulated it to other academies of science inviting co-signing. The Canadian Academy of Science is one of three academies within the Royal Society of Canada (the other are from the humanities). The president of the RSC, not a member of the Academy of Science, received the invitation. He considered it consistent with the position of the great majority of scientists, as repeatedly but erroneously claimed by Kyoto proponents, and so signed it. The resolution was not referred to the Academy of Science for comment, not even to its council or president (I learned this when, as a member of the Academy of Science, I inquired into the basis for the RSC supporting the resolution).

A similar episode happened in the United States and Russia concerning The Royal Society initiative. Pronouncements from other science bodies are often just the opinions of the groups’ executives or committees specifically appointed by the executive. The rank and file scientist members are rarely consulted at all.

Past IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explained the problems with a previous National Academy of Sciences report here and concluded: “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.”

All of this seriously damages the image of these once-respected professional societies in the eyes of both the public and the membership.

The climate cult that has taken over the environmental movement has never been about the environment. It has always been a mechanism to advance socialism, grow government, reduce individual rights, reduce human population, and ignore the human suffering and environmental damage their policies cause. Activists promoting this anti-human, anti-environment agenda appear to suffer emotional and psychological problems which they seem to deal with by attempting to make others miserable.

On April 27, 1961, at a speech in New York City, President John F. Kennedy said:

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Those words describe socialism, a system sold as Utopia. It appears that a yearning for Utopia never dies, because it springs from innate spiritual qualities of humanity. But as we have seen in every instance of national-scale socialist “Utopias” such as Cuba, China, Russia, and Venezuela, the result is inevitably suffering, scarcity, environmental degradation, oppression, and death. Truth, reason, and logic are the first values sacrificed along the way. Professional Societies must stop supporting it.

Apr 09, 2019
New England Curtails amid World Natural Gas Boom

By Steve Goreham—April 9, 2019

"Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.”

“Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.”

Global usage of natural gas continues to grow rapidly. Methane and propane are essential low-cost, non-polluting fuels for heating, cooking, industrial use, and generation of electrical power. But states in New England, New York, and some nations seek to curtail the use of natural gas.

From 1965 to 2017, world natural gas consumption increased almost six-fold, from 631 billion cubic meters to 3.7 trillion cubic meters per year. Gas use in North America doubled, increased in Europe by a factor of 14, and skyrocketed in Asia Pacific by a factor of more than 100. Gas became the primary fuel for heating and cooking in developed nations and a major fuel for industry and electricity generation across the world.

image
Figure 1. World Natural Gas Consumption

In 2017, natural gas delivered 23 percent of the world’s energy, up from about 15 percent in 1965. Today gas provides nine times as much global energy as wind and solar combined.

Natural gas, or methane, is a clean-burning fuel, free of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, soot, and other pollutants. Water vapor is the largest waste product from methane combustion. But New England states have decided to curtail the use of gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont now pursue decarbonization targets to reduce emissions 75-85 percent by 2050. These states’ “strategic electrification” policy calls for eliminating natural gas and propane from home and water heating applications by substituting electric appliances and heat pumps that can use wind and solar systems.

A 2015 survey by the US Department of Energy found that 58 million US residences use natural gas as the primary heating fuel. An additional 11 million homes use propane, fuel oil, or kerosene. Natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels heat about 58 percent of US homes. Gas use is even higher in New England, with hydrocarbons the primary fuel for over 80 percent of one to four family homes.

Elimination of natural gas and propane for heating will be costly for New England residents. A 2017 study by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found that only four percent of the state’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning load could cost-effectively switch to heat pumps.

To force a transition away from natural gas, New England policymakers have blocked construction of new gas pipelines. The Constitution Pipeline, a project to bring gas from the shale fields in Pennsylvania to the pipeline network in Schoharie County, NY, is one of many examples. This pipeline continues to be stalled after receiving a construction permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014.

In opposing the Constitution Pipeline, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office stated, “...we will not relent in our fight to protect our environment and ensure a cleaner, healthier future...New York is stepping up for the future of our planet, our economy, and our children.”

Because of insufficient gas pipeline capacity, New England now faces critical shortages. In January, utility Con Edison announced a moratorium on new natural gas customers in Westchester County, New York. That same month, Holyoke Gas & Electric of Massachusetts also announced that it can no longer accept new natural gas service requests due to a lack of supply.

New England residents pay high prices for heating and electricity, particularly in winter months. Shortages during weeks of severe cold push residential gas prices up by as much as 400 percent. Power plants are forced to use expensive oil fuel, with gas reserved for home heating. Oil provided almost one-quarter of New England’s electricity during the severe cold at the end of December, 2017.

New England policies contrast sharply with those of most of the country. US natural gas main and service distribution pipelines grew 80 percent from 1984 to 2016 and continue to expand in most states.

In an extreme case, in 2017 the government of Netherlands called for elimination of all natural gas usage by 2050. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Dutch homes are heated by natural gas, the government proposed that 170,000 gas lines would be disconnected every year, to be replaced by geothermal and heat pump systems. Last year Amsterdam announced a phase-out of natural gas in favor of more “sustainable” sources of energy.

In contrast to efforts to curtail gas use in New England and Netherlands, global shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are exploding to help satisfy growing demand. World LNG trade increased 12 percent in 2017, 10 percent last year, and is projected to increase by another 11 percent in 2019.

image

There is no evidence that restrictions on New England usage will have a measurable effect on world demand for natural gas, or the slightest effect on global temperatures. But misguided government energy policies will raise prices for New England residents.

Japan and South Korea remain the world’s largest importers of liquefied natural gas, with LNG demand growing fastest in China, South Korea, and Pakistan. LNG supply growth is dominated by shipments from Australia and the fracking fields of the United States.

Steve Goreham is a popular speaker on the environment, business, and public policy. He is author of the influential primer, Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development, and other books on energy and the environment.

Dec 03, 2018
Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

By Dr. Jeffrey Foss

More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

Dr. Jeffrey Foss

“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them - but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite - a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.

You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science - and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep - as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.

Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who - Gasp! - singlehandedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.

Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.

Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.

The IPCC - along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers - desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.

Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up - an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s - long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years - in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

Only the sun - not the CO2 from our fires - could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness - variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect") that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.

In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse - along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe - for now.

Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data - actual evidence - shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow - that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that - even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.

Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing. 

Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases - an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.

Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion - and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.

I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy - who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse - was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?

Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.

Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

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

Current Solar Cycle The 3rd Quietest In More Than 250 Years Of Observation
By P Gosselin on 26. December 2018

The sun in November 2018
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated by P Gosselin)

Our sun was also very much less active in November than normal, comparing all solar cycles 1-23 up to month no. 120 since since the beginning of the systematic survey in 1755, the first year of solar cycle 1.The latest observed SSN (sunspot number) was a meager 5.9 for the monthly average.

On 16 days the sun was completely “spotless”. The maximum number over the days of November was 15, which does not mean that there were 15 spots - no, the number indicates that 5 spots were observed in a maximum of 1 spot group.  So there was very low spot activity, only 20% of the average value.

image
Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 (red) compared to a mean cycle calculated as the average of cycles 1-23 (blue) and cycle 5 (black), which for years was quite similar and observed around 1800.

Fig.1 clearly shows that we had probably already arrived at the solar minimum at the beginning of 2018 (month 110 in the diagram). Will there be another “flare up” like in SC 5? The probability is rather low.

A comparison of all the observed solar cycles so far, 120 months into the cycle:

image
Fig. 2: The summary (between the observed SSN numbers and the respective mean value (blue in Fig.1) for all cycles up to the current cycle month 120 of SC 24.

The measurements of Cycle 24 are well recorded. It is very likely that we will stay in the minimum for another year with very little activity. This can also be seen in the solar polar fields, which stagnate at their maximum value. To illustrate this, we have graphically processed them as mean values from the solar northern and southern hemispheres. We always looked at the same time period, between the zero point (it is the respective spot maximum) and 2110 days afterwards, that is the last measuring point of the SC24 on November 27, 2018:

image
Fig. 3: The temporal development ( of the polar solar fields of the sun since 1980. The strength in the spot minimum, at the end of the respective graph when the fields become stationary and hardly change, is a good indicator for the activity of the subsequent cycle.

Figure 3 shows very clearly how hesitantly the increase in the current cycle occurred. The three predecessor cycles showed a much faster development after the zero crossing. Later, SC 24 then settled on a slightly higher value than SC 23. This could mean that SC 25 could become slightly stronger from 2020. But one should not expect too much accuracy from the method. It is clear that SC 25 will by far not become as strong as SC23 and 22, i.e. sub-normally active, see Fig. 2.

We’ll keep you up to date!

Also see new papers???” that support the solar changes and likely cooling.

Sep 19, 2018
Join the Fight for Skepticism in Schools

David Wojick

Let the fight begin

In March the Heartland Institute fired a big broadside right into the teaching of climate change alarmism in America’s schools. They began sending Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming directly to many of the Nation’s science teachers. Of course the alarmists went nuts, especially Sen. Sheldon “jail the skeptics” Whitehouse, who denounced Heartland’s bold move in a series of letters to various education groups.

My group is now taking the next skeptical step. We are crowd funding the Climate Change Debate Education (CCDE) project. While Heartland’s effort explains skepticism to teachers, our goal is to explain it to the students. You can make donations here.

Our project will establish a website portal that collects and distributes materials to teach about the climate debate. Once established and given sufficient funding we will also produce new teaching materials. The long term goal is to build a collection that systematically addresses all of the important climate science issues at the appropriate grade levels. Our target audience is not just teachers, but parents, friends of students and the students themselves.

There are presently a lot of alarmist websites offering one-sided classroom materials teaching the false dogma of dangerous human induced climate change. That this alarmism is highly debatable is nowhere to be seen on these websites. So we want to counter these alarmist websites with one that teaches about the real debate, between alarmism and realistic skepticism.

Both the Federal government and many advocacy groups maintain websites that distribute alarmist climate teaching materials. These materials teach that dangerous human induced climate change is settled science, which is far from true.

For example, the CLEAN website is funded jointly by NOAA, NSF and DOE. CLEAN stands for Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network. In fact “climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. CLEAN says it has over 600 free, ready to use resources suitable for use in secondary and higher education classrooms. They also boast that they are the core of the “Teaching Climate” part of the federal Climate.gov website. This is Government bias targeting children.

All of CLEAN’s teaching materials are biased and based on this false premise. The reality is that dangerous human influence on climate is completely unproven and the subject of intense scientific debate. That only the scary side is being presented as settled science is a severe lack of balance.

Creating balance in climate science education

The first step toward creating balance in climate education is to provide teaching materials that properly present the scientific debate as it actually is. We propose a phased approach to this effort. First an implementation phase then, if funding is available, a production phase. Here the goal is to recruit and guide volunteers who will produce highly targeted teaching materials. In particular, there is a need for simple, yet well designed, lesson plans that teach a specific scientific issue to a specific grade level.

These lesson plans need to be tailored to the state standards, which typically dictate what topics are taught in which grades. There are numerous specific scientific issues that need to be taught at different grade levels. Each potential lesson needs to be simple and compact, designed to fit into the mandated curriculum. Moreover, each lesson must stand alone, because teaching time is limited.

Getting around the gatekeepers

We will also develop short, handout types of materials as a way to get around what we call the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are doctrinaire people who make it hard to get balance into the classroom. It may be the principal, the teacher’s supervisor or even the teacher.

Our handouts will be something that a parent or student can bring to class. It is normal for students to bring supplementary materials to class, especially when the topic is controversial. In the case of climate change, surveys have also shown that parents often become involved. As with the lesson plans, these handouts will be highly focused, nonpolitical, and tailored to a specific grade level. Since they will be online they can easily be emailed as well. Thus the gatekeepers cannot prevent their distribution.

Target audiences

There are three distinct target audiences - teachers, parents and students. Teachers need lesson plans, which are relatively specialized documents. Students need materials written at their grade level. Parents need non-technical information that they can explain to their children or use to confront a gatekeeper. Of course teachers and non-parents can use this information as well. The website will be organized in such a way that each group can find what they need.

It is important to keep in mind that many K-12 science teachers do not have science degrees, nor do most parents. K-12 is not the place to go into the technical details of climate science. Simplicity is the key.

Jun 28, 2019
Do any of these “climate change"eggheads realize how stupid they sound?

Mr. Erickson Rules

Before this great post, please watch this excellent CO2 coalition response to the unscientific democratic committee meeting on Climate Change and agriculture. They demonstrate we need more not less CO2.

----------

Do any of these “climate change"eggheads realize how stupid they sound?

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”

“Climate change!  Global warming!  The ice is melting!  The oceans are rising!

image

Although this is a recurring occurrence for these alarmist propagandists, most recently, I’m referring to a couple of articles that I came across.

The first article is by Christopher Carbone of Fox News, and the headline states, “Mysterious freshwater reservoir found hidden beneath the ocean!”

My first thought is, “okay, this sounds pretty interesting,” but the more I think about it, the less surprised I am by the discovery.

But they’ve peaked my interest..., so let’s proceed.

My next thought is, “Aren’t most things in life and our planet “mysterious?”

I would think the word “mysterious” would be a word that scientists would not be too fond of, however, as it seems to imply something not very scientific, but more supernatural, more beyond our understanding.

The truth is that there is a heck of a lot more that scientists don’t understand than they do understand.

Carbone continues, “Scientists discover world’s largest freshwater aquifer underneath the ocean floor.”

“Surveying the sub-seafloor off the eastern coast of the United States, researchers at Columbia University uncovered what appears to be the world’s largest freshwater aquifer. Believed to hold at least 670 cubic miles of fresh water, the discovery could usher in similar discoveries for other regions throughout the world.”

image

“The surprising discovery, from a new survey of the sub-seafloor off the northeast U.S. coast by researchers from Columbia University, appears to be the largest formation of this type anywhere in the world - stretching from Massachusetts to New Jersey and extending continuously out about 50 miles to the edge of the continental shelf.”

“Researchers said that if it was discovered on the surface it would create a lake covering some 15,000 square miles.”

That would be about half the size of Lake Superior, or about two-thirds the size of Lake Michigan.

“We knew there was fresh water down there in isolated places, but we did not know the extent or geometry,” lead author Chloe Gustafson, a PhD. candidate at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a press statement.”

Okay..., this is all very well and good..., but I would have to question whether “we” knew this “fresh water” was down there, or if “we” only suspected it.  I don’t ever recall hearing anything about this type of thing before.

But here’s the kicker that justifies the use of the term “egghead.”

“Scientists also said that if the water was to ever be processed for consumption, it would need to be desalinated.”

Wait..., what?

Desalinated?

You “scientists” do understand that if the water would need to be “desalinated,” THEN IT’S NOT FRESH WATER!  IT’S SALT WATER!

I’m sorry, but am I missing something?

“The study was [original] published in the journal ‘Scientific Reports.’”

And none of the other “scientists” felt it necessary to point out that referring to salt water as fresh water kind of changes the whole concept of the report?

Brilliant.

image

Next we have an article by Karl Mathiesen for “The Guardian” website that asks, “Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?”

Good question!

How dare this ice act in a way that contradicts all of our “climate change” claims!

“While Arctic sea ice continues to decline, Antarctic levels are confounding the world’s most trusted climate models with record highs for the third year running.”

image

So the Earth is “confounding” “the world’s most trusted climate models” with its ice growth? And for the third year in a row?

This sure doesn’t jive with the “climate change propaganda” I’ve been hearing over the past couple of years.

How about you?

And doesn’t it make sense that while the Arctic ice levels are in decline, the Antarctic ice levels are increasing?

You know..., I bet if you looked back in history, at times when the Antarctic ice levels were in decline, the Arctic ice levels were on the rise.

Just a guess.

Nothing scientific, but..., hey..., at least their claims and my claims would have that in common!

Mine would just make more sense, that’s all!

image

“Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.”

“Ice floes extended further than EVER recorded!”

“Ever” is a long time.

‘“It’s not expected,’ says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. ‘The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.’”

Like Gomer used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

If those are your “50 best models,” and they are all pathetically wrong, what are you basing your claims on and why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?

Just sayin’.

“But Dr. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend, ‘Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,’ says Parkinson.”

Wow.  You are wise Dr. Claire.  I’m pretty sure that most 5th graders could have made those deductions.

And basically what you’re saying is that no matter what happens with the Earth’s climate, we can twist it around to support our claims of global warming.

The “climate” changes all of the time, and we’ll give you that.  It’s been changing since the beginning of time, and all by itself, with no help from humans.

“In a video made by Eco Audit reader and journalist Fraser Johnston, Dr. Guy Williams, a sea ice scientist at the Tasmanian Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, says that even though it had fooled climate models the increasing sea ice was well understood by scientists.”

‘“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,’ said Williams.”

Okay..., so these ice occurrences are “well understood” and “completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond,” yet earlier, Professor John Turner was quoted as saying these results were “not expected”.

So what is it?  Was this ice situation expected by you “scientists” or not?

It kind of sucks when reality doesn’t line up with your propaganda, doesn’t it, docs?

I get the feeling that the next “climate change” study that we get to read about will being with the words, “Once upon a time...”

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

image

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Apr 29, 2019
Fake climate science and scientists

Paul Driessen

For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.

They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.

My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul

Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science - and real scientists - seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists - a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation ... and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

Apr 19, 2019
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

IBD

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing - lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That’s not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.

Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, “Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.”

So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA’s wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

Erasing Winter

By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

“Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data,” writes Homewood. ‘And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?”

That’s the big question. And for those who think that government officials don’t have political, cultural or other agendas, that’s naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies’ statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers - not the scientifically correct ones.

“The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary,” wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart’s Big Government. “Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.”

There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.

That’s one way to bring greater honesty to government - and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won’t be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.

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.

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.

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

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

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)