The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
The Blogosphere
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Battling radical alarmists in the local media

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

UPDATE: See The Real Climate Crisis is Not Global Warming By Allan MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo here.


I have been doing battle in the local newspaper here in NH with a warmist Shawn Freeman, who claimed I was a charlatan, a well known denier who is bought and paid for by big oil and the Koch Brothers and not a scientist or climatologist because real scientists and climatologists must follow the accepted climate theories and models and publish any challenging work in journals like Nature. I rebutted in detail here and also had a letter posted defending me and my career work by a former student who went on to get a PhD in meteorology and had a great career in the AIr Force including as meteorological support for the space shutle program. But the politically driven attack continued.

Shawn came back at me saying I was denying the long standing work of Arrhenius and cherry picking data.  The paper would not let me rebut that attack on my credentials. We will do a cable show on this issue showing how the warmists work to silence dissenting voices while just riding the natural cycles in weather using the cooling in the 1970s and then the warming into the 1990s while riding the media coverage of every extreme event to push their agenda that hopes to control energy (and health) and in that way control all aspects of our lives.

I have managed Icecap for 12 years while I worked 3 different careers. We rely on you, the readers to help us just pay our costs of keeping the site going - over $500/year. I took losses in recent years though do appreciate the contributions people have given to help defer some of the costs. Please help if you can with a donation (secure PAYPAL button on the left) or an offer to co-author stories and help market the site. ( I still work 7 days/week at Weatherbell Analytics.

That second rejected rebuttal I submitted is below:

Dr. Richard Feynman, the famous Cornell physicist said in support of the scientific method “If a theory or proposed law disagrees with experiment (data), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what your name is… If it disagrees with data, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

I never stated CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. But it is what we call a trace gas - 0.04% by volume compared to up to 4% for water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of greenhouse effect. Warm, humid days are warm, muggy nights. Also, CO2 is close to being maxed out in terms of its minor heat trapping...Shawn’s inference is that it is unlimited. CO2 is not a thick down comforter, more like an incredibly thin gossamer sheet.

And it is beneficial gas. Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science which was entrusted by NOAA with the first temperature data set around 1990 and was lead author of the multi-volume NIPCC study that reviewed over 4000 peer reviewed studies noted recently “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”

Charles Brooks observed in the Compendium of Meteorology (1951), that the CO2 theory of climate change, advanced by Arrhenius, “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor.” He considered the observed rise in both CO2 and global temperatures (1920s-1950s) documented to be nothing more than a “coincidence.”

Indeed CO2 follows not leads temperatures on short and long time frames as oceans, the primary storehouse of CO2, give off CO2 when they warm, and absorb it when they cool.

Overall, the urban heat island is a far more significant anthropogenic factor than CO2.  You hear it every night on local TV forecasts. It was adjusted for in the first US data set in 1989. Tom Karl Director of NCDC said if they didn’t, an artificial warming of 6F/century would result. He was pressured to remove it in version 2 a decade ago to get the appearance of warming the government wanted.

It is clear from your fiery letters, you did not read my reply nor look at the detailed analysis I linked to here prepared by experts, most from the universities and even UN IPCC scientists, that shows the 13 climate extreme claims are all wrong. Heat records have declined since the 1930s.  This was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850. This was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (this spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record). Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1880s.

I described in my first rebuttal to Shawn (page 14 here my journey over five decades working with data and government and university scientists to understand how natural cycles in the oceans and on the sun along with volcanism drive the observed cycles in temperatures and weather globally.

I authored a book in 2002 on El Nino and La Nina for Greenwood Publishing and produced a series of 10 scientific peer reviewed papers on the effects of the ocean, solar factors and volcanism (which cools the earth by blocking sunlight) and also on the nearly impossible task of reconstructing accurate global temperature trends from very sparse imperfect data. They appeared in journals and two editions of Evidence Based Climate Science.

I developed and successfully used in industry statistical models for forecasting based on these inputs. I also participated in peer reviewed correlation studies that explained all the observed variances with natural factors with a high level of statistical significance.

One of my colleagues in response to your rebuttal wrote me “It is worth noting that the field of climatology is very new...only a couple of decades old, really.  People who call themselves climatologists come from a wide array of educational backgrounds, and most of those backgrounds do not include the study, monitoring, or history of our atmosphere...According to Shawn, all you have to do is have something published in NATURE to become a beacon of unassailable credibility, which is ludicrous.”

Meanwhile the greenhouse computer models are failing miserably - overstating the warming by a factor of 3. The only model that comes close to matching satellite-derived temperatures is a Russian one that minimizes the greenhouse effect and includes solar.


When warming stopped for 18 plus years. UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth in a 2014 paper in Nature, acknowledged the ‘pause’ was explained by influences of natural factors like El Nino, ocean cycles.

Dr. Cliff Mass, UWA professor who believes as I do that both man and nature play a role in weather and climate described a group that is preventing the proper application of the scientific method to understand and prepare properly for climate changes.

He observed “they are mainly on the political left, are highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests.  They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.”

You went ad hominem twice - attacked me as a bought-and-paid-for charlatan, when 2 trillion dollars has fed the global warmist monster not funding climate realists like me. Like my scientist friends, I chose not to give-in for monetary gains but work with my colleagues to uncover the truth so our leaders make the right decisions about energy and economic policies. 

You said I cherry picked quotes using UN . I quoted what he said exactly as reported in the global press. 

Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselama magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse.

Talaas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. He expressed specific concern with some of the solutions promoted by climate alarmists, including calls for couples to have no more children.

“While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

“The latest idea is that children are a negative thing. I am worried for young mothers, who are already under much pressure. This will only add to their burden.”

Then there are these quotes from the recent UN climate leaders:

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

UN openly Marxist Climate Chief Christine Figueres said “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system (destroy capitalism).” UN IPCC Lead Author Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010.  “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”


My greatest fear is if they prevail with any of the Green New Deals on the table by candidates, energy costs will skyrocket. See for yourself the numbers.

Take the monthly and annual cost of energy - electricity, gasoline, heating oil/natural gas and multiple by up to a factor of 3, which has been the case in other countries that have gone down this path.


We have a small sample of this when looking at the high prices in nutty California and the northeast with their RGGI program. NH democrats are scurrying to try and explain the high costs and concluded it is because they haven’t moved fast enough with the green agenda.


A new Green Deal package could cost up to $10,000 more/year/household. Also consider that these policies of taxing corporations and working Americans to fund medicare for all, free college benefits and the costs of open borders, unemployment now at lifetime lows will skyrocket. So you will have no jobs or reduced wages and higher costs to fund the left’s wild dreams.

When they get control the globalists show their real motives- consider beautiful Ireland.

“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.

Help us crush this globalist master plan before it comes here if you can.


Dr. Craig Idso talks about the benefits of CO2 and the bad science that has led us to the precipice.

In recent years, governments and elected officials at all levels have proposed or enacted regulations and laws designed to restrict the use of fossil fuels via tax, caps or fiat limits on CO2 emissions. Such efforts are based upon the notion that CO2 emissions are polluting the atmosphere and causing dangerous global warming. However, nothing could be further from the truth. CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use have actually enhanced life and improved the standard of living, and will continue to do so as more fossil fuels are used…

Posted on 10/22 at 05:55 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, October 14, 2019
The Green Energy Myths

Excellent Summary from Green Job Myths paper here.

ANDREW P. MORRISS H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law & Professor of Business University of Illinois

WILLIAM T. BOGART Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Economics York College of Pennsylvania

ANDREW DORCHAK Head of Reference and Foreign/International Law Specialist Case Western Reserve University School of Law

ROGER E. MEINERS John and Judy Goolsby Distinguished Professor of Economics and Law University of Texas-Arlington This paper can be downloaded without charge


Unfortunately, the analysis provided in the green jobs literature is deeply flawed, resting on a series of myths about the economy, the environment, and technology. We have explored the problems in the green jobs analysis in depth; we now conclude by summarizing the mythologies of green jobs in seven myths about green jobs:

Myth 1: There is such a thing as a “green job.” There is no coherent definition of a green job. Green jobs appear to be ones that pay well, are interesting to do, produce products that environmental groups prefer, and do so in a unionized workplace. Yet such criteria have little to do with the environmental impacts of the jobs. To build a coalition for a far reaching transformation of modern society, “green jobs” have become a mechanism to deliver something for every member of a real or imagined coalition to buy their support for a radical transformation of society.

Myth 2: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment. Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption. Simply hiring people to write and enforce regulations, fill out forms, and process paperwork is not a recipe for creating wealth. Much of the promised boost in green employment turns out to be in non-productive (but costly) positions that raise costs for consumers.

Myth 3: Green jobs forecasts are reliable. The forecasts for green employment optimistically predict an employment boom, which is welcome news. Unfortunately, the forecasts, which are sometimes amazingly detailed, are unreliable because they are based on questionable estimates by interest groups of tiny base numbers in employment, extrapolation of growth rates from those small base numbers, and a pervasive, biased, and highly selective optimism about which technologies will improve. Moreover, the estimates use a technique (input-output analysis) that is inappropriate to the conditions of technological change presumed by the green jobs literature itself. This yields seemingly precise estimates that give the illusion of scientific reliability to numbers that are simply the result of the assumptions made to begin the analysis.

Myth 4: Green jobs promote employment growth. Green jobs estimates promise greatly expanded (and pleasant and well-paid) employment. This promise is false. The green jobs model is built on promoting inefficient use of labor, favoring technologies because they employ large numbers rather than because they make use of labor efficiently. In a 504 U.S. Geological Survey, CEMENT STATISTICS (2008), available here Green Jobs Myths competitive market, factors of production, including labor, earn a return based on productivity. By focusing on low labor productivity jobs, the green jobs literature dooms employees to low wages in a shrinking economy. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the U.N. Interference in the economy by restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests will generate stagnation.

Myth 5: The world economy can be remade based on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing human welfare. The green jobs literature rejects the benefits of trade, ignores opportunity costs, and fails to include consumer surplus in welfare calculations to promote its vision. This is a recipe for an economic disaster, not an ecotopia. The twentieth century saw many experiments in creating societies that did not engage in trade and did not value personal welfare. The economic and human disasters that resulted should have conclusively settled the question of whether nations can withdraw into autarky. The global integration of wind turbine production, for example, illustrates that even green technology is not immune from economic reality.

Myth 6: Mandates are a substitute for markets. Green jobs proponents assume that they can reorder society by mandating preferred technologies. But the responses to mandates are not the same as the responses to market incentives. There is powerful evidence that market incentives induce the resource conservation that green jobs advocates purport to desire. The cost of energy is a major incentive to redesign production processes and products to use less energy. People do not want energy; they want the benefits of energy. Those who can deliver more desired goods and services by reducing the energy cost of production will be rewarded. There is no little evidence that successful command and control regimes accomplishing conservation.

Myth 7: Wishing for technological progress is sufficient. The preferred technologies in the green jobs literature face significant problems in scaling up to the levels proposed. These problems are documented in readily available technical literatures, but resolutely ignored in the green jobs reports. At the same time, existing technologies that fail to meet the green jobs proponents political criteria are simply rejected out of hand. This selective technological optimism/pessimism is not a sufficient basis for remaking society to fit the dream of planners, politicians, patricians, or plutocrats who want others to live lives they think other people should be forced to lead.

To attempt to transform modern society on the scale proposed by even the most modest bits of the green jobs literature, such as the Conference of Mayors report, is an effort of staggering complexity and scale. To do so based on the combination of wishful thinking and bad economics embodied in the green jobs literature would be the height of irresponsibility. We have no doubt that there will be significant opportunities to develop new energy sources, new industries, and new jobs in the future. Just as has been true for all of human history thus far, we are equally confident that a market-based discovery process will do a far better job of developing those energy sources, industries, and jobs than could a series of mandates based on imperfect information.

Icecap Note: In support of the authors, we have found:

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path has been hurt. Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow and sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). Their energy costs are up to 3 times higher than the U.S. The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating” and there are life-threatening blackouts. See here how electricity prices have reached a new high in Germany this week. And an end in the rising price spiral remains elusive, experts warn.

“Wholesale prices for electricity could continue to rise,” Die Welt reports. Large power producers such as RWE, warn that future plant closures due to the transition to green energies and the phasing out of the country’s nuclear power plants will “lead to a shortage” (brownouts and blackouts).

Die Welt ends its article: “The largest block on the electricity bill, however, are taxes, levies and allocations, which account for more than half of the total price.” One major price driver are the mandatory, exorbitantly high green energy feed-in tariffs that grid operators are forced to pay.

Posted on 10/14 at 06:07 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Lessons from Dorian and more

Hudson Litchfield News September 20, 2019

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM , AMS Fellow


Dorian was a classic hurricane.


It’s hurricane winds savaged the northernmost Bahamas as a CAT5 storm but then as a weakening hurricane skimmed the southeast coast, southeast New England until pounding the Canadian Maritimes, often the graveyard for tropical and winter storms.


Nothing is new in weather. Great Colonial hurricanes in the northeast with storm surges up to 20 feet occurred in 1635 and 1675. In the Caribbean, the Great Hurricane of 1780 killed an estimated 27,500 people while ravaging the islands of the eastern Caribbean with sustained winds estimated to top 200 mph. It was one of three hurricanes that year with death tolls greater than 1000. 

The late 1880s and 1890s were very active.  1893 had at least 10 hurricanes. Of those, 5 became major hurricanes. Two of the hurricanes caused over two thousand (2000) deaths in the United States; at the time, the season was the deadliest in U.S. history. The great Galveston hurricane in 1900 killed as many as 12,000 people as its storm surge flooded the island.

Hurricanes recurve north as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Like the ocean currents and non tropical storms, these storms help move heat north from the tropics where there is a net surplus of heat to northern latitudes where there are deficits. It this exchange did not happen, the northern areas would continue to get colder, tropical regions warmer.  Sometimes the storms stall or loop if a blocking high pressure prevents their escape north. Often this happens over the open ocean. In Dorian’s case, sadly the stall occurred over the Grand Bahama and Great Abako islands with catastrophic results.

It was the 10th strongest Atlantic storm since 1900. The strongest, also a Labor Day storm, hit the Florida Keys in 1935.

Hurricane and major hurricane landfall trends have been down since the late 1800s. We had a record stretch of almost 12 years without a major landfalling hurricane before Harvey and Irma in 2017 and last year Michael. Dorian made first U.S. landfall in North Carolina but was no longer a major storm.


We have passed the peak of the hurricane season (September 10) and chances of a major landfall is declining quickly. If no further hurricane or major hurricane makes landfall, this decade would be the second quietest decade for hurricanes (behind 1970s) and second quietest for major hurricanes (behind the 1860s).

Should we worry here in New England?  Yes, we should increase the awareness of the real threats and ways to protect your home and family.

Thanks to Hudson Cable TV, we have been given the chance to produce a series on the great hurricanes of the past called “Preparing for the Inevitable” with Joe Bastardi, his dad Matt and son Garrett, meteorologist Herb Stevens and storm chasing meteorologist Ron Moore (who last week was in Dorian’s outer bands).

We are very concerned about the inevitable return of a storm like the CAT3 Hurricane of ‘38, which fell 2 billion trees in the northeast as it traveled at 47 mph on a southeast to northwest path through New England. Matt Bastardi was in that hurricane as a boy in Providence, RI. He and I were both survived Hurricane Carol in 1954. Parts I and II were meteorological reviews of the great storms, Part III with FLASH’s Leslie Chapman-Henderson provided recommendations about how you should prepare here for the eventual return of a big one that could damage your home and keep us in the dark for many weeks even as winter comes on. Part IV has been added where we discuss and show how we can prepare for a storm like that. They also apply to the ice storms we get that can bring down trees and put us in the dark for many days. The shows cycle on cable but can be found here anytime.

SHOW 1 here.

SHOW 2: here

SHOW 3: here

Show 4: here


Do we have an existential threat due to climate change as the seven hour CNN climate change scareathon and the candidates now barnstorming the state are claiming. The answer is an absolute NO. In the 1970s we were told because of population growth, climate stress (then cold), insufficient energy and crop failures within a decade, 100,000s of millions would die, tens of millions in the U.S. and it was too late to stop.  Even as each dire forecast failed, the scares continued, with the date just push forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030. BTW, they quietly removed snow and ice covered signs at Glacier National Park this season that said, “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020.”

We put together a team of scientific experts and looked at the 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all unfounded see

Instead, as energy production increased and prosperity improved, global extreme weather related losses as a function of GDP declined 50% the last 3 decades and here in the U.S., there was a 98% decline in extreme weather deaths in the 20th century. 

In the U.S., with low cost energy, lowered taxes and reduced unnecessary regulations, we now have the lowest unemployment for the nation, for blacks, hispanics, women, young people in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we have the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we out in places decades ago.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and the prescribed remedies. The scare is not based on fact but is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of your life. They assume as Jonathan Gruber of MIT, an Obama advisor of health care, opined most people are ‘stupid’ and will believe what you say especially if the media provides an echo chamber. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing"-- nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all, Saikat Chakrabarti said in May. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path has been hurt. Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow and sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). Their energy costs are up to 3 times higher than the U.S. The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating” and there are life-threatening blackouts.


Extreme cold kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries. A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany’s energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation’s economy and energy supply which one of Germany’s largest newspapers Die Welt, summarized in a single word: “disastrous.”

I was asked by the NH Taxpayers Association to address ”Real Facts about the Climate”. I review all the climate facts and the scary dangerous impacts of radical environmentalism and big government takeover of our energy system (and with ‘healthcare for all’, all aspects of our lives).

See more on the fallacy of the millions of green jobs as promised by the scheming socialist candidates here. The GND that would cost the average family over $10,000 more per year. 

Also note:

Staggering energy prices are taking a toll on those unable to pay their bills, a UK regulator has admitted, confirming that thousands of people may have died because of fuel poverty and lack of heating during winter.

The most vulnerable households spend more on their energy bills than wealthier ones, and “can therefore be at greater risk of fuel poverty,” according to a comprehensive new study by the Office of Gas and Energy Markets (Ofgem) on Thursday.

Fuel poverty, a common UK term for customers who cannot afford to keep adequately warm at an affordable cost, “increases the risk that people [will] develop ill health,” it acknowledged.

Over winter 2017-18, we estimate that fuel poverty may have contributed to 5,500 excess winter deaths and that 16,500 excess winter deaths may have been linked to people living in cold homes.

Posted on 09/24 at 09:41 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Saturday, September 07, 2019
There is NO climate emergency!


Epoch Times

In Unprecedented Move, Head of World Meteorological Organization Slams ‘Climate Extremists’


Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselama magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse.

Talaas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. He expressed specific concern with some of the solutions promoted by climate alarmists, including calls for couples to have no more children.

“While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

“The latest idea is that children are a negative thing. I am worried for young mothers, who are already under much pressure. This will only add to their burden.”

According to Myron Ebell, the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition - an organization that challenges climate alarmism - Talaas’s remarks are significant because he heads the WMO. The WMO is one of the two organizations that founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Climate activists claim we face a global warming emergency that demands we replace dependable, inexpensive fossil fuels with so-called “green” energy, such as wind and solar power. Not only would this starve society of the energy we need to survive. Real-world data demonstrate that there is no climate emergency! It is a manufactured crisis, created by vested interests - activists, scientists and crony capitalists - and adopted without question by opportunistic politicians, regulators and media pundits for their own interests.

But Climate Central and Michael Mann, of Mann made climate change fame, cherry pick data to try and keep the big lie alive.

John Christy shows the temperatures if you do not cherrypick the start of 1970 as Climate Central did and Michael Mann used.



In the below article, Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris explain that climate fluctuation we are witnessing today is simply the normal climate variability that has occurred throughout Earth and human history. The climate scare is based primarily on the output of computer models that do not work, because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because we do not yet understand planetary climate well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models.

However, there is a climate-related emergency, they conclude. It is the threat to our way of life, imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It’s time for people and governments to fight back.

Thank you for posting their article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul Dreissen


There is NO climate emergency!

Climate models predict disaster - but real world evidence shows no such thing

Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, held July 25 in Washington, DC, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said: “There is no climate crisis. Even if all the warming we’ve seen in any observational dataset is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

And yet, that same month, Democrat Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer and Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a non-binding resolution that demands a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization” - to “halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency, and to restore the climate for future generations.” Six Democrat presidential candidates immediately supported the resolution, as a way to spur “sweeping reforms” to stem a “dangerous rise in global temperatures.”

In their view, apparently, asserting a climate emergency makes it a reality and justifies national or even global control and transformation of our energy, social, industrial, economic, legal and social systems.

Thus, in an effort to drum up support for its costly “carbon tax,” the Liberal government of Canada has also declared a climate emergency. So has Britain’s Parliament, to back up a call by opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for “rapid and dramatic action” to protect the environment , following weeks of protests by the Extinction Rebellion climate movement, the Reuters News Agency reported.

The Climate Mobilization group proclaimed that “Over 790 local governments in 17 countries have declared a climate emergency and committed to action to drive down emissions at emergency speed.”

In considering whether this makes any sense, let’s take a page out of Blumenauer’s book and, as he put it, “tell the truth about the nature of this threat.”

The so-called emergency is based on nothing but the over-active imaginations of activists who put too much faith in computer model forecasts, while ignoring historic records and observational data that tell us nothing extraordinary or unprecedented is happening - and demonstrate that the models are wrong.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017 there has been only slightly more than 1 degree C (1.8 F) rise in the so-called global average temperature, despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019 only one weather record has been set: the lowest temperature in Illinois history.

In 2018, the only records set were: the largest hailstone in Alabama history; the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in Hawaii; and the most precipitation in one year in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. Many of these records broke, sometimes barely, records that had stood for many decades. 

In 2017, the only record set was for the fastest wind gust in California. No records were set in 2016. In 2015, only two records: the most precipitation in a year in Arkansas and the largest hailstone in Illinois history. In 2014, only one record: the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in New York.

And so it goes, year after year, as we move into the past with the occasional state record set, as one would expect due to natural climate variability. In the first 18+ years of the 21st century, only two states recorded their maximum temperatures: South Carolina in 2012 and South Dakota in 2006. Contrast that with 1936, when 15 states set their all-time maximum temperature records.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data for 2016 show no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Seas are rising no faster than they have for many decades.

NOAA’s hurricane records go back to 1851. The data show that for almost 12 consecutive years - October 24, 2005 (after Wilma) until August 25, 2017 (Harvey) - not one major or moderate (Category 3-5) hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is the longest such period in history. In 2018, for the first time ever, not one “violent” (F4-5) tornado touched down in the United States.

To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time. Let’s drill a bit deeper into this scandal.

For the better part of three decades, governments have financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet. They continue to do so even though none of the models has been able to recreate (hindcast) the known past, or after a decade of study accurately predict what was to happen just ten years later.

People are led astray, because generally speaking, the public has no clue what mathematical models actually are, how they work, and what they can and cannot do. To provide a simple insight into this complex subject, before we build airplanes or buildings, we make small scale physical models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built.

When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control, we try to describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to questions we have about how the system works today and in the future. We attempt to understand the variables that affect the system’s operation. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing and is the very best use of mathematical models.

Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right, and they have far fewer variables than Earth’s climate, which is governed by many powerful natural forces.

Yet, today, in the climate sphere, we are doing just that - and using the models to justify massive changes in our energy and economic systems. While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1) seasonal, annual and decadal changes in solar irradiation; 2) energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere; 3) energy flows between the air and land; 4) balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice; 5) the impacts of clouds, both trapping heat below and preventing solar radiation from reaching Earth; 6) understanding the planet’s ice; 7) changes in mass among ice sheets, seal levels and glaciers; 8) our ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes; 9) the impact of vegetation on temperature; 10) tectonic movements on ocean bottoms; 11) differential rotation between Earth’s surface and its core; and 12) solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions.

Despite this vast uncertainty, today’s modelers claim they can forecast our planet’s climate for decades or even a century in the future - by looking primarily or solely at “greenhouse gases.” And they want our leaders to manage our energy, economic, agricultural, transportation and other systems accordingly.

Yes, there is a climate-related emergency. It is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world - imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It is an assault no less frightening and damaging than the wars that have plagued mankind since the dawn of time. It’s time for people and governments to stand up to the power-hungry alarmists.

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Advisor with of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute, in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC and a policy advisor to Heartland. 

Posted on 09/07 at 01:55 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, June 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 we are producing a four part series on “Preparing for the Inevitable” - the eventual return of a storm like the hurricane of ‘38 in the northeast. 

We have UPDATED on this site the 12 hyped climate claims. WE HAVE ADDED ALASKA AND UPDATED 5 more this week. The latest is always available by clicking on AC Research at the top of this page. IF YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TEAM’S EFFORTS IN ANY SMALL WAY, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. Donate button is on the left.

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 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


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

Posted on 06/05 at 12:40 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, 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.


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.


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


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.



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


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.


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



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


We currently trail 2008 and 2011 year to date.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Posted on 05/31 at 04:54 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, 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.”

Posted on 05/29 at 08:18 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, May 17, 2019
‘Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment’

Joe Bastardi, Daily Caller

Apparently, the new strategy to fight climate change is shock therapy. It’s like today’s environmental crusaders are channeling the Ramones song “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment.” Here are some illustrations.

Example #1:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said she was only kidding around when she made a big deal about the world ending in 12 years.


I wonder if she had any idea that many of her followers believed her. So much so that mass-extinction protests started breaking out everywhere, with many of the participants quite young. Frankly, I don’t think yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a joke, nor do I think joking about the world ending in 12 years is funny. But if it’s such a joke, why was it tied in with the Green New Deal? (Answer: That’s a joke too.)

Example #2:

Let’s take what Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has enacted to combat climate change. It’s estimated his plan would drain billions of dollars from the state economy. It’s basically the PA version of the Green New Deal. Yet how much warming would it save? According to the chart below, no more than 0.0061F by 2100.


You can read the shocking details of what this is all about here.

Example #3:

Bill Nye decided on shock treatment in a recent video. Now, unlike a lot of people on my side of the issue, I have no animosity toward Bill. As a matter of fact, what Bill has done in bringing people to science at a young age is a great thing. I disagree with him on this matter, as you all know. But in an effort to shock the generation that grew up listening to him, he started using words that many of us from that generation no longer use. But the point is that, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Pennsylvania climate-action plan, this is designed as a “shock treatment” to set the stage for other things.

Shock treatment is for extreme measures. But take, for example, this Dr. Willie Soon plot of solar irradiance (a measure of solar energy) vs. water vapor:


Water vapor is the number-one greenhouse gas. So it’s no secret what temperatures do when water vapor increases.


That certainly appears more linked to temperature trends than does CO2.


Here is another example:


It’s interesting that geologists are not on board with the “consensus.” You’ll find a good read on this issue here.

Fact is, the cost of postage stamps is linked more closely with warming temperatures than is CO2. So should we demand the Post Office quit raising the price of mail?


Dr. Soon has published and been cited many times. I would venture to say more so than Bill Nye.


While shock treatment may be a remedy for some, it is generally considered a last-ditch effort. There is so much to be skeptical about regarding the cause of warming that it appears there is a form of desperation emerging here. Is it because environmental crusaders are truly concerned?

My better angels say yes, there are honest people who have true intent and absolute commitment. But when I look at the shock treatment occurring in Pennsylvania and its tiny impact on temperatures, one has to wonder if the intent is to slow down the American economy. Then when I look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comments, it reminds me of a child who said something wrong and then said he was only kidding.

This is all a form of shock treatment. It will be interesting to see what the next shock is.

Joe Bastardi, a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting, is a contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore - and Others.”

Posted on 05/17 at 02:22 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, April 03, 2019
The Biggest Lie Ever Told - Man-made Global Warming

We have started a new series of panels on this issue for presentations at venues in the northeast. We had 80+ in attendance at the first. Though we had problems syncing with the overhead projector at the venue. I provided a studio version in two parts. Please help support our efforts by clicking on the DONATE button on the left column where you can safely use PAYPAL.

We appreciate your support the last few years which helps defer some of the maintenance costs. This spring and summer we will be working on initiatives to fight the dangerous moves to abandon low cost energy sources for unreliable renewables. These energy sources ARE NOT FREE. Countries that have moved that way have seen electricity skyrocket. Look at your electrical bills and multiply by 3 and see what the future would look like. The real motivation is deindustrialize the west which means higher energy costs and lost jobs. As IER stated: “Escalating electricity prices are regressive-poorer people pay a much higher proportion of their incomes heating and cooling their houses than do richer people. As a result, these European countries have experienced an increase in energy poverty, and increasing signs of unrest related to energy pricing, such as the yellow vests movement in France.”

See how though the rich to whom the increased cost is pocket change can fly around the world in their private jets pushing people to deindustrialize and depopulate for the good of the planet, the families who earn less than $20,000/year already spend over 40% of their income on electricity, gasoline and gas/heating oil. How could they afford the 100-250% increases the move to renewables will produce?


Though they love to claim renewables will lower cost, the test regions the northeast with RGGI and California show the opposite is true.


See the heavy renewable countries worldwide are paying much higher prices. The renewables are unreliable and brownouts and blackouts are an issue, forcing them to rush build coal plants to keep their lights on. Here we have become energy net producer and have the cleanest air.



See Dr. Richard Lindzen’s lecture on Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change. See a team of scientists address those alarmist claims here.


Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models
Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.

The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong. However, the objective of a big lie is to override the truth for as long as possible. Here are the original definition and objective of the big lie, quoting from Adolf Hitler]s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

The comments relate to a big lie in a nation-state, but it, like the big lie about climate, was intended to achieve global status. Goebbels applied the big lie of Nazism with its ultimate goal of a Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years. The UN created the big lie of global warming because it identified the enemy - industry and capitalism - while threatening the world with a potential global disaster. This supposed threat exceeded the ability of any individual nation-state to ‘solve,’ and that dictated the need for a world government. This is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN.

Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

- It is warmer now than ever before.

- There is more severe weather now than ever before.

- CO2 levels are the highest ever.

- Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.

- Extinction rates are the highest ever.

- Polar bear populations are in serious decline.

- Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

The Obama administration ably perpetuated the lie through the bureaucracies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Former vice-president Al Gore continues to spread the lie and tout it through his ironically;named movies, An Inconvenient Truth and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The real inconvenient truth is that in the week before he received the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK court ruled his first film was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. He did not correct the errors and still spreads false information. Yet Gore is welcomed by mainstream media, who never question him about the errors or why his 2006 prediction that we had only ten years left to save the Earth from dangerous global warming was obviously wrong. This is not surprising because they never asked him about his lack of science and climate qualifications either. Goebbels understood this when he wrote,

“Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”

The big difference between the global warming lie and Goebbels’ big lie concept is that an open mechanism of changing government prevents the perpetuation of the climate lie. The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.

The ultimate lie is that members of the IPCC community are telling us the truth about the dangers of man-made climate change. In 1998, Kyoto Protocol supporter professor Tom Wigley estimated that, even if we met all the Kyoto reduction targets, it would only lower temperatures by 0.05C by 2050. After the Paris Agreement, Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, if fully implemented, Paris would reduce the global temperature by 0.048C by 2100. And neither of these people question the politically-correct but scientifically-flawed view that CO2 is driving climate change.

Goebbels noted that the state can only maintain the lie as long as it can shield people from the economic consequences. Clearly, that is no longer possible as the costs of achieving such inconsequential results becomes better known.


The first group to do this thoroughly and objectively was the U.S. Senate. They realized that they would soon be required to consider the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than vote on it directly, they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution which stated that America shouldn’t be a signatory to any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. Like the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on the UNFCCC and had the potential to seriously damage the U.S. economy, while not holding developing countries to emission reductions similar to those imposed on America. That’s why Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed Byrd/Hagel, and why former President Bill Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Even though the Senators were not questioning the big lie about CO2 and climate change in 1997, they saw clearly that action on any climate treaty or agreement by the U.S. did not justify the economic costs or job losses. And today’s Paris Agreement costs are also extraordinary. Based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise, the costs are forecast to be $1 - 2 trillion every year. It’s time for today’s Democrats to be as practical as their Congressional forebears.

About Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chief Science Advisor of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Dr. Ball a renowned environmental consultant and award-winning former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.

Posted on 04/03 at 09:21 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, April 02, 2019
Climate Change scientists who faked data are now desperately archiving it to cover their tracks

By Don Wrightman


The latest fake news on climate change suggests that scientists are copying as much US climate data as possible, because they fear the data might be wiped out under the Trump administration. The misleading article doesn’t account for the past three decades of corrupt climate data from politicized activist scientists, who may be getting the boot from the incoming administration. If anything, those scientists should be deleting the data to cover their behinds, not copying it.

The recent fake news headline, “Scientists are frantically copying US climate data fearing it might vanish under Trump,” would pose major problems for the scientists, if it were true. Government employees, who protect government data by transferring it into private servers, would be committing the same federal crime that plagued Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts.

Among the shocking revelations from 2009’s Climategate emails was the destruction of raw temperature data, by scientists who were supposed to maintain it. At the admission Phil Jones, a Climatic Research Unit member at the University of East Anglia, original raw data had not been kept due to storage availability. That seems more inline with something corrupt scientists would be inclined to do, opposed to preserving data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a lawsuit over climategate because the EPA’s climate policies rely on the data that had been destroyed.

It’s typical to see the climate alarmist establishment freaking out over a Trump presidency; they are now at risk of having their lies exposed. Donald Trump is in no mood to show mercy to those who have manipulated raw temperature data to exaggerate global warming. Climate alarmists are claiming that the Trump administration won’t look after the data.

A Trump advisor has called for NASA to return to its roots, and focus solely on space exploration, not climate research. NASA’s focus on climate research was a bureaucratic overreach for the aeronautic space administration.

Trump’s transition team has sent an inquiry to the Department of Energy asking for the names of employees who are associated with climate change. The incoming administration wants to know which members have been attending annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations, which department workers have attended meetings regarding the social cost of carbon, which employees receive the highest salaries, and which websites were maintained, or contributed to, by lab staff during scheduled work hours.

The questioning of the Department of Energy shows that Trump administration is preparing to do good work. Since the left-wing considers climate change to be among the highest of government priorities and a threat to national security, they should be happy to see Trump’s team making those inquiries.


Posted on 04/02 at 01:35 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, March 15, 2019
No, Climate Change Is Not Reducing Global Fish Catch

More lies meant to scare you from the fake news media like CNN, The Weather Channel, USA Today

By James Taylor

The news media recently published a barrage of stories claiming climate change is harming the global fish catch, but objective data show just the opposite. As the earth continues its modest warming, fishermen around the world continue to set new fish catch records nearly every year.

The lead article showing up in a Google News search for “global warming” on March 1 was an article published by Inside Climate News titled, “Climate Change Is Cutting Into the Global Fish Catch, and It’s on Pace to Get Worse.” Similar stories were published the same day by USA Today,, The Weather Channel, and others.

The problem is, an examination of global fish data show there has been no reduction in the global fish catch. In reality, exactly the opposite is happening.

The World Bank hosts a webpage, “Total fisheries production,” that tracks the historical global fish catch. The World Bank data show a jaw-dropping increase in global production as the earth has warmed. Publishing data through 2015, the World Bank reports:

* 2015 was a record year for global fish production.

* The last year that did not set a new global fish production record 2001.

* From 2010 through 2015, global fish production increased by 19 percent.

* Since 2000, global fish production has increased by 46 percent.

* Since 1980, global fish production has more than doubled, up 165 percent.

* Since 1960, global fish production has more than quadrupled, up 440 percent.

By any measurement, over any time frame, global fish production is rising rapidly as the earth warms. And the pace of increase in the global fish catch is accelerating, especially since 2010. Yet climate alarmists and their compliant media allies spread the myth that “Climate Change Is Cutting Into the Global Fish Catch, and It’s on Pace to Get Worse.”

Sadly, the media’s misrepresentation of the global fish catch is similar to the media’s misrepresentation of virtually every topic regarding global warming. The environmental left and their media allies would have us believe global warming is causing an increase in crop failures, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and just about everything else that has to do with weather and climate. The objective data show exactly the opposite. Global crop production sets new records virtually every year. There has been no increase in drought. There has been a modest long-term decline in global hurricane frequency. There has been no increase in tornado activity, with a substantial decline in the occurrence of the strongest tornadoes.

Ultimately, the question is which is more credible; speculative theories and models presented by global warming alarmists or objective real-world evidence presented by climate realists that directly contradict alarmist assertions?

The ridiculous claims of a declining and worsening global fish catch perfectly illustrate the credibility gap in the global warming debate. The media articles on global fish production were based on a newly published paper that, according to the paper, “used temperature specific models and hindcasting” to report “an overall reduction in yield has occurred over the past 80 years.” Yet objective data falsify the models and hindcasting and show fishermen are catching quadruple as many fish as they did a half century ago.

Which do you believe, a hindcasting model claiming global warming has reduced fish yields or the objective data showing a tremendous increase in global fish production? The answer to that question illustrates the differences between alarmists and skeptics in the overall global warming debate.

James Taylor ( is senior fellow for environment and climate policy at The Heartland Institute.

Posted on 03/15 at 09:29 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, March 08, 2019
Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’

Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore described the cynical and corrupt machinations fueling the narrative of anthropocentric global warming and “climate change” in a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

Moore explained how fear and guilt are leveraged by proponents of climate change:

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 - well, fear and guilt - you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.

Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control, explained Moore.

Moore noted how “green” companies parasitize taxpayers via favorable regulations and subsidies ostensibly justified by the aforementioned narrative’s claimed threats, all while enjoying propagandistic protection across news media”

And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber - fake news - repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children, and then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials, and then you’ve got 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.

When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false numbers, but most of the scientists - put it in quotes, scientists - who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money. They are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it - build a better mousetrap type of idea - but most of what these so-called scientists are doing is simply producing more fear so that politicians can use it control people’s mind and get their votes because some of the people are convinced, ‘Oh, this politician can save my kid from certain doom.’

The narrative of anthropogenic global warming or “climate change” is an existential threat to reason, warned Moore:

It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. 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.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

“But this abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” declared Moore. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened o science in the history of science.”

Moore concluded, “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.”

Posted on 03/08 at 07:09 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, February 24, 2019
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing - for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform - for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

Posted on 02/24 at 11:25 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Greatest Scientific Fraud of All-time: Part XX

By Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian

Since last October, this series has been sitting at the rather awkward number of 19 (or “XIX") posts.  Time to round it off at an even XX.

For those new to this topic, the Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.” Prior posts in this series have documented large and unexplained downward adjustments at hundreds of stations around the world that are used by official government organizations (in the US, primarily NOAA and NASA) to wipe out early-year high temperatures and thereby proclaim that the latest month or year is “the hottest ever!” To read all prior posts in this series, go to this link. 

You might ask, with the extensive exposure of these unsupportable downward adjustments of early-year temperatures by official government organizations - accompanied by highly credible accusations of scientific fraud - haven’t the adjusters been cowed by now into a smidgeon of honesty?  It sure doesn’t look that way.

The latest news comes out of Australia, via the website of Joanne Nova.  Nova’s February 17 post is titled “History keeps getting colder - ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%.” ACORN2” is a newly revised and updated temperature series for Australia, with temperatures going back to 1910 based on records from 112 weather stations on the continent, some 57 of which have records that go back all the way to the 1910 start date.  “ACORN” stands for Australian Climate Observations Reference Network.  The ACORN2 data compilation is so called to distinguish it from ACORN1, which was only released some 7 years ago in 2012.  The people who put out these things are the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

According to Nova, the latest temperature adjustments were released “oh-so-quietly.” I guess that the plan is just to start using the new figures as the historical comparisons and bet that journalists will be too stupid or ignorant to figure out that the earlier temperatures have been altered.  That’s actually a pretty good bet.  However, down in Australia they do have a hard-working group of independent researchers who are on top of this issue.  One of them is Nova, and another is Chris Gillham.  Gillham has done his own very detailed analysis of the adjustments in the ACORN2 report, and has also put up a post on same at Watts Up With That.  So there is plenty of information out there for intelligent people to make an independent judgment.

A few excerpts from Nova:

Once again we find that the oldest thermometers were apparently reading artificially high, even though many were newish in 1910 and placed in approved Stevenson screens.  This is also despite the additional urban warming effect of a population that grew 400% since then. What are the odds?!  Fortunately..., sorry scientists have uncovered the true readings from the old biased thermometers which they explain carefully in a 67 page impenetrable document… The new ACORN version has nearly doubled the rate of warming in the minima of the longest running stations.

Nova has put together several charts to show the magnitude of the adjustments, not only from ACORN1 to ACORN2, but also from the prior AWAP compilation to ACORN1.  To no one’s surprise, each round of adjustments makes the earlier years cooler, and thus enhances the apparent warming trend.  Here is Nova’s chart showing the amount of warming from the beginning to the end of the series, for each of AWAP, ACORN1 and ACORN2, and for minimum, mean and maximum temperatures:

Australia ACORN 1 and 2.gif

For example, the average minimum temperature had increased over the century covered by 0.84 deg C in the AWAP series.  That increased to 1.02 deg C in the ACORN1 series, and to 1.22 deg C in the ACORN2 series.

You need to go over to Gillham’s work to see how these changes derive mostly from decreases in early-year temperatures.  Here is a chart from Gillham on the changes to minimum temperatures at the 57 stations that go back all the way to the 1910 start:


As you can see, the “raw” and “v1” temperatures tend to be close - sometimes one higher, sometimes the other.  But v2 is significantly lower across the board in the earlier years.  Then, suddenly, in the recent years, it tracks the “raw” almost perfectly.

Do they offer a justification for these downward adjustments?  Yes, but nothing remotely satisfactory.  The one-word explanation is “homogenization.” OK, we understand what that is.  For example, sometimes a station moves, and that causes a discontinuity, where, say, the new location is systematically 0.1 deg C lower than the old.  An adjustment needs to be made.  But these sorts of adjustments should cancel out.  How is it possible that every time some official meteorological organization anywhere in the world makes some of these “homogenization” adjustments, the result is that earlier years get colder and the supposed “global warming” trend gets enhanced - always to support a narrative of “climate crisis.”

Well, fortunately, this time the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has put out a very long 57-page document explaining what they have done.  Here it is.  Is it any help?

As far as I am concerned, this is the definitive proof of the fraud.  If this were even an attempt at real, credible science, the proponents would put out a document complete with the details of the adjustments - and all of their computer code - so that an independent researcher could replicate the work.  Nothing like that is here.  This is pure bafflegab.  Nova calls it “impenetrable,” which is way too nice a word as far as I’m concerned.  Let me give you a small taste:


3.1 Detection of inhomogeneities - use of multiple detection methods in parallel

In version 1 of ACORN-SAT, a single statistical method for detection of inhomogeneities was used (Trewin, 2012). This method was based closely on the Pairwise Homogenisation Algorithm (PHA) developed by Menne and Williams (2009), and involves pairwise comparison of data between the candidate station and all sufficiently well-correlated stations in the region, with the Standard Normal Homogeneity Test (SNHT) (Alexandersson, 1986) used to identify significant breakpoints in the difference series. The test was carried out separately on monthly mean anomalies (as a single time series with 12 data points per year), and seasonal mean anomalies, with a breakpoint flagged for further assessment if it was identified in either the monthly series, or (within a window of plus or minus 1 year) in at least two of the four seasons. Further details of the implementation of the PHA in the ACORN-SAT dataset are available in Trewin (2012).

A range of other detection methods have been developed in recent years, many of which were the subject of the COST-HOME intercomparison project (Venema et al., 2012). Three of these methods were selected for use in ACORN-SAT version 2, the selection primarily based on ease of implementation. These methods were:

* HOMER version 2.6, joint detection (Mestre et al., 2013)

* MASH version 3.03 (Szentimrey, 2008).

* RHTests version 4 (Wang et al., 2010).

All of these methods, which use different statistical approaches, have been successfully used across a range of networks since their development. Further details on their implementation are given in Appendix C. 

My favorite part is that reference at the end to “Appendix C.” This document has no Appendix C.  There are three appendices, numbered Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.  That’s about the intellectual level we are dealing with.

Anyway, try going to this document and see if you can figure out what they are doing.  Believe me, you can’t.

And finally:  over the years as I have accumulated posts on this topic, several commenters have suggested that I must be alleging some kind of conspiracy among government climate scientists in making these adjustments.  I mean, without that, how does it come about that the Australians just happen to be making the exact same kinds of adjustments as NASA, NOAA, and for that matter, as the Brits at the Hadley Center in the UK?

If your brain is wondering how that could be, I would suggest that we have the same kind of phenomenon going on here as the hate crime hoax phenomenon.  How does Jussie Smollett just happen to fake a hate crime playing right into the progressive narrative of the moment - just as did the Duke lacrosse team hoaxer, and the Virginia fraternity hoaxer, and the Harvard Law School black tape hoaxers, and many dozens of others?  (Here is a compilation of some 15 recent hate crime hoaxes.) Did they all coordinate in one grand conspiracy?  Or did they all just realize what was needed from them to support their “team” and its narrative?

Posted on 02/20 at 10:08 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, February 12, 2019
If Saving The Climate Requires Making Energy So Expensive, Why Is French energy so cheap?

Michael Shellenberger, Forbes

Ask almost any economist and she’ll tell you the same thing: if you want to save the planet from ‘runaway climate change’, you have to make energy expensive.

“Economics contains one fundamental truth about climate change policy,” wrote Yale University economist William Nordhaus in 2008, who won the 2018 Nobel Prize for his work. “For any policy to be effective in solving global warming, it must raise the market price of carbon, which will raise the market prices of fossil fuels and the products of fossil fuels.”

Various policies can be used to make electricity more expensive. For example, you can tax carbon emissions or put in place air pollution regulations.

However, the most popular way to make energy expensive is to do what Germany has done and that’s to subsidize solar and wind energies through a surcharge (or tax) on electricity

But such efforts beg the question: why, if making energy expensive is required to reduce emissions, does France generate less than one-tenth the carbon emissions of Germany at nearly half the cost?

Germany vs. France

Few nations have done more to make energy expensive in the name of saving the climate than has Germany.

A new study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how Germany, between 2006 and 2017, increased the cost of electricity for households by 50%.

The report, “The Costs of Decarbonization,” documents how the German government made electricity expensive by requiring consumers to subsidize solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.

Lower costs of solar panels and wind turbines haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.OECD

This reality will surprise many journalists and other advocates of renewables who have noted how, over the exact same period, the cost of solar panels and wind turbines has declined dramatically.

It turns out that those lower costs haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.

Because solar and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute, Germany has had to spend 27% more on things like transmission lines from distant solar and wind farms spread all throughout the country.

Has expensive German electricity lowered carbon emissions? It hasn’t. The country’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009. A big part of the reason has been due to the country’s attempt to replace nuclear power plants with solar and wind energies.

In 2018, German carbon emissions declined modestly, but only because of unusually warm weather and - ironically - higher nuclear output (4.9%) which grew more than renewables did (3.1%).

Promoters of renewable energy subsidies claimed in 2015 that the cost of electricity would peak in 2023, but the new OECD report concludes that electricity prices will increase as long as Germany keeps deploying solar and wind - in other words, indefinitely.

French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German’s. And yet the opposite is the case. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity.

Why? Because France generates 72% of its electricity from nuclear, and just 6% from solar and wind.

For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.EP

Will France Follow Germany?

For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, Euro29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity, according to a new analysis by my Environmental Progress colleagues, Mark Nelson and Madison Czerwinski.

In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.

The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.


German electricity is nearly 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s EP

According to Eurostat, although French households pay 41% less than German households, electricity in France has, over the past decade, been increasing in price much faster than electricity in Germany.

“French prices have increased 45% since 2009 as compared to 29% in Germany and 25% in the EU,” note Nelson and Czerwinski.

This is a problem, they note, because “Expensive electricity acts as a disincentive to electrify transportation, heating, and cooking, which together constitute a larger share of energy, and carbon emissions, than electricity.”

The two arrive at a shocking conclusion: “France could have completely decarbonized its electricity sector had it spent $32 billion on new nuclear plants rather than on renewables like solar and wind.”

And were France to keep operating Fessenheim, a nuclear plant scheduled to be closed in 2020, start-up a new nuclear plant called Flamanville, build three more reactors the same size, and operate each nuclear plant an average of 85 percent of the year instead of its current average of 70 percent, it could generate sufficient zero-carbon electricity to completely decarbonize its road transportation sector.

But France appears unwilling to do that. Instead, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, announced recently that he will stick with plans to reduce the nation’s usage of its nuclear plants, increase its output of renewables, and thus - necessarily - increase energy prices.

As such, Macron appears to have learned little from last year’s Yellow Vests protests, which were triggered after he did what economists and Germans alike have long insisted he must do in order to address climate change: raise gasoline and diesel prices by taxing carbon emissions.

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

Posted on 02/12 at 11:54 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Page 5 of 96 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Climate Debate Daily

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)

CO2 Science

Junk Science

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

Climate Cycle Changes

Ice Age Now

The Weather Wiz

COAPS Climate Study US

John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

John Coleman’s Corner

Cornwall Alliance

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA

Weatherbell Analytics

James Spann’s Blog, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue


Bald-Faced Truth

World Climate Report

Gore Lied

TWTW Newsletters

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

Musings of the Chiefio

Dr. Roy Spencer

The Resilient Earth

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Greenie Watch

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

Tom Nelson Blogroll

Bob Carter’s Wesbite


Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Dr. Roy Spencer

Raptor Education Foundation

CO2 Sceptics

Craig James’ Blog

Digging in the Clay

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

Warmal Globing

Raptor Education Foundation

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

Science and Public Policy Institute



Science and Environmental Policy Project

Marshall Institute Climate Change

Blue Crab Boulevard

Climate Debate Daily

Redneck USA

Demand Debate

The Heartland Institute

Wisconsin Energy Cooperative

Tom Skilling’s Blog

Climate Skeptic

APPINYS Global Warming

Climate Audit

Hall of Record


Scientific Alliance

Metsul’s Meteorologia

Carbonated Climate

Global Warming Hoax

The Cornwall Alliance

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Warwick Hughes

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

Earth Changes

Climate Change Fraud

The Climate Scam

Global Warming Hoax

Watts Up with That?

Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

AMSU Global Daily Temps

Climate Debate Daily

Global Warming Skeptics

MPU Blog

Global Warming Scare

Energy Tribune

Right Side News

Web Commentary

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

Accuweather Global Warming

Bill Meck’s Blog

Analysis Online

Climate Police

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Science Bits

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

Carbon Folly

Climate Resistance

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Climate Depot