![WeatherShop.com Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and more...click here!\](http://www.clixtrac.com/banner/31785.jpg "\\"WeatherShop.com")
I am very concerned that not only through soaring gas prices and across the board inflation, the intended move from fossil fuels which with modern technology had produced cheap and clean and reliable energy to unreliable renewables and to electric cars before replacement inventory and charging solutions are ready will add much more pain to most all American households if we don’t apply the brakes.
HOUSEHOLD HOMES ENERGY COSTS
First of all 90 million homes use fossil fuels for heating/hot water. Replacing this with electric heat would cost $70,000/household if full replacement of the heating/boiler the entire water piping and replacing with heat coils (we might assume 33% households would take this step).
The remainder of households (67% or 60 million households) might elect to reconfigure their setup with a heat pump to deliver hot water into an existing hydronic fluid reservoir and use their existing heat distribution infrastructure to move it into the living spaces. This would cost $10,000/household.
ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Electric cars have appeal and benefits but forcing adoption ahead of the needed infrastructure would add more pain and expense.
Most households have 1 to 4 cars. Electric vehicles vary from $35,000 to over $100,000.
We might assume $130,000/household for purchasing two cars.
ELECTRIC COSTS
Charging is a challenge, Charging stations are few and far between now. The charge costs depend on time of day and time to charge, The easiest would be recharging at home at night. Homeowners would/should have your home electricity configuration upgraded to level 2 for faster charging. EV advocates suggest to expect $9 for 150 miles but the real costs at EV charging stations and with electric companies are likely to vary with the hour. Charging overnight is more convenient and can be cheaper. For home use, the one time upgrade to level 2 may cost $1000 especially if 2 cars or more are involved and must be accommodated. My car has a 16 gallon gas tank and with 25 mpg, I get 400 miles from a tank. In an EV at the $9/150miles it would cost $24. But for an EV at a prime time charge of $16/150 miles that requires 3 charges and $43. See how to do the math here.
This assumes electricity costs do not increase dramatically. We know in the green countries that were early adopter electricity prices were 3 to 5 times higher. Remember when prices for gas and all goods and services began to rise, the government suggested it was temporary and not related to policies like the attack on fossil fuels.
If we saw a 3 fold increase, the costs for electric vehicles would be much greater than promised. The early adopter countries also found the green renewable sources were not reliable with brownouts and deadly blackouts (when the sun doesn’t shine or wind blow). Their first solution was to build coal plants but that did make greens happy. That is why Germany and other countries wanted the liquified natural gas pipeline from Russia.
TOTAL HOUSEHOLD COSTS TECHNOLOGY
$140,000 to $200,000+
TOTAL INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY COSTS
Over $10,000/year short term from demand pressures and supply issues and related inflation and more later from the WOKE policies if we don’t as a society wake up and push back.
---------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Trail Times 31 May 2022
‘The planet is not burning and carbon capture is a scam’
This letter is in response to letters by Joslyn Sharp and Robert M. Macrae that were published in the Trail Times, May 5, 2022 ("Skeptical as the planet burns’- Sharp, and ‘Carbon capture: sustainable or scam’ Macrae).
I agree with Sharp that we must “act to save our planet as a hospitable home for our grandchildren” and that “we need to move forward with the best scientific information....”
Moreover, we must take care of the environment without destroying the modern, industrial economy that is dependent upon access to fossil fuels.
Furthermore, we must not fall victim to false prophets of doom nor be misled by politicians that want to control the populace “by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” (H.L. Mencken)
The current ‘pandemic’ of climate alarmism started in the 1970s with the fear of global cooling. This narrative soon evolved into the fear of man-made global warming and was formally launched by the UN’s ‘Framework Convention on Climate Change’ at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit.
Thirty years later and inspite of a record of failed climate predictions, global-warming alarmism perseveres but under a new label: “Climate Change”. Astonishingly, the alarmists accuse man-made carbon dioxide (aka “CO2”, “carbon emission") for causing a climate emergency.
Consequently, we have been witnessing a war on coal, oil, and natural gas ("fossil fuels"), which are the primary sources of man-made CO2.
In support of this war, Macrae reports that the cost of wind and solar power is less than half the cost of electricity from a coal-fired power plant. If this were true, then why are countries such as China and India expanding their grids with coal-fired power plants?
The war has now escalated to a direct attack on CO2. As many as 30 carbon-capture-storage facilities are now operational with many more being planned, including the development of technology to accelerate the natural sequestration of CO2 in the oceans.
Clearly, carbon capture is a scam but not for the reason cited by Macrae. It is a scam because the “best scientific information” reveals that the oceans are already absorbing an amount equal to 98 percent of our carbon emissions.
Carbon capture is not only a redundant activity, it is also an existential threat. CO2 is as important as sunlight, water, and oxygen in sustaining all life on the planet
Climate change is real and has been occurring since the beginning of time. It now appears that we may be experiencing a cooling trend, having enjoyed rising temperatures since the depths of the Little Ice Age - the Maunder Solar Minimum 1645 to 1715.
Fossil fuels are not only essential in supporting an industrial economy but are also vital for a modern society to survive a period of global cooling. The West appears to be living in a virtual world of “levelized costs” and fatally-flawed climate models; that is, a world that is completely divorced from reality.
According Dr. Patrick Moore, a net-zero carbon agenda is suicidal! “After 40 years of dire predictions, there is certainly no emergency.”
Thorpe Watson, PhD
Warfield
--------------
BBC accused of institutional alarmism as new report reveals long list of climate misinformation
London, 9 June - The BBC has been accused of institutional alarmism as a new report reveals the BBC’s persistent exaggeration and false information when it comes to climate and weather-related news.
The report, compiled by climate researcher Paul Homewood, reveals that the BBC has been forced to correct a dozen false claims and other items of fake news in climate-related coverage after receiving public complaints in recent years.
The report, which has been submitted to the Government’s upcoming Mid-Term Review of the BBC, shows that it has become common practice for BBC reporters to publicize exaggerated and often misleading weather=and climate-related stories in order to hype up the potential risks from global warming.
Net Zero director Benny Peiser said:
“Persistent misrepresentation by BBC journalists in climate news coverage is fuelling the corporation’s institutional alarmism.
“Institutional alarmism is a form of hyped and exaggerated news reporting that is deeply embedded in the BBC. It manifests itself as unbalanced, one-sided coverage of climate risks that are habitually exaggerated and that go uncorrected by the BBC’s in-house fact checkers.”
In 2020, the BBC’s director general warned that the problem posed by disinformation online was increasingly serious and that the BBC would need to work harder than ever to expose fake news and separate fact from fiction.
Since then the corporation has set up a team of fact checkers, a BBC-wide Anti-Disinformation Unit and a Climate Misinformation team. Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were only corrected by the BBC after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.
Paul Homewood said:
“There can be little doubt that the cases documented in this report are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other such inaccurate news or false information are broadcast by the BBC without being noticed or complained about.
“It is also true that the BBC regularly try to fob off complainants with spurious replies, leading many to give in. This is even the case when their inaccurate claims are obvious, easily proven and manifest.”
Paul Homewood: Institutional Alarmism: The BBC’s disastrous climate complaints (pdf)
Contact
Paul Homewood
e: phomewooduk@yahoo.co.uk
See the 7th Supplement of our Petition for Reconsideration to the EPA of it’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Findings here.
See Part I and Part 2 series I co-produced on climate.
Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”.
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 17, 2022
Comment and Declaration
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed SEC requiring disclosures of climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.
In our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.
Further, nowhere in the more than 500 pages of the proposed rule is there any reliable scientific evidence that there exists a climate related risk. None. It refers to the International Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures ("TCFD") and other outside groups, but never provides any reliable scientific evidence that supports the rule. The science is just assumed. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific basis for the proposed SEC rule.
Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe.
Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country.
Finally, the cost of the proposed rule is enormous and would have no public benefit. It would increase the reporting burden to companies $6.4 billion, which is 64% more than the $3.9 billion all SEC reporting requirements have cost companies from its beginning in 1934. Id., 87 Fed. Reg., p. 21461.
Thus, the rule must not be adopted or, if adopted, ruled invalid by the courts.
To view the entire comment view pdf here: Happer Lindzen SEC 6-17-22
Reader note the link takes you to 28 pages of detail on WHY Science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency
And explains their CONCLUSION
Thus, in our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate emergency and N0 climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific evidence that supports the SEC proposed rule. Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe. Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no reliable, low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the United States and the rest of the word, especially for lower-income people.
Donn Dears - June 10, 2022 CO2 Coalition
(This is the first of four articles, using published data and simple logic, to demonstrate net-zero carbon is unattainable by 2050 with wind, solar or nuclear, or a combination of these methods for power generation.)
The total number of new wind turbines to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 is: 995,141. Climate change scaremongers insist we eliminate the use of fossil fuels. But what does that really entail?
Here is the first reality check: Can wind turbines achieve net-zero carbon?
Three steps are required to determine the number of wind turbines needed to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.
Step 1
Step one determines the number of new wind turbines needed to replace all the electricity generated by fossil fuels in 2021.
Wind produced 380 billion kWh, or 9.2% of all the electricity generated in 2021.
The average nameplate rating of existing wind turbines in the United States is approximately 2.5 MW. Based on a Capacity Factor of 32% for these turbines, there were 54,244 wind turbines in the US in 2021.
Subtracting nuclear and renewables from total generation determines the kWh generated by fossil fuels. Dividing the kWh produced by fossil fuels, by the kWh generated per wind turbine determines the number of additional wind turbines needed to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuels in 2021.
Number of new wind turbines needed to replace fossil fuels = 358,447
Step 2
Step two is to determine the new wind turbines needed to supply the electricity needed when light vehicles are all battery-powered, and homes use electricity for heating rather than natural gas. The national renewable energy lab (NREL) has determined that total electricity consumption will double when all light vehicles are BEVs and homes rely on electricity for heating. Hydro can’t be doubled, and without increasing other miscellaneous renewables, the additional electricity generated by wind turbines will equal the amount generated by all methods in 2021, i.e., 4,116 billion kWh.
Number of new wind turbines to double electricity consumption by 2050 = 587,329
Step 3
Step three is to determine the number of new wind turbines needed to generate the electricity required to produce enough hydrogen to make steel and cement that meet net-zero carbon requirements. There’s little reliable data on using hydrogen in the making of cement, while there is considerable data for using hydrogen in the making of steel. The estimate shown here for the number of new wind turbines is based on the amount of hydrogen required to make 62 million tons of steel, which excludes the amount of steel made using scrap in electric arc furnaces, and then doubling the number of wind turbines to compensate for the production of cement. (The United States produced 87.9 million tons of steel in 2021.)
Number of new wind turbines required to generate the electricity used by electrolyzers to produce the hydrogen to make steel and cement = 49,365
Summary
The total number of new wind turbines to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 is: 995,141
(358,447 + 587,329 + 49,365 = 995,141)
The average number of wind turbines installed in one year after 2004 was 3,000, which, at that rate, means it will take 332 years to install all the wind turbines needed to achieve net-zero.
The maximum number ever installed in one year was 5,680 which, at that rate, would mean it would take 175 years to install all the needed wind turbines.
Wind turbines larger than 2.5 MW are under development, mostly for off-shore installations, however a very few units rated 5 MW or more have been installed in the US. Recognizing there is a possibility that units rated 5 MW might be installed in the US:
It would be necessary to install 17,770 units rated 5 MW every year over the 28 years between now and 2050. This is three times the number of smaller units ever installed in one year.
Additional considerations
Nuclear power plants are scheduled to be shut down beginning in 2032, with all existing nuclear power plants shut down by 2064. There is no provision in the above calculations for the additional wind turbines needed to replace the nuclear power plants shut down before 2050.
Wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years. This means that:
All 54,244 wind turbines installed before 2022 will also have to be replaced before 2050.
All wind turbines built between now and 2030 will also have to be replaced before 2050.
These additional wind turbines have not been included in the above calculations.
Batteries are required to provide back up for when the wind doesn’t blow. No battery has yet been invented that can provide the needed amount of storage to replace the electricity lost if the wind fails to blow for a week or two.
Conclusion
If wind turbines are used in an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, it will require building over 995,141 new wind turbines rated 2.5 MW between now and 2050.
The largest number of wind turbines ever installed in one year was 5,680, which means it would take 175 years to build the necessary number of units rated 2.5 MW. If larger 5 MW units were used it would require installing over 17,770 units every year between now and 2050, which is three times the number of smaller units ever installed in one year. And of course, storage using batteries that have yet to be developed will also be required. This reality check should give everyone pause, as it demonstrates that it’s not possible to eliminate fossil fuels using wind turbines.
Net-zero carbon cannot be achieved using wind turbines.
Recently, Dr. John Robson of the Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN) interviewed CERES co-team leader, Dr. Ronan Connolly, on the role of the Sun in recent climate change.
CDN have now published their 20 minute “explaine” video including extracts from this interview and discussion of some of CERES’ recent scientific research. Although the video covers quite a few technical points, they are explained in a very clear and accessible manner.
Topics covered include:
The significance of the debates between the two main rival satellite estimates of solar activity trends since 1978, i.e., PMOD and ACRIM.
How using either PMOD or ACRIM to calibrate the pre-satellite era solar data can give very different estimates of how much solar activity has changed since the 19th century and earlier.
How politics and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have downplayed the possible role of solar activity in recent climate change.
The urbanization bias problem of current thermometer-based estimates of global temperature trends since the 19th century.
The video refers to Connolly et al. (2021), i.e., this recent CERES-led scientific paper:
R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 21, 131. Link (preprint pdf).
See here for our press release summary of Connolly et al. (2021)
The video can be found on the CDN website here and the Youtube link is embedded below:
Climate Discussion Nexus’s latest “Backgrounder” John Robson explains that a technical dispute about satellite readings of solar output since 1979 is of enormous importance because temperature fluctuations over the last four decades correlate very closely with cycles in the sun’s activity or have nothing to do with them depending who’s right about the calibration of some backup sensors.
What about the 540 AD global cooling?
By Joseph D’Aleo, Nils Axil Morner and Tom Wysmuller
NOAA Ocean Service 2022 report:
The Next 30 Years of Sea Level Rise “Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height.”
REBUTTAL This claim is demonstrably false. It really hinges on this statement: “Tide gauges and satellites agree with the model projections.” The models project a rapid acceleration of sea level rise over the next 30 to 70 years. So it must be true. However, while the models may project acceleration, the tide gauges clearly do not.
All data from tide gauges in areas where land is not rising or sinking show instead a steady linear and unchanging sea level rate of rise near 4 inches/century, with variations due to gravitational factors. It is true that where the land is sinking as it is in the Tidewater area of Virginia and the Mississippi Delta region, sea levels will appear to rise faster but no changes in CO2 emissions would change that. The implication that measured, validated, and verified Tide Gauge data support this conclusion remains simply false.
All such references rely on “semi-empirical” information, which merges, concatenates, combines, and joins, actual tide gauge data with various models of the reference author’s choosing. Nowhere on this planet can a tide gauge be found, that shows even half of the claimed 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise rate in “Tectonically Inert” coastal zones. These are areas that lie between regions of geological uplift and subsidence. They are essentially neutral with respect to vertical land motion, and tide gauges located therein show between 1 mm/yr (3.9 inches/century) and 1.5 mm/yr (6 inches/century rise).
At the northern end of the sinking land areas in Portland, Maine, a change of just 1.9mm/year (7.5 inches a century).
Enlarged
Holgate (2007) showed the slowing as the glacial melt slowed and the current trend slope pales in comparison to the long-term trend.
A Real Expert on Sea levels
The great Swedish Oceanographer, Nils-Axel Morner, has commented on this extensively, and his latest papers confirm this ‘inconvenient truth’. Furthermore, alarmist claims that “Satellites agree with the model projection” are false.
Because of local factors affecting gauges, technology was introduced to provide more objective measurement of sea level rise. In all cases the new satellite and radar altimeter data showed flat or even decreasing sea levels. Since these results conflicted with previous alarmist model forecasts and claims, adjustments to this data were made - including a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment GIA). GIA assumes that land is rebounding from long ago glaciations and oceanic basins are deepening and thus is masking the true sea level rise.
The assumption is that this rebounding is masking the true sea level rise. Alarmists continue to proclaim that their models project a rapid acceleration of sea level rise over the next 30 to 70 years, when those same models have failed to even come close to accurately predicting the past 25 years. So like with other inconvenient data, they push the agencies to “fix it” to fit the models instead of rethinking the models.
A new study affirms what satellite data have been telling us for years: ‘the global coastline is prograding.’ This isn’t the first time shoreline expansion in the era of global warming and allegedly rapid sea level rise has been documented. A 2019 global-scale analysis of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans revealed 89% were either stable or growing in size, and that no island larger than 10 ha (and only 1.2% of islands larger than 5 ha) had decreased in size since the 1980s. Likewise, the globe’s beaches have been growing by 0.33 m/year since 1984.
In a press release for a 2016 paper on coastal land area changes from 1985 to 2015, scientists acknowledged this: ‘We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world’ - BBC. Today there are high resolution satellite images available from Google Earth clearly demarcating global-scale decadal shoreline change since the 1980s. Claims of dangerously accelerating sea level rise posing an imminent global threat to coasts have once again been challenged by real-world observational evidence.” Indeed, global warming is not resulting in rising sea levels.
--------
The Biden OMB in the same releases on sea level threats talked about the increased dangers with wildfire and hurricanes. We have shown here that any increase in the impacts of annual dry season forest fires are a forest management and environmental and governmental policy induced issue, not a Global Warming induced one. They had declined the last century until environmentalists who have a distain for foresters, farmers and ranchers took over control.
Hurricane damages have increased as the property at risk in the attractive coastal areas skyrocketed. Losses for 2018 were estimated at $91 billion and for 2019 were $45 billion. This past decade was the quietest one for landfalling hurricanes (behind the 1970s) and major hurricanes (behind only the 1860s).
See more here
Below are quotes from the speech by Sherri Goodman, Secretary General followed by related hypotheses validated in a Petition for Reconsideration of the EPA GHG Endangerment Findings Supplement #7. (Link
1.) “Decarbonizing is also critical to reduce the long-term catastrophic security risks of climate change,”
Rebuttal: The only long-term catastrophic security risks that will result from Climate Change is policy action based on the continued belief in the invalidated climate science theory that rising Trace GHG Atmospheric concentrations have had a positive impact on GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature).
2.) “The idea is that though we are facing unprecedented risks (such as climate change), we also possess unprecedented foresight,"---"The tools and methods for anticipating these risks, and doing something about it, have dramatically improved over the past decades. And in that context, we have no excuses. We can see these unprecedented threats coming. And that creates a responsibility to act, and act preventively.”
Rebuttal: (See Pages 2 -3 in Suppl.#7)
Section A: The Social Cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) is Negative; CO2 is a Beneficial Gas.
1. Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data is a total fabrication.
2. Proof of GAST data fabrication invalidates each of the Three Lines of Evidence in the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding.
3. Climate models are fundamentally flawed and cannot be used for attribution of global warming to rising atmospheric CO2/GHG concentration levels.
4. Climate models are fundamentally flawed since the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is actually zero; thus, the current SCC estimation/modeling systems, always involving such climate models linked to economic models, are also fundamentally flawed.
5. Finally, each of the Alarmist Claims when postulated as a separate falsifiable hypothesis should also be rejected.
6. That SC-CO2 is less than 0 cannot be rejected. Thus, CO2 is a Beneficial Gas
Section B: The Social Cost of Each Trace GHG Other than CO2 is also Negative; therefore, each Trace GHG is a Beneficial Gas
1. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of each of the other GHGs currently subject to future emissions reduction regulation, e.g., Methane, N2O, CFCs and HFCs has been calculated incorrectly for years and is actually zero.
Therefore, the social cost of each trace GHG other than CO2 is also negative; therefore, each is also a beneficial gas.
3.“One of Putin’s most powerful weapons in this war is its production of fossil fuels,” ---"That’s why one of the West’s most powerful counterattacks is neutralizing this weapon by accelerating the global transition to clean energy.”
Rebuttal: By 2019, America had energy security, it was a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Under the current Green New Deal Plan, America has lost its energy security and going forward would to be reliant on China for its energy security. This would put America in a similar situation as that faced today by Germany with its reliance on Russian oil and gas.
4.“Because of global warming Putin “himself has acknowledged” that a thawing permafrost poses a threat to northern cities. Moreover, Arctic melting “eliminates a natural defense” for Russia’s northern border which could “spur increased military buildup."”
Rebuttal: Arctic warming and the melting of the arctic ice are not at all unprecedented (they happen predictably on multidecadal scales (Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO) with periods of around 60 years) and are in fact entirely natural. Warming results in part from the reduction of arctic ice extent because of flows of warm water into the arctic from the Pacific through the Bering Straits and from the Atlantic from the far North Atlantic Current. The warmer water thins the ice from beneath, slows the refreezing and limits to varying degrees the depth and extent of the ice. (see more on the ocean influence here and full details here)
Recent year data shows we have past the latest peak of arctic warming (most ice in a decade) and likely to descend again into a colder era with reduced summer melt.
A seminal work below dealing with this issue demonstrated that surface temperatures and the AMO and PDO behavior can be readily explained by natural factors, in particular, solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity. In addition, the work demonstrated that CO2 did not have a statistically significant impact on the AMO or the PDO or land surface temperatures.
James P. Wallace III, Anthony J. Finizza and Joseph DAleo, “A Simple KISS Model to Examine the Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, and Ocean & Land Surface Temperatures, Taking into Consideration Solar and Volcanic Activity, As Well As Fossil Fuel Use.” Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier, Oxford, Amsterdam, pp. 353-382. ISBN: 9780123859563, Copyright 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved, Elsevier.(link),
5.“The bottom line is that climate threat multipliers such as drought and desertification have compromised the resilience of the global food system. Taking Ukrainian and Russian food off the global market will soon lead to empty grocery shelves in fragile states” --- “The loss of Ukrainian wheat for emerging economies, especially those with fragile democracies, risks instability as rising prices for basic resources and could spark discontent of the type that led to the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 that began with a food crisis.”
Rebuttal: Though we have warned that the impact of losing major producers will impact available global supplies, the implied claims of carbon dioxide increasing drought and desertification is blatantly false.
Actually CO2 has buffered localized drought impacts and has fostered an agricultural revolution that small-minded bureaucrats want to halt.
NASA has reported on a considerable greening of the earth the last 3 decades. The Sahara desert has actually shrunk 8%.
A significant portion of continuing crop yield increases in recent decades is due to the approximately 45% rise in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. As the primary raw material of plant photosynthesis, literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 enhance crop growth and yields (see the CO2 Science Plant Growth Database).
With respect to unmanaged or natural ecosystems, they do not appear to be in danger of collapse either. Quite to the contrary, increasing temperatures and rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are benefitting the terrestrial biosphere. Prior to around 1940, Earth’s land surfaces were a net source of CO2-carbon to the atmosphere. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean, an increasingly greater sink for CO2- carbon. And when including data from both the land and ocean, it has been determined that the global carbon uptake (a measure of productivity) has actually doubled over the past half-century, from 2.4 to 5.0 billion tonnes per year.
Similar results were reported in 2017 by a research team (Li et al., 2017). Working with over 2100 globally-distributed databases, they analyzed the spatiotemporal patterns of net primary production over the past half-century, which patterns are illustrated below. Their results indicated that, for the planet as a whole, net primary production increased significantly by 21.5 percent over the past five decades. Not surprisingly, the authors report that atmospheric CO2 concentration was the dominant factor controlling the inter-annual variability and increase of global net primary production over the period of study.
Starving plant life of the critical CO2 would have a negative effect on foodstuff and is a fool’s game.
-------
What is driving the alarmism?
The recent claims about the need to “trust the science” for COVID where the science changed as needed should alert you to how you have been fooled.
Their motivation is not to aid mankind but the elitist plans to control mankind. They have openly admitted this.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” - The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.-The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations (1991 The First Global Revolution, New York: Pantheon Books, 1991)
“We’ve got to ride this global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."-Timothy Wirth, Former US Senator and then head of the United Nations Foundation. (Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment (William Morrow & Company, 1993), p. 362)
“Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment and author of Trashing the Planet (1990) and Environmental Overkill (1993), speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The UN IPCC kicked it into high gear in 1995. Ben Santer was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.
The consensus of the large group of scientists assigned with assessing the proposed effects agreed in their summary of the main chapter of the report was: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in Greenhouse gases.”
Santer as Lead Author replaced it with: “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol...from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change… These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
It was just a start of central planning and control. This was openly admitted by politicians and lead UN IPCC
“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance” - Former Washington State Democratic Governor Dixy Lee Ray
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.” - UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres - UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres 2015
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer 2010
AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti 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. (2019)
The elitists have a low regard for the intelligence of those they want to control.
In three separate appearances (video of the three), MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the “Obamacare Architect,” took that dim view of Americans’ intelligence. In the first, he discusses “the stupidity of the American voter.” In the second, that “Americans were too stupid to understand” one of the ACA’s tax increases. In the third, he describes the law’s “exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.”
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved and in their own words how they have ulterior motives for their green agenda.
by Viv Forbes of the Saltbush Club, 10th May 2022
Libs and ALP are both on the nose. It looks unlikely that either of them will hold a majority of seats. But if voters are not disciplined in how they vote, a bunch of deep greens posing as independents will grab enough seats to hold the balance of power. This would be a disaster.
So voters must ensure that Liberals can form the next government, providing they have adult supervision. We explain why and how below.
See here for a pictorial advice on How to Vote:
(Feel free to use this cartoon with no alterations.)
Voters must ensure there are new sensible people holding the balance of power in Australian parliaments. We need people who understand that:
* The “Man-made Climate Crisis” is a fraud. Natural cycles control the climate.
* “Net Zero Emissions” is a destructive, impossible green dream.
* Hydrogen, Pumped Hydro and Big Batteries are all net-consumers of energy. They can store energy and recycle it, but that round-robin process is always a net consumer of energy.
* Carbon Capture and Storage and “Clean Coal” are con games designed to consume more hydro-carbon energy for no public or environmental benefit. They would enrich big businesses.
* Reliable affordable electricity for industry and homes is best supplied by coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power.
* While the world scrambles to get coal supplies, Australian bureaucrats have delayed coal exploration and development for decades. And we can mine and export uranium, but not use it. These follies must stop.
* All electricity generators should be treated equally - no special taxes or subsidies. They should be obliged to provide their own backup power and their own connections to the grid.
* Electric cars may suit rich city folk (who forget they are powered mainly by coal). But battery-electric engines are an impossible dream for dozers, tractors, harvesters, road trains, aeroplanes and bulk carriers. And the supply chains that deliver daily food, fuel and services to the cities rely totally on hydrocarbon energy (diesel, petrol and gas).
* Australia has about three weeks of diesel supplies in the country.
* To moderate the effects of droughts and floods we need MORE DAMS NOW.
* We need a regulatory firestorm to clear the legislative litter of green and red tape.
* We have far too many complicated tax laws. We need to slash and simplify taxes everywhere, starting with abolition of payroll tax (the tax on jobs) and capital gains tax (the tax on capital improvements).
* Most politicians since the Whitlam era have helped to create a huge national debt. Unless we reverse this, our currency will be destroyed, opening the door to digital money, electronic rationing and “The Great Green Reset”.
* We must abolish federal/state/local duplication, leaving more control with State and Local authorities and with families.
* The federal government should focus on defence, foreign affairs, quarantine and maintenance of free trade between states.
* We need a “back-to-basics” in public education, with less green indoctrination.
* Australia has a shortage of labour, and a surplus of people receiving welfare. Welfare for able-bodied recipients with no dependants should be reduced.
It is time to VOTE FOR REAL CHANGE. However, thoughtless rejection of the Lib/NP government will produce a government which is far worse - a Labor Government dependent on Greens and extreme Greens. We must use the power of preferential voting to break Liberal/Labor/Green Power.
Check out Topher Field on how to use Preferential Voting to get the best candidate elected here and here.
Libs and ALP are both on the nose. It looks unlikely that either of them will hold a majority of seats. But if voters are not disciplined in how they vote, a bunch of deep greens posing as independents will grab enough seats to hold the balance of power. They will naturally support a radical Green/ALP coalition, and Australia will leap out of the frying pan into the fire.
However, with thoughtful and disciplined behaviour at the ballot box (for BOTH Senate and House of Reps) we can stop this looming green calamity by electing some sensible new politicians.
Our first election job - identify the worst candidates and parties. Preference them last on both House of Reps and Senate ballot papers when you vote.
The most dangerous candidates in this election are The Sneaky Greens - they pose as “independents” but are being supported by climate crazy millionaires and, if elected, will re-appear in their deep green uniforms. Unless you know better, put all “independents”, Teal Greens, Climate 200 and Get-Up supported candidates last.
Have a look here to see how they operate and what they plan here and here.
Just above the Sneaky Greens and “Independents” put the declared Greens and their ALP allies. Then select all Liberals above all of the Green/ALP alliance and “Independents”.
Then focus on who should get your top votes. Choose your numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc candidates Freedom-Friendly-Minor-Parties (FFMP) giving preference to those listed below:
* Campbell Newman, Topher Field and the Liberal Democrats
* Pauline Hanson, George Christensen and the One Nation Candidates
* Clive Palmer, Craig Kelly and United Australia Candidates
* Bob Katter and Katter Australia Party
* Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan and National Party Candidates
* Bob Day and Australian Family Party Candidates
* And Saltbush Club member, David Archibald, who contests Curtin, in WA
Put low numbers against all FFMP candidates in your order of choice so your vote preferences flow on and accumulate. Number every square all the way down to Unknown independents and the climate-crazy Teal “independents”.
For the Senate (which has a large complicated white ballot paper) it is safer and easier to number every square above the line, using the same party ranking rules as above.
Australia is facing a crisis. We hold a large rich continent with a small population. It is lightly defended with inadequate weapons. Wars are fought for living space and resources. To our north (and sneaking down to the East) are the teeming millions of Asia.
Australia has huge resources of minerals, energy, timber and food but too much is sterilised in nationalised parks, world heritage areas, or buried beneath rainbow serpents. We have to import farm labour while we pay Australians not to work. Now our grasslands and farms are being suffocated beneath subsidised green energy paraphernalia while speculators tout capital-destroying dreams like hydrogen. Our education system devalues maths and science, despises educational excellence and offers an expanding array of soft options. Our immigration policy seems to encourage racial tension while our military leaders seem more concerned with diversity and zero emissions than with discipline and skills.
It requires thoughtful dedication to save Australia at this late stage. It will get worse before it gets better. We cannot allow those who created this crisis to control our next chapter. Australia’s revival must start with this election.
Viv Forbes
Washpool, Qld, Australia
Further Reading:
Check out Topher Field on how to use Preferential Voting to get the best candidate elected here and here
Australia cannot afford the Teal “Independents” here.
Labor frontbencher Chris Bowen has said there will be no new coal fired power stations built in Australia here.
“Despite having more coal and uranium per person than almost anywhere on Earth, Australia has still managed to make some of the most expensive electricity on the planet. Mostly thanks to a pagan quest to control the weather.”
Jo Nova
Put Majors Last here
https://majorslast.com/
--------
Responsibility for electoral comment here is taken by Viv Forbes, Ipswich-Boonah Road, Washpool, Qld, Australia.
He grew up in the Menzies era, completed National Service, was once a member of the Liberal Party, and has led Senate Teams for two different Freedom-Friendly-Minor-Parties. He is not currently a member of any political party, nor a candidate in the coming federal election. He has studied politics and economics at the University of Queensland and economics at the Foundation for Economic Education in New York.
Gordon Fulks and Chuck Wiese
I saw that article on the front page of today’s Oregonian. It made me chuckle, because the unprecedented April snow and cold here has rattled the climate crowd. They have to speak out to keep the faithful from deserting their climate religion. So, they publish comments from one of the high priests at Oregon State University, explaining that they expected such and linking it to the Summer Solstice event we experienced last year in late June, where temperatures in the Willamette Valley reached 116 F.
In some sense, they are correct as this plot of state record high and record low temperatures shows:
Although not quite up-to-date, this plot shows that most of the state record highs and lows occurred during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in our atmosphere was considerably lower. Hence, there is no correlation of CO2 with extreme weather events, but extremes do cluster for other reasons.
Even an update of that plot to 2022 will not show a change in the number of state record highs in 1898. Oregon’s record high of 119 F, set that year, still stands. The massive heat wave that we experienced last June amounted to relatively normal hot weather in Eastern Oregon and Washington spilling into the Willamette Valley at the time of year when the Sun is highest in the sky and days are longest.
It is a pity that the Oregonian is not honest enough to point out that the “expert” they quote has no degrees in the physical sciences. Even they should know that science requires training in the areas where people claim expertise. On the other hand, I expect that Professor Fleishman is smart enough to realize what the Oregonian refuses to mention. Oregon State University has long received massive funding for their support of climate hysteria. The last I looked, the Federal Government gravy train leaves them upwards of $250 million dollars every year.
Oregonian Editor Therese Bottomly was very correct when she wrote recently about “following the money” in politics. That is essential, because this subject has become so political.
My criticism of yesterday still stands. The Oregonian needs to quote real scientists with real degrees in the physical sciences, even if they are heavily alarmist.
Here is what I quoted from the premier climate alarmist Gavin Schmidt, PhD. He succeeded James Hansen, PhD, at NASA/GISS in New York City.
“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media...It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Yes, “nonsense” is the operative word.
Gordon
Gordon J. Fulks, BS, MS, PhD (All in Physics from the University of Chicago)
Corbett, Oregon USA
P.S. I am one of the directors of the CO2 Coalition, where real scientists with real expertise specialize in real science:
Note that our Chairman is the well-known Princeton University Professor of Physics WWill Happer.
Another director is the renowned PhD ecologist who helped found Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.
Our most famous meteorologist is MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen.
Harrison Jack Schmitt, with a PhD in Geology from Harvard University and the only scientist to have walked on the Moon, was one of our directors.
---------
Chuck Wiese’ via Global Warming Realists
This article is preposterous rubbish! “Professor” Erica Fleishman has no academic training in atmospheric science or any earth science discipline and knows nothing about what she speaks, in fact, the opposite of what she says is true. Extreme weather IS NOT caused by “climate change” IF carbon dioxide was changing the climate as with the false claim she is asserting.
Here is the sound refutation to the incorrect paper published by Jennifer Francis and Steve Vavrus about this that I wrote about in 2016:
A Warming Arctic Would Not Cause Increased Severe Weather or Temperature Extremes - edberry.com
Professor Fleishman, do you care to defend your claim? Where are you getting this nonsense that you are telling the Oregonian? Did Kale Williams quote you correctly?
These claims of yours are a complete trashing of the established principles of atmospheric science and they couldn’t be further from the truth.
Here are professor Fleishmans academic credentials:
Erica Fleishman | College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences | Oregon State University
She is an ecologist, not a meteorologist or atmospheric scientist. You would think (but I am not surprised) that Kale Williams and the Oregonian would seek out individuals that know something about which they speak. Professor Fleishman does not and can only quote the political body of the IPCC that has been shown to be wrong and politicized most of their claims about “climate change”.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Here we go again!
The response from Oregon’s climate fanatics has been complete silence. On Sunday, The Oregonian put out another of their front page headline stories on the need for “urgent climate action,” based on the latest UNIPCC report.
They added this hogwash on Tuesday. The commitment to the Climate Crusade and OSU deceit continues unabated.
Blistering June heat, unprecedented April snow: Climate change makes extreme weather more likely in Oregon
As heat-trapping gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere - coming from tailpipes, power plants and industrial facilities - these types of extreme weather events are likely to become more common, said Erica Fleishman, a professor at Oregon State University and director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute.
By Craig D. Idso—April 6, 2022
Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there-all around us-and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans- and all the rest of the biosphere-are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.
Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms.
How do I know this?
During the past three decades of my professional career I have performed countless hours of research, conducted multiple experiments, published a series of professional journal articles, written several books, created videos and feature-length documentaries, and authored thousands of commentary articles exploring the effects of CO2 on the biosphere (much of that work can be found at my CO2 Science website, http://www.co2science.org). In all those activities I have come to know that, far from being a pollutant, this colorless, odorless, tasteless and invisible gas benefits the biosphere in a multitude of ways. And I want to share that knowledge with you!
To accomplish this objective, over the next several months I will be publishing a series of articles describing several key benefits atmospheric CO2 enrichment provides to both humanity and nature. The articles will explore topics such as the effects of CO2 on plant growth and water use efficiency, a CO2-induced greening of the planet, the monetary benefits of rising CO2 on crop yields, and much, much more. Look for the postings at a rate of about two per month.
Sadly, most of the population remains woefully unaware of the many positive impacts of CO2 on the biosphere. This is no surprise, considering the constant and steady stream of misinformation our society endures from sources dedicated to demeaning and defaming CO2. What is more, world governments, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, societal think tanks, and even respectable scientific organizations attempting to assess the potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars writing and promoting large reports about it.
Yet, these endeavors have failed miserably because they have neglected to evaluate or even acknowledge the manifold real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. As a result, many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain underappreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And that omission does not bode well for policy decisions.
I hope you will join me on this informative journey as we explore the many benefits of CO2 and I hope you will share what you read and learn with others. Societal change occurs as individuals become informed one by one. Together we can help make that happen!
-Dr. Craig Idso
---------
CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center was founded in 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment on climate and the biosphere. The Center produces the online newsletter, CO2 Science, and maintains a massive online collection of editorials on and reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles relating to global climate change.
Dr. Idso’s research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental and Experimental Botany, Forest Ecology and Management, Journal of Climate, Physical Geography, Atmospheric Environment, Technology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Energy & Environment, and the Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.
Dr. Idso is the author or coauthor of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2011), CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009), CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009); Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2003); and The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth’s Biosphere? (George C. Marshall Institute, 2003). He contributed chapters to McKittrick, R. (Ed.), Critical Topics in Global Warming (Fraser Institute, 2009) and Encyclopedia of Soil Science (Marcel Dekker, 2002). Dr. Idso has also produced several short video works and three feature-length documentaries, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Reality or Illusion? (2008), Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Avoiding Plant and Animal Extinctions (2008), and Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Doing the Right Thing (2008).
In 2009, Dr. Idso became the lead author and editor for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), overseeing a team of internationally renowned scientists in the production of several major reports on climate change. Those reports include Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. His most recent work with NIPCC is encapsulated in its 2019 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, where he contributed as a lead or contributing author on several chapters.
Dr. Idso received a B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, an M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and a Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he also studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. Prior work positions have included Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri; faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University; and lecturer in Meteorology at Arizona State University.
Dr. Idso’s professional associations have included membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, Geological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. Dr. Idso has also served as an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute and he is presently a policy advisor for the CO2 Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
We have been lectured to ‘trust the science’ which was ever changing throughout the COVID threats. Increasingly, evidence grows that the ‘science’ details were largely made up as it goes and used as a cudgel for political ends including power and policy advancement.
The same has been seen in recent decades as environmentalists, woke universities, think tanks and governments and our corrupt media sought to build the case to demonize carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. The goal is New World Order or really One World Governance.
Many scientists have been showing the fraud involved. Kudos to Manhattan Contrarian’s Francis Menton here in 30 posts! He mentions Tony Heller’s fine work in many posts (see) and many other in many countries doing God’s work.
Here I focus on the warmists’ own words
In Their Own Words
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
-The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The UN IPCC kicked it into high gear in 1995. Ben Santer was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.
The consensus of the large group of scientists assigned with assessing the proposed effects agreed in their summary of the main chapter of the report was: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in Greenhouse gases.”
Santer as Lead Author replaced it with: “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol… from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change… These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
It was just a start of central planning and control. This was openly admitted by politicians and lead UN IPCC
“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic Governor Dixy Lee Ray
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.”
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti 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.
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.
Advocacy Keeps Coming
Virtually every month and year we see stories in the once reliable media and from formerly unbiased data centers that proclaim the period among the warmest such period in the entire record back to 1895 or earlier (often 1850). They also claim the warming due to greenhouse gases is causing more extremes of weather and more deaths. The base data they use has serious issues and is often more model than real data.
In the ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modeling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three Global Average Surface Temperature data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.
See more here.
That is made even more true given that 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean and the only ocean data prior to the satellite era began in the 1970s was limited to ship routes mainly near land in the northern hemisphere. According to overseers of the instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from Antarctica to the equatorial regions.
In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. “Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route.”
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” --- (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511(link)
In 1989, the New York Times admitted the US data released from NOAA failed to show a warming trend since 1895. Even in 1999, the temperature still trailed 1934 - James Hansen noted “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934.”
This finding was amplified recently by MIT graduate Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in a 2020 book on “the sorry state of climate science” titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.
He wrote: “The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.
The Inconvenient Pause
Confounding warmist claims, the satellite data not under climate center control and from above the surface layer affected by urban warming and the normal diurnal cycles, and increasingly some of the data center data provided contradictory results for almost two decades. Following the super El Nino of 1997/98, global temperatures flat-lined to over 18 years, even as the monthly claims of unprecedented warmth.
Nature and IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth acknowledged the ‘pause’ and cyclic influences of natural factors like El Nino, ocean cycles on global climate.
Buoys to the Rescue
Satellites starting in the late 1970s began to provide full ocean coverage though they could only measure the ‘skin’ temperature, subject to diurnal variations. Around 2004, a network of floating and capable of diving ARGO buoys (3833 as of October 2020) globally that provided coverage of ocean temperature and heat content largely missing for the previous century. They inconveniently initially agreed with the lack of warming.
Make the Pause Go Away
In 2015 pressure from the politicians funding the sciences told the scientists to fix the inconvenient facts. John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA detailed how Tom Karl in a paper in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders were to meet in Paris to agree on a costly Paris Climate Accord, removed the inconvenient pause by altering ocean temperatures
“They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. Remember with the oceans covering 71% of the globe, even small adjustments could have a major impact. Bates here noted “the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets -in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Enlarged
-----------
My philosophy when I taught meteorology and climatology in college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model"s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data and must always used with caution.
Responding to the claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes in the media have been fact checked and debunked here.
Carbon Dioxide, the Gas of Life
NASA imagery has shown CO2 is a plant fertilizer that has sparked mass greening of the earth and huge increases in crop yields.
It has a major positive impact. Crop yields have consistently reached record levels. The Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1980s.
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
The claims about the climate impacts of increased CO2 are greatly exaggerated. Claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes have been fact checked and debunked in detail here.
The Big Lie of the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’
The Social Cost of Carbon is said to be high… instead it is strongly negative - carbon dioxide is a benefit. We pump it into greenhouses to make the plants grow. We need more not less.
The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path the past 2 decades have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our 2020 levels. Now our country chose to follow them down the rabbit hole.
The world is not ready for the so-called renewables and we are seeing clear global evidence that the push away from clean natural gas and oil and nuclear has already started a super inflation era that is already hurting all the world’s businesses and people.
This is because renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sunshine. We saw that in Europe the last 2 decades and Texas in February 2021. And don’t believe the claims that 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 were said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already killed 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.
The Chamber of Commerce agreed:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute’s Energy Accountability Series 2020
“Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon).” (note gas prices are already there in many areas).
A Call to Action
We need to IMMEDIATELY reinstate the pipeline, restart drilling and oil and gas production to meet our needs and that of the world instead of funding predator nation production that will revive their terrorist programs.
If the generals need something to do, tell them to take up knitting. We are all going to need more sweaters as there are signs the next cold cycle phase may have begun.
In the U.S., wildfires are in the news almost every late summer and fall. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has recorded the number of fires and acreage affected since 1985. The data shows that the trend in the number of fires was actually down while the trend in the acreage burned has increased. Longer term both number and acreage burned are down.
Professor Bjorn Lomborg used NIFC data with documented “Historical Statistical” fire data to show the long-term trend. He notes recent forest fire activity is one-fifth the record since 1926 even with the recent increases in acreage burnt.
In agreement with Lomborg, Sweetnam looked at long-term incidence of wildfires in North America and found they have declined the last century though with a small rebound in recent years.
Enlarged
Natural seasonal weather variations create conditions that are conducive to seasonal fires and the rapid spread of these fires west to increasingly populated areas. Today most are the result of power lines igniting trees. The power lines have increased proportionately with the population, so it can be reasoned that most of the damage from large wildfires in California is partially a result of increased population.
The increased danger is also greatly aggravated by poor government forest management choices. ”In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees”. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.” As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.”
ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES
California’s catastrophic wildfires illuminated the years’ long stalemate between those who want to cut back the overgrown, beetle-infested national forests and environmentalists who have axed efforts to fell more trees, blaming the destructive fires on climate change. See more in the Washington Times.
In December, 2017, the U.S. Forest Service announced that California had set a record with 129 million dead trees on 8.9 million acres, the result of a five-year drought and beetle-kill, but that its tree mortality task force had removed only about 1 million.
Meanwhile, the logging industry has continued its free fall, with timber harvesting dropping by 80 percent in the past 40 years, as projects in the national forests are killed or delayed by ”frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods,” according to our prior Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. When a bi-partisan bill was passed in 2017 in California to help fund PGE tree cutting near power lines to lessen fire danger, it was vetoed by Governor Brown.
The LA Times in October, 2017 reported The explosive failure of power lines and other electrical equipment has regularly ranked among the top three singular sources of California wildfires for the last several years. In 2015, the last year of reported data, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 acres - more than twice the amount from any other cause.
Tree cuttings near power lines, burying the power lines where possible would help though it would not prevent fires from careless campers or arsonists. Smokey Bear PSAs need to be revived.
These same radical environmentalists hold growers, farmers and ranchers in the same level of contempt they have for foresters. Their actions have led to the diversion of water to rivers and the Pacific Ocean, threatening agriculture in the #1 agricultural state for produce.
University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass pointed out in a recent interview with the Daily Caller: “Wildfire area could well be increasing because of previous fire suppression, mismanagement of our forests, and a huge influx of people into the west, lightning fires and providing lots of fuel for them.”
University of Alabama-Huntsville’s Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy says human mismanagement is the more important cause of the huge fires: “If you don’t let the low-intensity fires burn, that fuel builds up year after year. Now once a fire gets going and it gets going enough, it has so much fuel that we can’t put it out. In that sense, you could say that fires today are more intense, but it’s because of human management practices, not because mother-nature has done something.”
In this Wall Street Journal opinion piece Only Good Management Can Prevent Forest Fires , Tom McClintock writes:
“There’s nothing new about catastrophic blazes. It’s how nature has always dealt with overgrowth.”
“Excess timber comes out of a forest in two ways - it gets carried out or burned out. For much of the 20th century, harvesting excess timber produced thriving forests by matching tree density to the ability of the land to support it. Foresters designated surplus trees, and loggers bid for the right to remove them at auction, with the proceeds going to the U.S. Treasury. These revenues were then put back into forest management and shared with local communities.
What went wrong? In the 1970s, Congress passed a series of laws subjecting federal land management to time-consuming and cost-prohibitive environmental regulations. Instead of generating revenues, forest management now costs the government money. As a result, timber harvested from federal lands has declined 80%, while acreage destroyed by fire has increased proportionally.”
Sen. Feinstein blames Sierra Club for blocking wildfire bill” reads the provocative headline on a 2002 story in California’s Napa Valley Register. Feinstein had brokered a congressional consensus on legislation to thin ‘overstocked’ forests close to homes and communities, but could not overcome the environmental lobby’s disagreement over expediting the permit process to thin forests everywhere else.
Fire suppression along with too many environmentalist-inspired bureaucratic barriers to controlled burns and undergrowth removal turned the hillsides and canyons of Southern California into tinderboxes.
Climate change spares private forests:
Katy Grimes, editor of the California Globe suggests the large wildfires relate to a lack of proper forest management in government-run forests:
“For decades, traditional forest management was scientific and successful, until ideological, preservationist zealots wormed their way into government and began the 40-year overhaul of sound federal forest management through abuse of the Endangered Species Act and the no-use movement...”
The same climate change impacts private lands as public lands, but private forests are not burning down because they are properly managed. Or if a fire does break out on privately managed forest land, it is often extinguished more quickly and easily because the trees aren’t so close together and the underbrush has been cleared away.
2021
NIFC Report 09/26/21 “After a very dry winter Nationally, 64 large fires have burned over 3,140,000 acres...The biggest fire in California, the so-called Dixie fire became the largest fire in the state’s history.”
The droughty winter and spring prevented the explosive growth of vegetation we see after wet winters and springs which dries in the summer heat to become additional fuel for fires. This helped to hold down the number of fires and total acreage burned.
See since 2009 that there is a downward trend for number of fires and no clear trend for acres burned.
Enlarged
2022 FIRE SEASON OUTLOOK
A two-year La Nina continues. We managed a wet October and December, but as the La Nina pulsed stronger, the rains shutoff. Still we are running above last year’s Water Year (October to September), which ranked in the top 3 driest.
1923/34 and 1976/77 were drier than 2021/22. The trend since 1895 for California is flat, in contrast with the tinker-toy million dollar climate models.
With chances for rains diminishing this spring and during the normal hot, dry western summer, fires will be in the news. Natural factors, population growth and continued governmental and environmental mismanagement ensure that.
By the way, they are also hyping flash flooding and mudslides increasing. we agree, on slopes where major fires have removed vegetation, heavy rains from thunderstorms will cause mudslides.
Bottom Line
In summary, alternating wet and dry years and impacts of annual end of dry season forest fires are a population growth, forest management and environmental and governmental policy induced issue, not a “Global Warming” one.
Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Government agencies, energy companies, auto and major corporations, big tech, universities, national labs, once honest professional societies and the ideologically corrupted media in recent years have been single minded in their support of decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction or elimination of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives).
The democrat BUILD BACK BROKE plan - the multi decade idea of the globalists’ New World Order. This has already proved to be a disaster.
Those most affected by these policies are low and middle income families and individuals. In parts of Europe that have been down this past the last two decades, 15-25% of households were in energy poverty in the long, cold dark winter. The pensioners often have to choose between heating and eating. They track Excess Winter Mortality in Europe, Canada and the United States. 20 time more people die from cold than heat worldwide (Lancet).
Hypocrite of the week:
AND BASED ON WHAT?
See the insanity has reached the IEA
Many of the so-called experts never were interested and involved in ever studying the atmosphere and the science. Many were drawn into the field by the if money being made to advance the big lie. When real scientists publish or present conflicting data, they are accused of being in the denial corner with funding from fossil fuel. In academia, many are cancelled or attacked by their partners in the leftist think tanks and media. Think of the last 2 years of COVID as the so-called science of masking, vaccine use and the use of therapeutics and changed from week to week to fit political purposes demonstrating/increasing the power of political leaders. The same has been happening with carbon dioxide and fossil fuels and climate. Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? (Prager U short video by Richard Lindzen).
See CO2 - NOT A POLLUTANT BUT THE GAS OF LIFE
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost. (PragerU short explanation by Dr. Patrick Moore).
Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
And this great review from Climate Discussion Nexus
It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to ‘climate change’. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop. Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030. Last summer, at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow have increased not disappeared.
The greenhouse climate models used to predict the future have all failed miserably.
Enlarged
That is because they have used failed assumptions and models tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. Dr. Mototaka here exposes that:"The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
See detailed definitive peer reviewed studies on this here.
I have spent 50 years focusing on attribution science - starting with my Master’s thesis on what caused bomb east coast snowstorms in winter. I have spent the decades doing correlations of weather patterns and extremes with natural factors. The last few years, I worked with a team of scientific experts evaluated today today’s 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all either unfounded and explainable by natural factors - see here.
Tony Heller has a eye-opening video (one of many on his web site Real Climate Science that exposed the fraud using a unique data tool that exposed their tricks and the real story.
Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 22 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records.
The 2010’s was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850.The most occurred in the 1860s and 1880s. The deadliest hurricane was the Galveston hurricane in 1900 with 8000 to 12000 deaths. It was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (last spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record).
Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1800s.
Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s. They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.
In the U.S., with low cost energy, low taxes and elimination of stifling regulations, we had the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we had the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.
The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The climate scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).
The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path the past 2 decades have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our levels. Now our country chose to follow them down the rabbit hole.
Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent. Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.
Many households in the countries that have gone green were said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already killed 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.
Politicians in the northeast states were bragging a few years back that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. Now this mistake was compounded by leftist push to phase out fuels and horrendous policy decisions made to reduce our carbon emissions. Ironically, we here in the US in the last administration had achieved energy independence and low cost CLEAN energy. The cleanest energy sources are natural gas, hydro and nuclear. The green fanatics regard all of these as targets. Today one dimwitted northeast politician claims we can replace our energy with wind form offshore wind in Long Island Sound. Explain to us how that helps lower gas prices.
This move towards a green energy and away from fossil fuel will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase over $10,000/year (based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). Higher energy prices drives up the cost of all goods and services as we are already seeing - multidecadal energy changes. And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted or planned, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat. Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.
REALITY CHECKS LARGELY GETTING NO MEDIA ATTENTION
There are a few recent important reports that show what the impact of these plans are likely to be. The radical environmentalists and globalists believe that people are stupid and can be counted on to believe what government leaders, progressive think tanks and the well paid scientific cabal say. There are a few recent reports that show what the real impact of some of these plans now on the drawing board are likely to be and they are very scary. Remember the November 2014 Forbes story
“Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that ”the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends - imposing Obamacare upon the public - justified the means.” Reasons to go green (enriching the powerful) were built on a mountain of lies and exaggerations from the IPCC, politicians, universities, NGOs and the media. We are told the science is settled, that there is a consensus.
Michael Crichton, MD and Scientist wrote:
“Historically, the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels; it os a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled.”
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE’S GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE’S ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES 2020
Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon).”
By the way we are already there. We need to IMMEDIATELY reinstate the pipeline, restart drilling and oil and gas production to meet our needs and that of the world instead or relying on predator nation production feeding their terrorist programs.
Based on projections discussed here, major pain will be coming, hurting the low to middle class.
Help us spread the truth. Let your local, state and federal representatives know the truth and push them to do the right thing. Until now, many play along with the claims to ‘trust the science” we hope the last few years have opened your mind to that being a political call to action and not science. Remember during the Obama administration In three separate appearances, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the “Obamacare Architect,” took a dim view of Americans’ intelligence. In the first, he discusses “the stupidity of the American voter.” In the second, that “Americans were too stupid to understand” one of the ACA’s tax increases. In the third, he describes the law’s “exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.” DC greens still believe that and use that.
See the essay on Do we trust the Science here.
---------
“Green Energy” is a radical dream that is not ready for prime time. Even the world leaders in adoption of wind and solar, have realized that the wind doesn’t aways blow or sun shine and had to rush the building of coal plants and input clean natural gas or liquified natural gas (the pipelines from RUSSIA that Europe depends on to maintain base loads). If the Biden administration has not attacked our pipelines (day 1) and energy sources, we could supply that need for Europe and war would probably never started.
Our Energy Secretary is organizing a team of radical leftists politicians, scientists, and psuedo-scientists to meet with the administration to try and ensure the administration does not reinstate the fossil fuel energy that made us energy independent for the first time and continue the big lie about the dangers of extremes of weather they claim is our fault. It is ALL about power and big personal profit. Though the elite rich is not affected by expensive energy, the rest of us are and high energy costs forced massive inflation of all goods and services. Many will die but for many in the movement that is an acceptable outcome because they think the earth is overpopulated. If you have have lost respect for “just trust the science” claims with COVID/vaccine mandates recognize that the climate crisis in an invention of the left to get control over your lives. I do not deny that climate changes - I have studied weather and climate attribution for my whole career and experienced the warmth and hurricanes of the 1950s, the cold and snow and threats of an imminent ice age in the 1960s and 1970s before the modest late century warming.
Many warned for many decades this politically driven nonsense would happen.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken
Well before the climate change scare started, we were warned in 1961:
“… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades… research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
- President Eisenhower in his Farewell address
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
His words have been proven remarkably prophetic. What follows are quotes from some of the leaders in that movement. It exposes their true motivations and intentions. It proves this is political not scientific.
ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE IDEAS BASED ON POPULATION AND RESOURCE WORRIES
”The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE USE OF MODELS TO HYPE THREATS
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...”
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
- David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
- Judi Bari, Principal organizer of Earth First!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, Princeton Professor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract...a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
NOAA’s Administrator Jane Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FACT THE MODELS AND ALARMIST CLAIMS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IS IGNORED VIOLATING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: “If a theory disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong… 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, or what your name is… If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Einstein schooled his fellow scientists: “A model or a hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
See Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist, radical environmental activist and co-founder of Greenpeace talk about his journey to the truth and skepticism. He speaks about the benefits of the demonized gas CO2.
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change. This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.”
- Stephen Moore, author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections...proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
- MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever changes his mind on global warming, recognizes it as a psuedoscience.
-------------------
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.
My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data, and must always used with caution. We have found no evidence here and here and even more here and here) that any of the claims are right.
See Stephen Moore’ right-on assessment here.
------------
Kelly (2008) argues that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.” Kelly (2008) also finds that “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe.” Kelly (2005) provides insights into the consensus building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases… At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation… In deciding what level of confidence is appropriate, we should taken into account the tendency of beliefs to serve as agents in their own confirmation. Kelly refers to this phenomenon as ‘upward epistemic push.’
I wrote about that same time on Icecap Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy.
And see the real story about the Paris Accord and Poland UN Climate Summit: Poland_real_story.pdf
Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science
Last week, I got an email from a polar bear scientist I have interacted with a few times. Not one of the big names but aside from that, I’ll leave their identity private. The email was polite and I tried to respond in kind. I have copied it here because others may have had similar concerns.
This was the email:
Looking at your website, and taking a step back, it seems you are more interested in attacking polar bear researchers than the well-being of polar bears as a species. It seems there’s something personal going on. I’m genuinely curious. No hidden agenda on my part. Also, I’d like to know how much time you’ve spent in the field with these marvelous animals. Again, just curious. No intention to inflame matters.
My response is below.
Dear X,
Thanks for getting in touch with your feedback. I appreciate you trying to understand my position.
There is nothing personal about my criticisms: my concern is, and always has been, the lack of scientific integrity I’ve been seeing from some of your colleagues. Bear with me (no pun intended).
What I take from your enquiry is that I should be more concerned about “the well-being of polar bears as a species” and that I should have more appreciation for how “marvelous” these animals are.
Those two things suggest to me that you may be too emotionally invested, that you may lack the necessary detachment to be the best scientist you can be. I suspect this is true for all your colleagues, to various degrees. I say that not to slander but as a caution you may never have heard.
There is a potential bias that comes from caring more about the well-being of polar bears than the integrity of the science being presented (whether in print, relayed to journalists or posted on social media). Perhaps you don’t see this, which I understand.
But I am convinced that part of what makes me an essential part of the polar bear science community is that I haven’t worked in the field with bears and haven’t had my picture taken cuddling newborn cubs. It keeps me focused on the science being presented.
Biologically speaking, I consider polar bears one of the most fascinating animals on the planet. I want to see as much good, solid research on them being done now and in the future as happened before ‘climate change’ became such an all-consuming focus.
As a scientist, there have been a few issues in your field that I’ve found deeply disturbing and in most cases, my criticisms relate back to these (perhaps what you perceive as being ‘personal attacks’.
1) the almost total failure by Amstrup and others in recent years to acknowledge the huge die-off of Southern Beaufort bears during the 1974-1976 thick spring ice events (described in detail in the scientific literature), especially in relation to the similar events that took place in 2004-2006 which are now disingenuously implied to have been caused by lack of sea ice. As far as I can see, there has been no real attempt to work with sea ice specialists to understand why such phenomena would have occurred repeatedly there (and nowhere else, as far as I can determine), or how this has shaped the physiology, behaviour and demography of the population: just a total focus on presenting ‘evidence’ to blame on global warming.
2) the repeated statements to journalists (particularly by Amstrup, Stirling and Derocher) that Western Hudson Bay females over the last few years continue to lose weight and cubs suffer declining survival when there are no data confirming this in the published literature. There have been no data on these metrics published since 2004, although it is clear the data exist. Why hasn’t it been published? I have made this criticism many times and still nothing changes, so I am left to conclude the data do not support their statements. If there are valid reasons for not publishing the data, I’d love to hear them: the world should hear them.
3) related to point 2, the insistence that the decline in body condition in WH bears is a new phenomenon related to changes in sea ice (1980s to 2000s) when a previous decline in condition not related to sea ice (from the 1960s to the 1980s) is documented in the literature but now never mentioned. In fact, body condition and cub survival dropped twice but only the second drop is discussed (and blamed on sea ice changes). I suspect it’s because Stirling and Derocher have no explanation for why the first decline occurred so would rather just forget it. However, there will be no advancement of a true big-picture understanding of WH polar bear survival over time in relation to different ice and snow conditions unless all of these data are considered.
4) the insistence that breakup and freeze-up dates are critical to understanding WH and SH polar bear survival, yet in 2022 the most recent ‘official’ data (i.e. used by your colleagues in their assessments) are from 2015. Is there any reason why can this data cannot be calculated after fall freeze-up and reported every year for everyone to see? The Norwegians do this and they have my utmost respect and admiration for doing so (which I have stated publicly).
To keep this from being an even longer essay, I have attached a copy of the final chapter of my 2019 polar bear book in which I explain “why I do what I do”. Perhaps that will help as well.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Susan
By who else but Seth Borenstein AP. ---
“The American West’s megadrought deepened so much last year that it is now the driest in at least 1,200 years and is a worst-case climate change scenario playing out live, a new study finds.
A dramatic drying in 2021 - about as dry as 2002 and one of the driest years ever recorded for the region - pushed the 22-year drought past the previous record-holder for megadroughts in the late 1500s and shows no signs of easing in the near future, according to a study Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The study calculated that 42% of this megadrought can be attributed to human-caused climate change.”
-------------------
As the graph below from NOAA’s NCEI for the western U.S. shows there are dry and wet years often explained by El Ninos and La Ninas, the trend is “flat” since 1895.
When droughts are severe or persist for more than a season, talk of a permanent change to a megadrought or permadrought often begin. There is no sense of history in these claims. A 2015 study (Cook etal) found that Megadroughts in the past 2000 years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts. When drought began in Texas in 2010 and worsened in 2011, alarmists claimed this event marked the start of a ‘permadrought’. Some worried that as a farming and cattle ranching region, Texas was essentially finished. Three wet years followed culminating with the major flooding from Hurricane Harvey. The Texas drought was over.
So then alarmists changed their warnings and claimed that the flooding from Harvey was the result of climate change and an era of severe flooding storms had begun. However, the record below for precipitation in Texas shows a flat trend seen with the wet and dry periods. It does show the worst drought stretch 6 years long occurred in the 1950s. But, large swings are common.
In California there were four dry to very dry years ending in 2014 and the alarmists were again proclaiming a Permadrought there. However a record wet/snowy year occurred in the west with the heaviest snows in the Northern Sierra Nevada Mountains in 2016/17. It resulted in an accumulation of over 750 inches (63 feet) of snow at one location. Within months the California drought ended. Drought returned the following year followed by another wet year before the wet 2019/20. Then the 2020/21 water year western drought followed. It ranked with 1923/24 and 1976/77 as the driest in the Sierras. Despite these ups and downs, the long-term trend is flat.
See the monthly precipitation this season in the Sierra - a wet October and December and dry between. See the driest and wettest years. 1923/24 an 1976/77 were the driest with 2020/21 just behind.
The EPA shows declining drought in the U.S.
Enlarged
Hao etal (2014) showed global drought has declined. Note drought and flood locations relate to the ocean cycles like El Nino or La Nina. Note the Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1970s.
Enlarged
And again droughts in California are not new. The drought of 1862-1863 ended the cattle industry in Southern California here.
