The right strategy wins the war WeatherShop.com Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and more...click here!\
The Blogosphere
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants’: Greenpeace founder

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

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

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

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

Link to post here.

A commenter Johansen said:

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

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

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

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

image

By Patrick Moore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

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

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

We currently trail 2008 and 2011 year to date.

image
Enlarged

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

image

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewables Are For Degrowth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circling Down

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

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

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

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

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


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

Joe Bastardi, Daily Caller

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

Example #1:

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

Interesting.

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

Example #2:

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

image
Enlarged

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

Example #3:

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

Here is another example:

image
Enlarged

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

image

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- It is warmer now than ever before.

- There is more severe weather now than ever before.

- CO2 levels are the highest ever.

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

- Extinction rates are the highest ever.

- Polar bear populations are in serious decline.

- Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

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

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

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

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

About Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

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

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


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

By Don Wrightman

image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image
Enlarged

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


Friday, March 15, 2019
Global climate change is political not scientific

UPDATE: We have updated the top 10 alarmist claims and added one on the recent nonsense that agriculture yields will collapse with continued change. See them here.

---------

“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.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

image
Enlarged

“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.

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

Judith Curry writes:

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

Posted on 03/15 at 03:47 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


No, Climate Change Is Not Reducing Global Fish Catch

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

By James Taylor

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

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

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

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

* 2015 was a record year for global fish production.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.org) is senior fellow for environment and climate policy at The Heartland Institute.

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


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

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

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

Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign - well, fear and guilt - you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.

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

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

And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber - fake news - repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children, and then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials, and then you’ve got the green businesses, the rent-seekers and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this, and then of course you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants.

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

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

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

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

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

Moore concluded, “It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

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


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

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

By Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian

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

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

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

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

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

A few excerpts from Nova:

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

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

image
Australia ACORN 1 and 2.gif

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

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

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

3. HOMOGENISATION METHODS

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

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

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

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

* MASH version 3.03 (Szentimrey, 2008).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Michael Shellenberger, Forbes

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

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

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

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

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

Germany vs. France

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will France Follow Germany?

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

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

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

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

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

image
Enlarged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Friday, February 08, 2019
Climate change alarmists burned by studies showing destructive wildfires in decline

Update see more here and as part of the 11 rebuttals here.

Global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previous 18 years, study shows

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, July 30, 2018

image

Scenes of Californians fleeing their homes and Greeks swimming out to sea have fueled alarm about climate change fueling deadly wildfires, but recent studies show that such destructive blazes are on the decline worldwide.

A September 2017 report in the journal Science found that global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previous 18 years, a finding consistent with a May 2016 paper published by the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

“[G]lobal area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago,” said the study by British researchers at Swansea University.

Even in California, which for years has wrestled with fire devastation, a study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire found that the number of wildfires burning more than 300 acres per year has been tailing off since a peak in 1980.

“The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western USA is certainly an over-statement,” the authors, Jon E. Keeley and Alexandra D. Syphard, said in The Orange County Register.

Mr. Keeley is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and Ms. Syphard is with the Conservation Biology Institute.

Such findings appear to fly in the face of widespread reports that human-caused global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of wildfires by fueling drought and higher temperatures.

“Extreme heat and wildfires made worse by climate change, say scientists,” an Associated Press article proclaimed this week on NBC News.

“We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall,” Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh told the AP.

Yale Environment 360 declared in an Oct. 2 article, “Stark Evidence: A Warmer World Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires,” and concluded that “the fires being seen today ... are man-made, or at least man-worsened.”

This year’s U.S. wildfire season was forecast to be worse than average, and so far it has kept with predictions, with 98 wildfires blackening 4.6 million acres as of Monday, more than the 10-year average of 3.7 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

California has been hit hardest, but firefighters made progress Monday. They lifted some evacuation orders on the Carr fire in Shasta County about 150 miles north of Sacramento, the deadliest and most destructive of the blazes, and reached 30 percent containment on the Ferguson fire near Yosemite National Park.

Six people have been killed so far in the California wildfires, including two firefighters, a great-grandmother and two of her great-grandchildren. About 410,000 acres have burned across the state amid unpredictable winds and high temperatures.

The death toll in Greece rose to 91 on Sunday as wildfires swept through seaside communities, at one point sending dozens of people out to sea to escape the flames engulfing the resort town of Mati, as shown on a dramatic video.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, cited global warming last week as a factor in his proposal to reduce the legal liability of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the utility company whose equipment was found to have sparked 15 of the state’s 2017 wildfires.

Mr. Brown and legislative leaders announced amended legislation July 2 to heighten California’s wildfire response, saying the effort “will help prepare the state to deal with the increasingly extreme weather and natural disasters caused by climate change.”

In a May report, “Indicators of Climate Change in California,” state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriguez said extreme weather events like wildfires are “not isolated incidents.”

“They are suggestive of the significant and increasingly discernible impacts of climate change in California,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “The most dramatic impacts include wildfires that are larger and more frequent, and the most severe drought since recordkeeping began.”

Others have argued that news coverage of fire disasters has contributed to the perception that wildfires driven by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are raging out of control, despite evidence to the contrary.

“[M]any consider wildfire an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses,” said the Royal Society paper. “However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived trends.”

In the Western United States, the study found that the limited data on fire severity “indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement.”

What’s responsible for the drop-off? The Science article pointed to an expansion of agriculture production in savannas and grasslands, resulting in a roughly 25 percent decrease in global burned area “despite the influence of climate.”

The discrepancy was not lost on climate skeptics such as Australia’s JoNova, who concluded Monday, “Global warming means a global fall in wildfires.”

Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That website, added: “Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.”

University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor Clifford Mass said a host of factors may have contributed to this year’s California wildfires, including a modest temperature increase over the past several decades.

Add to that the drought, an increase of non-native invasive species, a huge influx of homeowners in fire-prone areas and aggressive fire suppression in the first half of the 20th century that left some forests overgrown and ripe for ignition.

“So there is a lot of talk of climate change ‘supercharging’ fires, but really no proof of it,” Mr. Mass said in an email. “And some fires are clearly NOT associated with climate change, like the wine country fires of last October.”

His conclusion? “I suspect climate change is a minor element in the CA wildfires, while fire suppression and human population growth into the wildlands are the dominant elements.”

See more on the 11 major alarmist claims here. More detail with charts and data is provided in the clicks following each summary.

Posted on 02/08 at 07:59 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Mathematical modeling illusions

The global climate scare - and policies resulting from it - are based on models that do not work
Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The dangerous human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence that climate fluctuations and weather events we are experiencing today are different from, or worse than, what our near and distant ancestors had to deal with or are human-caused.

Many of the statements issued to support these fear-mongering claims are presented in the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, a 1,656-page report released in late November. But none of their claims have any basis in real world observations. All that supports them are mathematical equations presented as accurate, reliable models of Earth’s climate.

It is important to properly understand these models, since they are the only basis for the climate scare.

Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against stresses and performance that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely (or entirely) beyond our control - such as climate - we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we can see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.

However, today’s climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to affect Earth’s climate, and many of the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Laboratory lists the six most important variables in any climate model:

1) Sun-Earth orbital dynamics and their relative positions and motions with respect to other planets in the solar system;
2) Charged particles output from the Sun (solar wind) and modulation of the incoming cosmic rays from the galaxy at large;
3) How clouds influence climate, both blocking some incoming rays/heat and trapping some of the warmth;
4) Distribution of sunlight intercepted in the atmosphere and near the Earth’s surface;
5) The way in which the oceans and land masses store, affect and distribute incoming solar energy;
6) How the biosphere reacts to all these various climate drivers.

Soon concludes that, even if the equations to describe these interactive systems were known and properly included in computer models (they are not), it would still not be possible to compute future climate states in any meaningful way. This is because it would take longer for even the world’s most advanced super-computers to calculate future climate than it would take for the climate to unfold in the real world.

So we could compute the climate (or Earth’s multiple sub-climates) for 40 years from now, but it would take more than 40 years for the models to make that computation.
Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully “tuned” to and accidentally matched observational data, not one accurately “predicted” (hindcasted) the known past. Their average prediction is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites and weather balloons actually measured.

In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. John Christy compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded: “These models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘what’ has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘what’ may happen in the future and ‘why.’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”

Similarly, when Christopher Monckton tested the IPCC approach in a paper published by the Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2015, he convincingly demonstrated that official predictions of global warming had been overstated threefold. (Monckton holds several awards for his climate work.)

The paper has been downloaded 12 times more often than any other paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal. Monckton’s team of eminent climate scientists is now putting the final touches on a paper proving definitively that - instead of the officially-predicted 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.5 F) warming for every doubling of CO2 levels - there will be only 1.1 degrees C of warming. At a vital point in their calculations, climatologists had neglected to take account of the fact that the Sun is shining!

All problems can be viewed as having five stages: observation, modeling, prediction, verification and validation. Apollo team meteorologist Tom Wysmuller explains: “Verification involves seeing if predictions actually happen, and validation checks to see if the prediction is something other than random correlation. Recent CO2 rise correlating with industrial age warming is an example on point that came to mind.”

As Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala notes, “the global climate models relied upon by the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and the USGCRP [United States Global Change Research Program] have not been verified and validated.”

An important reason to discount climate models is their lack of testing against historical data. If one enters the correct data for a 1920 Model A, automotive modeling software used to develop a 2020 Ferrari should predict the performance of a 1920 Model A with reasonable accuracy. And it will.

But no climate models relied on by the IPCC (or any other model, for that matter) has applied the initial conditions of 1900 and forecast the Dust Bowl of the 1930s - never mind an accurate prediction of the climate in 2000 or 2015. Given the complete lack of testable results, we must conclude that these models have more in common with the “Magic 8 Ball” game than with any scientifically based process.

While one of the most active areas for mathematical modeling is the stock market, no one has ever predicted it accurately. For many years, the Wall Street Journal chose five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month. The Journal then had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later, they determined who preformed better at choosing winners: the analysts or the chimpanzee. The chimp usually won.

For these and other reasons, until recently, most people were never foolish enough to make decisions based on predictions derived from equations that supposedly describe how nature or the economy works. 

Yet today’s computer modelers claim they can model the climate - which involves far more variables than the economy or stock market - and do so decades or even a century into the future. They then tell governments to make trillion-dollar policy decisions that will impact every aspect of our lives, based on the outputs of their models. Incredibly, the United Nations and governments around the world are complying with this demand. We are crazy to continue letting them get away with it.

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Posted on 01/29 at 09:11 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Monday, January 14, 2019
Abandoning the Scientific Method; Saving The Earth At The Point Of A Bayonet

The Unofficial Abandonment of the Scientific Method by Climate Alarmists and Democratic Socialists

Alan Carlin | January 19, 2019

The far left of the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly enamored of socialism. Examples include Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other self-described democratic socialists. What has been missed is that they appear to be increasingly enamored of policies that in actuality involve junking the scientific method too. Their current favorite agendas, such as the Green New Deal, always include the climate alarmist agenda. As discussed last week, in the links from it, and previously on this blog, the scientific basis for climate alarmism is not just weak, it has been convincingly shown to be invalid. So in actuality, the left wing socialist agenda effectively includes ditching the scientific method despite their protestations to the contrary.

As many have pointed out, socialism does not have a good record as an organizing basis for societal economics (see Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Soviet Union) but abandoning the scientific method has never been shown to help anyone except charlatans. But the left wing has managed to get climate alarmism adopted as an official part of the party platform of the Democratic Party. But the scientific problems of climate alarmism are almost never described by the mainstream press or the democratic socialists. It is only blogs such as this that describe the problems. Socialism has a consistent record of making most people worse off economically compared to modern capitalism. But there are people who strongly support it. But I have yet to find serious arguments that abandoning the use of the scientific method promotes public welfare.

As pointed out last week, unofficial abandonment of the scientific method by the left wing of the Democratic Party is what is going on, and they have gotten the rest of the Party to endorse their positions in this regard. I believe that supporters of the scientific method should abandon at least the left wing of the Party and maybe the entire Party as long as long as they do not vigorously support the scientific method both directly and indirectly by insisting that public policies be based on the use of the method. Use of the scientific method and fossil fuels are two of the major reasons the US has had such spectacular success economically and scientifically in recent centuries. Neither are consistent with the current agenda of the far left of the Democratic Party.

Some socialist/Communist governments such as the Soviet Union have had similar problems both economically and scientifically. The results have been disastrous. Is that what we want? The climate alarmists and their “friends” in the far left of the Democratic Party do not dare to openly attack the scientific method, but support for junk climate science that does not satisfy the scientific method shows what their beliefs really are, and they should be judged by the policy ideas they advocate. Yet many academics, even those in scientific fields, reportedly support climate alarmism. They at least should know better.

----------

Saving The Earth At The Point Of A Bayonet
By George Rasley

One of the new Far Left Democratic Party’s proposals that has been rapidly gaining establishment media support (beside getting rid of President Trump by any means necessary) is the so-called “Green New Deal” proposed by Democratic Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and her fellow travelers.

Here are the highlights according to our friend Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

First, keep it in the ground by halting all fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and offshore areas; halting all permitting of fossil-fuel power plants, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects; banning fossil-fuel exports; and ending “massive, irrational subsidies” for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, waste incineration, and biomass energy.

Second, “the United States must shift to 100% renewable power by 2035 or earlier.” Large-scale hydro-electric power, biomass, and waste-to-energy do not qualify.

Third, public transport using renewable power only must be vastly expanded; sales of vehicles powered by gas and diesel engines must be banned as quickly as possible; and all such vehicles must be off the roads by 2040 at the latest. Of course, “federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.”

Fourth, Congress should “harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.” I’m not sure what more can be done to turn the economy upside down, but I may be missing something.

Fifth, this must be a “just transition.” This will require “support for communities who (sic) have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy,” as well as “retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy” and “actively restoring natural ecosystems.”

Sixth, the rights of indigenous peoples must be fully protected, although it’s not clear whether Native Americans will be allowed to develop coal, oil, and natural gas resources on their lands. My guess is they’ll be able to apply for compensation.

Finally, the Green New Deal must not protect fossil fuel producers from legal liability and cannot include “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, [or] carbon capture and storage.”

As Ebell correctly observes, this Green New Deal should be called the Back to the Dark Ages Manifesto.

And as such one would normally conclude that no responsible environmental organization or mainstream Democratic Party politician would embrace it, but alas these are not normal times.

The summary above was embraced by six-hundred twenty-six organizations, some of them major environmental groups, that formed a coalition behind a letter sent to Members of the House of Representatives on January 10th detailing their demands for what must and must not be included in a Green New Deal.

Many conservative observers have focused on the Green New Deal’s massive estimated cost, such as the eye-popping PJ Media analysis based on a new report from Power the Future, the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez would cost more than 8,000 times as much as President Donald Trump’s border wall.

The Green New Deal will cost approximately $49.109 trillion in the first ten years, enough to fund Trump’s border wall 8,616 times over. The president is requesting $5.7 billion for the wall.

PJ Media calculated the cost of the Green New Deal by integrating each of the cost aspects involved in a Power the Future analysis and calculating their cost for the U.S. over about ten years.

The staggering cost is certainly one reason to oppose the Green New Deal, but there is also the staggering social dislocation that would be created by such a society-wide experiment in social engineering.

You can’t run a steel mill with a windmill, nor can you guarantee that the projected Green New Deal jobs would be created where the old fossil fuel-dependent jobs were located.

Think about it: If fossil fuels are outlawed, then the vast regions of the Appalachian coal belt, the oil fields of Texas and Louisiana, the oil fields of North Dakota and the western coal fields would lose their economic underpinnings.

The heavy industry-dependent areas of the Midwest and what’s left in the Rust Belt that stretches from the East Coast around the Great Lakes to Minnesota would likewise be devastated.

The only way such a massive project as the Green New Deal could be accomplished would be through the forced relocation of millions of workers and their families in a massive societal restructuring akin to the forced collectivization of Russian agriculture after the Soviet Revolution of 1917 or Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward economic restructuring of Communist China.

Both of those society-wide socialist restructurings were economic, cultural and humanitarian disasters that killed millions in the name of creating a more equitable society and were eventually abandoned when they didn’t work and left millions of their intended beneficiaries starving and without employment.

That the Green New Deal would be embraced by naive millennials should surprise no one, but that it is getting traction with mainstream Democratic Party leaders and established environmental groups shows just how quickly and shockingly far Leftward the Democratic Party has moved in the Age of Trump. Serious people can and should debate and strive to achieve a healthy environment for all Americans. However, embracing the errors of the Communist Russia and China in the name of a Green New Deal is not serious because the coercive measures necessary to make it work will never be accepted by the vast majority of Americans.

----------

Allan MacRae comments:

Farmer wrote:

“My rule of thumb is: if it is forced to cost more, it likely has a larger environmental footprint. (more labor, energy expended, natural resources used, regulatory oversight, etc.)”

This is a valid general assumption. I wrote something like this years ago re “green” energy.

Everything we manufacture in the modern world requires energy (incidentally, ~85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, unchanged in decades, and the rest is nuclear and hydro, and green energy is less than 2%, despite many trillions in squandered subsidies).

When something costs more, it is generally because it requires more energy to produce and ship - it also generally produces more CO2 emissions.

When a product requires a lifetime subsidy, like wind power, solar power, corn ethanol and other biofuels, it probably consumes more energy that it produces and also increases CO2 emissions rather than reducing them. Green scams can hide their greater CO2 emissions with their standard misinformation, but they cannot hide their greater costs.

Most green schemes are so poorly conceived that they not only cost more, they also increase CO2 emissions (FAKE pollution). They also increase REAL pollution, especially solar power and battery power schemes, due to the waste products of manufacture and scrapping of solar power hardware and batteries.

So my general rule is:

GREATER COST = [MORE ENERGY INPUT] ...AND… [MORE CO2 EMISSIONS] ...AND… [MORE REAL POLLUTION] ...AND… [LESS EFFICIENT USE OF SCARCE GLOBAL RESOURCES].

Science and technology are complicated, and most politicians are too uneducated to understand even the basics. They have routinely imposed green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. They have also banned products and replaced them with environmentally worse products. They are susceptible to bribes, especially to support their re-election - and many of these people would be unemployable outside of politics. All too often, we are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles. 

Posted on 01/14 at 03:02 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Page 1 of 92 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »
Blogroll

Demand Debate

Web Commentary

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

CO2 Sceptics

Global Warming Hoax

Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Analysis Online

CO2 Science

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

Dr. Roy Spencer

Redneck USA

Carbon Folly

The Climate Scam

Climate Depot

John Coleman’s Corner

Climate Police

The Heartland Institute

Hall of Record

Science Bits

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

Tallbloke

Tom Nelson Blogroll

Metsul’s Meteorologia

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

Marshall Institute Climate Change

World Climate Report

Warwick Hughes

Blue Crab Boulevard

Climate Debate Daily

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Climate Cycle Changes

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Climate Research News

MPU Blog

Gore Lied

Omniclimate

The Weather Wiz

APPINYS Global Warming

Junk Science

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

The Resilient Earth

Bill Meck’s Blog

Scientific Alliance

Bald-Faced Truth

Powerlineblog

Science and Environmental Policy Project

Climate Debate Daily

Warmal Globing

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

Dr. Roy Spencer

Landsurface.org, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue

Global Warming Hoax

Musings of the Chiefio

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)

Greenie Watch

Energy Tribune

Climate Audit

COAPS Climate Study US

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

Watts Up with That?

Climate Change Fraud

Earth Changes

Climate Resistance

Science and Public Policy Institute

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Accuweather Global Warming

Climate Debate Daily

Weatherbell Analytics

AMSU Global Daily Temps

The Cornwall Alliance

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

Wisconsin Energy Cooperative

Raptor Education Foundation

Right Side News

Carbonated Climate

Prometheus

James Spann’s Blog

Bob Carter’s Wesbite

Craig James’ Blog

Global Warming Scare

Tom Skilling’s Blog

Climate Skeptic

John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

CO2web

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

Ice Age Now

Raptor Education Foundation

Digging in the Clay

Global Warming Skeptics

Cornwall Alliance

TWTW Newsletters