Gretta snarls at you for using fossil fuels. Bill Gates, George Soros, and others pay to manage and promote Gretta because she inspires the brainwashed younger generation to accept junk science. She is reminiscent of the Joe Camel advertising that caused a large increase in youth smoking.
“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’”
In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.”
Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.
So, who are these people?
The public believes “climate change protesters” are climate experts. They believe those who “care about the environment” are climate experts. They believe Gretta is a climate expert.
Universities train students to be ecologists, environmentalists, climate activists, and socialists. These students graduate thinking they are climate experts. Governors appoint them to climate expert panels. The government gives them money. Congress, state legislatures, lawyers, and the media think these graduates are climate experts. Thus, they get the headlines. But they are not climate experts.
Climate change is a subject of physics. Without physics, there is no climate science. But who wants to study physics? It’s much easier to be a climate alarmist. Besides, that’s where the money is.
Here’s some basic science truth to help you decide who to believe about climate change.
First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.
Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day?
In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”
Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?
So, how does science work?
Glad you asked.
Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate.
Scientific truth is not decided by votes. No amount of evidence can prove a theory is true.
Yet, the promotion of that logical fallacy is at the basis of the claims that we are causing climate change and all the bad stuff that it makes happen.
Did you learn that in school?
I just finished writing another scientific paper. It proves human emissions do not cause climate change. All 11,000 who claim otherwise are wrong.
My focus on this paper kept me from writing to you every week as I like to do. Now, my preprint is finished, and I am free again to write to you again.
Why should you believe me versus all those who tell you we are causing climate change?
In high school, I scored a perfect 800 on the SAT exam while finishing in half the allotted time. I was accepted by Caltech, MIT, and Reed. I choose Caltech. Linus Pauling was among the fantastic teachers who taught me science and logic. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth College gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Then, the University of Nevada in Reno gave me a research fellowship in physics. My PhD mentors included William T. Scott and Friedwart Winterberg. Winterberg was known as the best student of Heisenberg, who was a Nobel Laureate in physics. Thirty years later, Winterberg said I was his best student. My theoretical PhD thesis was a significant breakthrough in climate physics that still gets many citations every year. Other scientists have explained my thesis work in their textbooks.
There was more to Caltech than science and engineering. It was the honor system. That meant we had to be honest. No one stole anything at Caltech. No one cheated on exams. All without policing. I bring that system to you. I will tell you the truth about climate science.
Climate science today
Until about the 1980’s, climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science.
Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.
The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.
I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.
If you don’t want that to happen, then you must help bring climate truth to your country.
Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America. We need to get major media attention. We need to bring our message to President Trump and the Republican Party because they are the only people who will support climate truth.
I will tell you more about this in my next letter.
A simple way to know the climate alarmists are lying.
I know, their lips are moving. But here is something much more specific. Here is the UN IPCC Figure 6.1 that claims to represent the carbon cycle.
UN IPCC Figure 6.1. Natural and human carbon cycles data. This figure proves all climate alarmist claims are invalid.Enlarged
This figure extracts the IPCC data for the human carbon cycle from Figure 6.1.
This figure shows the IPCC human carbon cycle is fake science. Because it is fake, all IPCC’s claims that human carbon emissions cause climate change are invalid.
Let’s see if I can explain this to you.
This figure represents the four carbon reservoirs: Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean.
All human carbon begins in the atmosphere. Then human carbon flows to the other reservoirs. You can think of these four reservoirs as water buckets of different sizes with tubes connecting them. You fill only the atmosphere bucket and let the water flow to the other buckets.
Here are 3 blatant scientific errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:
Problem 1: The Surface Ocean level is zero, but the Deep Ocean level is 155. Carbon can’t get to the Deep Ocean without first adding carbon to the Surface Ocean, and it can’t get there when the flow is zero.
Problem 2: The land level is negative at -30. That is impossible. That is like having a glass filled with negative water.
Problem 3: IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (shown only in IPCC Fig. 6.1) has the atmosphere level at 1.5%. But IPCC’s human carbon (shown here) has the atmosphere level at 65.7%.
This difference proves IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. This violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.
IPCC has stacked the deck in its invalid attempt to prove human carbon emissions cause climate change. But we have now caught them with their diapers down.
In summary, these 3 errors alone bring down the whole IPCC argument that human carbon emissions cause climate change.
The 11,000 so-called “scientists” and all climate alarmists - who claim we have a “climate emergency” - promote junk science.
Though it is still possible one or more other systems develop, let’s look at the season with an historical perspective.
The landfall data is the most reliable data set - before the satellite era, storms may have been missed as illustrated for the top two ACE years 1933 and 2005.
As for intensity, we have seen evidence new technologies may not sync with old w/r to intensity of storms at sea. Still this decade is the second quietest behind the 1860s for major landfalling storms and second quietest for landfalling hurricanes (behind only 1970s).
The ACE as of last report was above average due to Dorian and Humberto in the Atlantic, though behind normal in the Pacific and for the Northern Hemisphere.
Total Storms 10-15 (through October 20 we had 14)
Hurricanes: 4-7 (through October 20, we had 5)
Major Hurricanes: 1-3 (through October 20, we had 3)
ACE: 60-110 (through October 20, we had 119.8)
Joe Bastardi noted in April: “On the high end, if the El Nino isn’t impressive we could see activity in line with last year, hence the relatively broad range.”
See the ACE in the Atlantic, very close to last year
Though it is still possible one or more other systems develop, let’s look at the season with an historical perspective.
The landfall data is the most reliable data set - before the satellite era, storms may have been missed as illustrated for the top two ACE years 1933 and 2005.
Natural gas and propane serve as excellent low-cost fuels for heating and cooking. Last year, natural gas usage grew faster than renewables in the United States. But advocates of green energy policies would eliminate gas for heating and cooking.
According to the US Department of Energy, since 2007, US consumption of natural gas increased by 31 percent, rising from 23 to 30 percent of US primary energy consumption. Gas displaced coal as the preferred fuel for electrical power plants. This is the primary reason why US carbon dioxide emissions fell 13 percent, the most of any major nation. Environmental groups call for society to “electrify everything.” Their plan would eliminate all forms of hydrocarbon combustion, such as gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, and natural gas and propane used for heating and cooking. These would be replaced by plug-in electric vehicles, heat pumps, and electric stoves, grills, and water heaters. Green energy advocates want us to use electric appliances that run off the grid, increasingly powered by wind and solar energy, rather than natural gas and coal.
But the trends appear to be going the other way. Last year, from 2017 to 2018, renewable energy sources only increased from 8.6 to 8.7 percent of US energy consumption. Between those two years, natural gas consumption rose from 28.7 to 30.6 percent of US energy needs.
US residents like their gas appliances. Natural gas furnaces tend to be lower cost than heat pumps for homes in northern states. Burners on gas stoves boil water faster than stoves that use electric coils. Propane provides excellent low-cost energy for rural locations not connected to the gas line network. And we all like our propane barbeque grills.
Since people prefer gas appliances, the green movement must resort to bans to force people to eliminate hydrocarbons. In July, Berkeley, California became the first US city to ban natural
gas appliances in new single- and multi-family homes. Since then, the California cities of Menlo Park, San Jose, and Santa Monica also enacted bans. Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Seattle, and other cities are considering natural gas bans.
Nations and cities in Europe plan to ban cars using internal combustion engines and diesel fueled-vehicles. Green energy policies require coercion. This electrification trend is demanded in the name of fears about human-caused global warming. But there isn’t the slightest evidence that bans on hydrocarbon fuels and vehicles, if enacted, will have a measureable effect on global temperatures.
Consumers, maybe it’s time to push back against foolish environmental policies before you lose your gas appliances.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
----------------
Modern transportation—a miracle under attack
Exclusive: Steve Goreham stresses impact of attempt to ban petroleum-fueled vehicles
By Steve Goreham
Modern transportation is amazing. Each day, millions of people fly, drive or are transported across our world for business, pleasure or to see distant family members. These trips, which are powered by petroleum-based fuels, were all but impossible a century ago. But today, many of our leaders call for elimination of hydrocarbon-fueled transportation.
Between 1840 and 1860, more than 250,000 people traveled by wagon train from Independence, Missouri, to the West Coast on the Oregon Trail. Horses and oxen carried the settlers on this 2,000-mile, six-month journey. Disease, attacks by Native Americans and run-overs by wagons claimed the lives of more than 15,000 travelers. Today, a family can make this same journey in a few days in the safety of their air-conditioned van.
Throughout most of history, traded goods were carried by camel, wagon and sailboat. Although world trade increased throughout most of human history, the value of global exports in 1900 was only about $10 billion in today’s dollars.
Since 1900, world merchandise trade skyrocketed to $19.7 trillion per year in 2018, a gain of almost 2,000 times. Each day, trucks, trains, ships and planes transport more than 100 million tons of freight. Petroleum fuel powers more than 90 percent of this cargo.
Trains belching smoke typified early hydrocarbon-fueled transportation. But over the last 50 years, humanity has all but eliminated dangerous pollutants from vehicle exhaust. Environmental Protection Agency data show that U.S. vehicles now emit 99 percent less common pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particles) than the vehicles of 1970.
The only remaining emissions from most engines are water vapor and carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, odorless, invisible gas people exhale and plants use in photosynthesis, has been demonized.
Last week, 200 celebrities attended a Google-sponsored climate change conference near Palermo on the island of Sicily in Italy. Movie stars, business executives and royalty traveled by private jet, yacht, helicopter and limousine to this exotic location to discuss how humans are destroying the climate.
Dozens of articles criticized the hypocrisy of the extravagant travel by these elites and the large release of CO2 emissions. But aviation fuel powers 99 percent of commercial air travel and almost all of the other vehicles, leaving no practical alternatives.
Zach Wichter declared that air travel is now “going electric” in a New York Times article last month. But the only example he could cite was a plan for an experimental hybrid aircraft to be deployed in Hawaii that burns aviation fuel as the primary propulsion with batteries as a backup.
Jet fuel has a specific energy of 43 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). The best lithium-ion batteries deliver a specific energy of only about 0.9 MJ/kg. Electric engines are more efficient, but jet fuel engines still have an energy advantage of almost 20 times compared to batteries.
Gasoline and diesel-powered automobiles are a modern miracle taken for granted. The average family of four can travel 400 miles in comfort on a $50 fill up. Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles also hold a 20-times energy density advantage over batteries. This is energy available to power SUVs and small trucks, a growing share of demand in the US, China and much of the world.
Plug-in battery vehicles suffer from the weaknesses of high cost, short driving range, small carrying capacity, a lack of charging stations and expensive battery packs that must be replaced during the vehicle life. And who wants to wait 30 minutes for a recharge, even if one can find a charging station?
Yet governments now plan to force people to buy electric cars and even to ban traditional cars. Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland and several other nations recently announced intentions to ban ICE vehicles during the next two decades. Battery electric vehicle sales are growing, but still captured only about 1.5 percent of world markets in 2018.
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg announced that she will take a sailboat to the next world climate conference in Santiago, Chile, in December 2019. Her decision not to take an aircraft may save CO2 emissions, but will turn a one-day trip into two weeks of travel each direction.
Electric utilities across the world are now required by laws to urge customers not to use electricity, the product they produce. If climate fears continue, look for airlines and cruise ship companies to be required to urge consumers not to use their services as well.
As Cardinal George Pell of Australia remarked, “Sometimes the very learned and clever can be brilliantly foolish, especially when seized by an apparently good cause.”
Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business and public policy and author of the book “Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.”
Also see Americans being Misled by the climate change cabal of Cook, Oreskes, Lewandowsky and Maibach by David Middleton here. See more on Oreskes here and many more here.
Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
See how CEI, AIE and Mark Perry UMich and Carpe Diem showed the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here.
Here is another example of one that should be, of course jumped on by house democrats all too anxious to impose a Green New Deal.
--------
WE COULD HAVE A HUGE PERMAFROST PROBLEM:
A new report - published Monday in the scientific journal Nature - finds melting permafrost in the Arctic could actually be putting more carbon into the air than it is storing as a carbon sink. And the accelerated melting of that frozen ground in the winter could lead to an additional 27 billion tons of carbon emissions through 2100, equal to the emissions from 260 million cars each year.
What’s more is those numbers aren’t yet accounted for in global carbon budgets at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and elsewhere.
‘There are a lot of surprises that are happening in the Arctic,” Dr. Sue Natali, a researcher with the Woods Hole Research Center (an environmental advocacy group not to be confused with the more credible Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution or WHOI) and an author on the study, told lawmakers in an on-the-record briefing Monday with fellow researcher Jennifer Watts.
“I was working in the Arctic this summer and it was 90 degrees Fahrenheit” Natali added. “The ground was cracking, literally places where you foot was falling through the ground.”
The briefing, hosted by Democratic climate and environment subcommittee chairman Paul Tonko and select climate committee chairwoman Kathy Castor, allowed a rare glimpse into interactions between policymakers and researchers that typically happen behind closed doors.
“The more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that we must make dramatic greenhouse gas reductions as soon as possible,” Tonko said, introducing the briefing.
But translating the science into policy is difficult: Scientists and policymakers in many ways speak different languages about ambition, uncertainty, and political will. There’s not much Natali and Watts could tell Tonko and Castor beyond U.S. climate policy needs to be more aggressive.
“I think we need to ramp up ambition and there’s really no other way,” Natali said. “Sooner is better. Today’s better than tomorrow. Ten years ago would have been even better.”
Tonko said the new science helps make the case for House Energy and Commerce Democrats’ push toward a 2050 goal of a 100% net-zero carbon economy. The committee Democrats announced that vision in June.
The researchers, though, also urged policymakers to fund more long-term climate research. That’s the only way to get rid of scientific uncertainty, Watts said.
“Data is messy, but the more observations that agree, the more model simulations that agree, that gives us more confidence in what we are seeing,” she added.
Reducing scientific uncertainty also means policymakers would be better prepared and less money would be spent trying to avoid the worst effects of climate change, Natali said.
---------
Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and author and a real expert commented:
There are several major objections to their permafrost opinions about climate:
1. CO2 does not cause significant climate change--the evidence is conclusive (see Easterbrook, 2019). It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is released from permafrost.
2. Historic records show that Arctic temperatures follow the global trend. Temps were higher in the 1930s than at present. Temps recently have been cooler, not warmer.
3. We just entered a Grand Solar Minimum. This has happened 6 times in the last 1000 years and every time resulted in severe cooling. We’re likely to see more, rather than less, permafrost for the next several decades.
Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science and Lead author of the voluminous NIPCC series added:
A number of studies refute the initial contention when you include longer timeframes. Upon initial warming, more CO2 is released from melting permafrost. However, upon continued warming, plants begin to grow and sequester carbon. After a handful of years or so, the amount of carbon stored from the new vegetative growth offsets the initial CO2 that was released. This is a non-problem.
Inside Sources (10/21/19) column: “The cost of the Green New Deal may hit consumers too hard to make it through the U.S. Congress, even if Democrats sweep the 2020 elections. But get ready for federal litigation racking up legal bills for taxpayers. On Wednesday, a U.S. House Oversight subcommittee will host a hearing, “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change.” A hearing like this featuring “Squad” members U.S. Reps. Ayana Pressley and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez - fresh off the latter’s endorsement of Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders - should make for quite a show....But this week’s hearing will also advance another strategy being pursued by green extremists, one already responsible for costly legal bills to taxpayers across the country. Based on the hearing’s witnesses, it appears that if Democrats win the White House, they will push forward with partisan climate litigation targeting energy companies, prosecuted by the federal government and paid for by taxpayers.”
--------------
The Climate Strikers Are Completely Unhinged
If you’ve ever spent much time in New York, you know that it can be weather-challenged: very hot in the summer, and very cold in the winter. But September is almost always a month of near-perfect temperatures, and this year has been no exception. Nevertheless, the so-called “Climate Strike” movement chose last Friday, September 20, as the date for their big day of demonstrations.
The high temperature was an ideal 77 deg F (25 deg C). Estimates of the number of protesters that turned out range (according to the New York Times) from 60,000 (NY Police Dept.) to 250,000 (organizers). The message of the speakers was, of course, that we are in the midst of a climate crisis that must be addressed immediately by drastic and coercive government action. It seems that the organizers and leaders of the demonstrations, let alone a goodly number of the participants, have turned themselves purple with anger over unverifiable predictions of barely-perceptible future temperature increases. From the Times:
Rarely, if ever, has the modern world witnessed a youth movement so large and wide, spanning across societies rich and poor, tied together by a common if inchoate sense of rage.
Let me assemble some of the words that were used by these people. I suppose that they somehow think that this kind of rhetoric might be convincing to the normal people who were just trying to enjoy a beautiful late summer day. Is any of it persuasive to you?
From the ubiquitous teen-ager Greta Thunberg, quoted in Time:
“This is an emergency. Our house is on fire… We will do everything in our power to stop this crisis from getting worse.... Why should we study for a future that is being taken away from us. That is being sold for profit. Everywhere I have been the situation is more or less same. The people in power, their beautiful words are the same.... The number of politicians and celebrities who want to take selfies with us are the same. The empty promises are the same. The lies are the same, and the inaction is the same.”
If that is not crazy enough for you, try these lines, also attributed to Thunberg (although I seriously doubt that she wrote them), appearing in a “Climate Resistance Handbook” put out in advance of the event by 350.org:
I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we set an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it. That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of CO2 emissions by at least 50%.
And let’s not focus all of our attention on the wild-eyed Ms. Thunberg. How about something from another speaker at the New York event, Vic Barrett? That’s the Vic Barrett previously best known as one of the plaintiffs in the litigation dubbed by the Manhattan Contrarian as the “Stupidest Litigation in the Country,” namely the case from Oregon seeking to have the federal courts declare a “constitutional right” to a “stable climate,” and then use that declaration to enjoin all production and use of fossil fuels. Here are some of the words of Ms. Barrett (video at the link):
We are being pushed from the lands that we settled, the lands that my family has inhabited for generations. That land will be under water in a few decades if we continue on the path we are on. . . . My future is being stolen from me. . . . Everything that I am is slipping into the sea. . . . My people face extinction. Indigenous lands all over our planet are being flooded, poisoned and destroyed.
Yes, we are to feel “panic""over our impending “extinction.” Supposedly, this is the conclusion of “science.” Really? Meanwhile, here’s a new source of relevant data that I have not previously highlighted at this site. NOAA has a special and relatively new U.S.-only surface temperature series, called USCRN (US Climate Reference Network) based on only 114 of its very best ground thermometers, with state-of-the-art equipment and pristine siting, relatively evenly spaced around the country. By contrast to the other series from NOAA and NASA, this one has no “homogenization” adjustment thrown in by the climate activists in the bowels of the agencies. The series only goes back to 2005. Here’s what it shows:
No warming at all. By the way, did you notice those very warm months in 2006 and 2012, with temperatures some 4 degrees above normal for the entire U.S.? Neither did anybody else. So why again is a projected 2 or 3 degree temperature increase something to panic about? And, if you believe the business about greenhouse gas emissions controlling the climate, shouldn’t we be seeing a nice steady year-by-year increase in temperatures as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases? You do find that in the NOAA and NASA adjusted series - but all of the increase is in the adjustments. Here, in a series that consists only of raw data from pristine stations, there is no increase.
Finally, for today’s entertainment, check out this report from Climate Change Dispatch on the climate strike demonstrations that took place in Washington, DC. Those demonstrations featured massive blocking of traffic at multiple locations, plus dumpster fires, in addition to gratuitous travel by car and plane by thousands of people. In other words, it couldn’t be more obvious that these people don’t care at all about the amount of carbon emissions they cause. From Climate Change Dispatch:
Thanks to these brave warriors fighting for their precious Mother Earth, thousands of cars are spewing tons of exhaust into the air that wouldn’t have if these enviro-crybabies had real jobs. Here’s an official rundown of all the traffic that’s been blocked.
Somebody here has become completely detached from reality, and I don’t think it’s me.
---------------
See 120 years of failed climate catastrophe forecasts here. and an updated Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions here.
_thumb.png)
_thumb.gif)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.png)
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}