Precision Forecasts image image
Jul 06, 2022
Elena Kagan’s Blind Love Of The Expertocracy: SCOTUS Slaps The EPA?

By William. M. Briggs July 5, 2022

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that, in effect, without Congressional authorization, the EPA does not have the power to regulate carbon dioxide. Justice Elena Kagan dissented.

Kagan opened her dissent thus (whole opinion; with my paragraphification for screen readability):

Climate change’s causes and dangers are no longer subject to serious doubt. Modern science is “unequivocal that human influence” - in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide -"has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” [Cites IPCC] ... The rise in temperatures brings with it “increases in heat-related deaths,” “coastal inundation and erosion,” “more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other extreme weather events,” “drought,” “destruction of ecosystems,” and “potentially significant disruptions of food production.” [Cites, of all things, a case in which this was quoted.]

If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean. See Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae 6. Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions could force increases in “mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,” and “even state failure.”

So Kagan has bought and believes, seemingly sincerely, the failed predictions of global warming, which she calls “climate change”. This is her adopted opinion, provided her by climate Experts, who claim there is no “serious doubt” about their theories.

We have seen many times that her (or her ‘Experts’wink quoted predictions of doom are false. There have not been an increase, but a decrease, in floods. Same for drought. There is no “destruction of ecosystems.” And just last week a paper appeared- a peer-reviewed paper in the regime-approved journal Nature, going by the name “Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming” - which shows the number of tropical cyclones have been decreasing, not increasing.

Here’s a picture from that paper (ignore the straight and red lines, which are models and not the data):

image
Enlarged

So Kagan’s suppositions about the dooms of global warming are false, and known to be false with only a little investigation. Which she did not make. Nor did Wise Latina, and nor did the other guy who’s now retired and will be quickly forgotten. Both signed Kagan’s dissent.

Their non-curiosity and blind acceptance of the Expert Consensus is point one. And really is our only point, as we’ll see.

Under the Clean Air Act, as Kagan writes, Congress gave power to the “EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that ‘causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution’ and that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

As we know, EPA called carbon dioxide, the basis of almost all life on earth, the very stuff of your breath, the food of plants, “pollution”. And started to regulate it. Scientifically, this is like the American Medical Association saying “not all women have cervixes”, and allowing the AMA to regulate the English language.

Do people forget, or maybe they never knew, that CO2 is plant food? And not only plant food, but the plant flood. Back in olden days, they used to teach photosynthesis. No longer? Remove CO2 and plants die. Then you die.

So what the EPA did in trying to regulate CO2 was ridiculous - unless you really do believe global warming, a.k.a. “climate change, is an “existential crisis.” As Kagan, Wise Latina, and Gone Guy believe, or say they do. But which all observations show is not so.

Models, on the other hand, show the “existential crisis” is true. And all models only say what they are told to say. So models are told to say that “climate change” is an “existential crisis.” Experts told models to say this.

Experts, therefore, value models over observation. The Deadly Sin of Reification.

The real problem, then, is letting Experts make decisions based on models which are beautiful, to Experts, but which make lousy predictions. Experts are trusted too much.

Even if you think not, and still believe the models, nothing follows from them. That is, no policy is suggested, implied, or necessary because of the models. Not one. It is separately true that all policies, suggested from any source, have consequences, which may be known to greater or lesser extent - their uncertainty in them also are models.

It is scientism, a fallacy, to say Experts who wrote climate models also know what is best to do about the weather. Scientifically, it is like saying the CDC knows what is the best rate to pay for rent during a disease outbreak. Which they did say. And were rebuked for saying. A rebuke which they ignored. Which may happen here with the EPA, too.

Therefore, even if you believe the models, which stink, a fact that requires only minor effort to check, it does not follow the Experts who created those models, including agents in the EPA, know what is best to do about model predictions.

That power should fall to Congress, and to state and local governments, who have that mandate.

In other words, the Expertocracy, which was in part struck down and which Kagan dissented against, is based on two false assumptions. The first is that Expert models have skill. They do not. And the second, which is independent, is scientism, which is that scientists with expertise in one are are equipped with greater senses of good and evil on all subjects, which is absurd.

Kagan, though, embraces the Expertocracy. She said (her emphasis):

Members of Congress often don’t know enough - and know they don’t know enough - to regulate sensibly on an issue. Of course, Members can and do provide overall direction. But then they rely, as all of us rely in our daily lives, on people with greater expertise and experience. Those people are found in agencies. Congress looks to them to make specific judgments about how to achieve its more general objectives. And it does so especially, though by no means exclusively, when an issue has a scientific or technical dimension. Why wouldn’t Congress instruct EPA to select “the best system of emission reduction,” rather than try to choose that system itself?

Second and relatedly, Members of Congress often can’t know enough - and again, know they can’t - to keep regulatory schemes working across time. Congress usually can’t predict the future - can’t anticipate changing circumstances and the way they will affect varied regulatory techniques. Nor can Congress (realistically) keep track of and respond to fast-flowing developments as they occur.

Kagan is quite wrong. For all the reasons we discussed. Congress (as sick as that institution is) does know enough, and it knows vastly more than weather Experts about law. Because it knows, or is supposed to, what laws are, and what laws should do, and what the consequence of laws are. Climate or weather Experts do not. Congress can consult with Experts: “If we pass this law, what are the bounds of uncertainty on this particular weather-effected thing?” That is sensible. But it is rank foolishness to trust weather Experts to decide what laws are best, even if you by subterfuge call those laws “regulations”. And it even more dangerous to trust people who have something to gain, as Experts do, to decide what is “best” to do.

The impetus for the Expertocracy, and the faith in it, is there in Kagan’s words. She reasons, in effect, that Experts know more than anybody else on their subjects of expertise, therefore we have no right to interfere with their decisions on any subject.

It is a bad argument because Experts don’t always know best about their own subjects, as we see now everywhere. And even if Experts do know best about their subjects, they don’t know what is best to do about them.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Jun 30, 2022
‘Ten Policies to Unleash American Energy and Fuel Recovery’ (API gets nine of ten right)

By Rob Bradley. Master Resource

” it is time for an energy awakening - for the natural gas and oil supply chain and the government at all levels to open a new era of working together to ensure that essential energy resources are unlocked; to encourage investment opportunities and accelerate infrastructure development; and to strengthen global energy security, affordability and reliability.” (API, below)

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has represented the larger integrated oil companies since its founding just over a century ago. Much of its early mission was to standardize machinery specifications as well as accounting practices to modernize and streamline the industry. But API’s other major function has been politics, which became so great that the trade group moved from New York City to Washington, D.C. in 1969.

Often, the self-interest of the majors was the free market, particularly in the troubled 1970s. But API supported state-level market-demand proration in the 1920s and 1930s forward, and today it supports government subsidies for what its members can do in the name of climate change, such as carbon capture and storage. In fact, API gave up the moral high ground and has been playing defense since ceding the climate debate to the activist Left.

That has now changed. The global energy crisis, and energy problems at home, have given oil and gas a wide opening. The radical anti-fossil-fuel agenda of Joe Biden has citizen voters up in arms - and the oil and gas industry has the answers that Obstructionist Biden does not.

Thus API finds itself on offense and, to some extent, off the greenwash climate-alarmism bandwagon.

So it was of interest to review API’s much advertised 10-point plan to right-size the industry to meet high and growing domestic and world demand for oil and natural gas. There is no Peak Oil or Peak Gas; there is an Outsized Government that is artificially constraining a free-market industry.

Nine of the ten proposals below are free-market-oriented. But #7, mentioned here (yellow), is not:

Advance Lower Carbon Energy Tax Provisions
Congress should expand and extend Section 45Q tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage development and create a new tax credit for hydrogen produced from all sources.

Plank #7 should be changed to:

End Preferential Tax Credits
Congress should should not expand or extend Section 45Q tax credits for Carbon Capture and Storage. Congress should not extend subsidies for Electric Vehicles and should eliminate the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar.

-------

10 for 2022 Manifesto

America’s core promise - the freedom to be, to create, to aspire - drives the opportunity for all Americans to have better lives and reach new heights. American energy empowers American opportunity. Given today’s global unrest and economic uncertainty, this has never been more true.

Americans have been here before, with fuel shortages in the 1970s serving as a vivid reminder. Today, energy demand is outstripping supply. Inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years. Fuel prices have soared. Putin’s brutal aggression in Ukraine has united the West against his regime and the energy he once sold to Europe. It is all connected - and alarming. But a solution is beneath our feet.

Our nation is blessed with abundant natural gas and oil that is the envy of other countries. It is a foundation of our economy, supporting more than 11 million U.S. jobs, and makes our American way of life possible. It has revived Main Street storefronts, restored U.S. manufacturing, driven job creation and bolstered our nation’s ability to compete. It has made America safer in a turbulent world.

Given global circumstances, it is time for an energy awakening - for the natural gas and oil supply chain and the government at all levels to open a new era of working together to ensure that essential energy resources are unlocked; to encourage investment opportunities and accelerate infrastructure development; and to strengthen global energy security, affordability and reliability.

Bottom line: Washington policymakers must confront the global mismatch between demand and supply that has driven higher fuel prices by supporting greater U.S. production. To address the growing crisis we face, Congress and the President must support energy investment, create new access and keep regulation from unnecessarily restricting energy growth. The world is calling out for energy leadership. America can and should step up fast.

API’s 10-point plan to restore U.S. energy leadership and help fulfill our great nation’s core promise.

Lift Development Restrictions on Federal Lands and Waters
The Department of the Interior (DOI) should swiftly issue a 5-year program for the Outer Continental Shelf and hold mandated quarterly onshore lease sales with equitable terms. DOI should reinstate canceled sales and valid leases on federal lands and waters.

Designate Critical Energy Infrastructure Projects
Congress should authorize critical energy infrastructure projects to support the production, processing and delivery of energy. These projects would be of such concern to the national interest that they would be entitled to undergo a streamlined review and permitting process not to exceed one year.

Fix the NEPA Permitting Process
The Biden administration should revise the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by establishing agency uniformity in reviews, limiting reviews to two years, and reducing bureaucratic burdens placed on project proponents in terms of size and scope of application submissions.

Accelerate LNG Exports and Approve Pending LNG Applications
Congress should amend the Natural Gas Act to streamline the Department of Energy (DOE) to a single approval process for all U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. DOE should approve pending LNG applications to enable the U.S. to deliver reliable energy to our allies abroad.

Unlock Investment and Access to Capital
The Securities and Exchange Commission should reconsider its overly burdensome and ineffective climate disclosure proposal and the Biden administration should ensure open capital markets where access is based upon individual company merit free from artificial constraints based on government-preferred investment allocations.

Dismantle Supply Chain Bottlenecks
President Biden should rescind steel tariffs that remain on imports from U.S. allies as steel is a critical component of energy production, transportation, and refining. The Biden administration should accelerate efforts to relieve port congestion so that equipment necessary for energy development can be delivered and installed.

Advance Lower Carbon Energy Tax Provisions
Congress should expand and extend Section 45Q tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage development and create a new tax credit for hydrogen produced from all sources.
Protect Competition in the Use of Refining Technologies

The Biden administration should ensure that future federal agency rulemakings continue to allow U.S. refineries to use the existing critical process technologies to produce the fuels needed for global energy markets.

End Permitting Obstruction on Natural Gas Projects
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should cease efforts to overstep its permitting authority under the Natural Gas Act and should adhere to traditional considerations of public needs as well as focus on direct impacts arising from the construction and operation of natural gas projects.

Advance the Energy Workforce of the Future
Congress and the Biden administration should support the training and education of a diverse workforce through increased funding of work-based learning and advancement of STEM programs to nurture the skills necessary to construct and operate oil, natural gas and other energy infrastructure.

Final Comment

API can do more, building on the above plan (except for Plank #7 as it now stands). The writings, lecturing, and advocacy of Alex Epstein and Robert Bryce should be 1) acknowledged for setting up the Great Reversal in policy debate and action that is evident today and 2) promoted to seize the moral high ground in the climate/energy debate.

Jun 16, 2022
Consumer Advocate Warns: Your Electric Bill Could Balloon by 50 Percent (FYI-just the start)

by Damien Fisher

Already paying some of the highest energy costs in the country, New Hampshire ratepayers will soon be paying a lot more. According to a filing with the Public Utilities Commission, Liberty Utilities is seeking approval for an increase in the default residential energy rate from 8.393 cents per kilowatt-hours to 22.223 cents per kilowatt-hours. Donald Kreis, with New Hampshire’s Office of Consumer Advocate, said the net effect of the charge will be that Granite Staters who use Liberty can expect to pay nearly 50 percent more for electricity when the new rate goes into effect in August. “That means a typical bill for a residential electric customer of Liberty Utilities will go up by nearly 47 percent from its current level,” Kreis said on Twitter.

Granite Staters already pay the seventh-highest residential electricity rates in the nation.

image
Enlarged

Liberty has about 43,000 electric customers in New Hampshire. Kreis said Eversource, New Hampshire’s main electric supplier, is expected to file for a similar rate increase before the PUC soon. “To my knowledge, these huge default service prices are unprecedented since NH broke up its vertically integrated electric utilities more than 20 years ago,” he wrote on Twitter. He said on Twitter the reason for the rate increases is the rising cost of natural gas, which electric supplies use to generate the power needed. “In New England, we rely on natural gas for the majority of our electricity. Natural gas futures prices for the coming winter have hit $30 per mmBTU. Wholesale electric suppliers have priced those natural gas increases into their bids,” he wrote.

Reached Wednesday, Kreis said New Hampshire doe not have a robust natural gas market for homeowners, the state uses a lot of natural gas to fuel power plants, like the Granite Ridge power facility in Londonderry. Unitil, one of the state’s two other electric utilities, has rates currently at around 10.3 cents per kilowatt-hour and is on a different rate schedule than the other two companies. New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, the second-largest utility in the state, expects to adjust its power supply rate later this summer.

“It’s safe to say that we’re seeing the same dynamics playing out in the New England electric wholesale market. Costs for summer supply are up dramatically from last year, driven primarily by huge increases in the price of natural gas, which is used to generate about half of the power in New England,” said NHEC Communications Administrator Seth Wheeler.

The rate increases coming from Liberty and Eversource far outpace predictions from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The winter electricity forecast saw a price rise in New England closer to 16 percent, not 47 percent. “We expect the summer increases in retail residential electricity prices will range from an increase of 2.4 percent in the West South-Central region to a 16.1 percent increase in New England,” the EIA forecast states. Kreis said utilities buy power from suppliers in six-month increments, and the rate increases reflect the increased prices they are paying for power under the new six-month contracts, which will start in August. There won’t be another chance to change the rates until next year, meaning prices will remain high until 2023.

New Hampshire’s elected officials have taken note. On Wednesday, Gov. Chris Sununu and Department of Energy Commissioner Jared Chicoine announced that, for the first time ever, the state plans to use Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding to help struggling households pay for summer electricity costs. The funding will be routed through the New Hampshire Fuel Assistance Program for pre-qualified, low-income households.

“We are allocating $7.5 million in funds to provide low-income families with assistance to help cool their homes this summer,” said Governor Chris Sununu. “As a result of unprecedented Washington spending that has unleashed record inflation, uncertainty in the energy market following President Biden’s anti-domestic energy policies, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, energy prices are skyrocketing across the country. While there is not much that states can do to rebuff federal inaction, we are doing what we can at the state level to ease the burden on low-income families.”

Details of the plan, including the exact amount of funding available per family, are still being developed. “The Department of Energy is working diligently with stakeholders to provide summer electric bill assistance to currently-eligible LIHEAP customers,” said Department of Energy Commissioner Jared Chicoine. “We are hopeful that this assistance will help provide some relief to consumers in these challenging times.” Kreis said in the short term consumers should shop around for competitive electric suppliers and lobby their municipalities to enter into power aggregation deals to lower the costs. They can also apply for the state’s energy efficiency programs. New Hampshire energy consumers are looking at a tough winter ahead, too. Home heating oil is selling for close to $6 a gallon, up from about $4.50 a gallon average this past winter, and $3 a gallon from the prior season. Relief is a long way off, as the EIA expects the 2023 winter season to see heating oil back down to under $4 a gallon.

Craig Stevens, a spokesman with the energy and business coalition, Grow America’s Infrastructure Now, said Democratic environmental and energy policies, like restricting domestic energy production, have pushed prices higher.

“The rise in electricity prices is, unfortunately, much too predictable considering the energy policies of the past two Democratic administrations promised - and have since delivered - Americans. Between Presidents Obama and Biden, they have forced the shuttering of power plants across the country, made the siting and construction of transmission lines virtually impossible, stopped pipeline expansion, and closed off domestic energy production,” Stevens said. “We need more than vapid rhetoric, empty promises, and finger-pointing; we need a comprehensive - all of the above - energy policy that recognizes our current energy needs and the growing energy needs of our increasingly electrified economy.”

With prices likely to remain high through to next year, Kreis said New Hampshire ultimately needs to diversify how it generates power in order to avoid another year like 2022.

See more on electricity prices here.

Jun 23, 2022
Focus on Gasoline Prices - just part of the story

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Skyrocketing gasoline prices are really just the start of an energy crisis in the making for all the energy we use in our lives and homes.  We look at that in detail with special focus in the northeastern part of the country, which is subject to heat and extreme cold, which makes us especially vulnerable to rising energy costs and its availability.

GASOLINE

Gas prices have skyrocketed under Biden. In the economic Obama administration, you may recall gas prices had soared to $4.gallon and the administration warned of $8 gas. It dropped and rose again to $4 but in the Trump administration energy independence crusade, the prices dropped by 50%.

The good old days were prior to 9/11 with February 1999 at $1.01/gallon. Family of 4 with 2 cars driving a total of 24,000 miles/year with 24 mph/gallon would have spent $1000.  In January 2020 prices had declined to just under $2/gallon and a family would have spent about $2000 on gasoline.

image
Enlarged

By May of this year, gas prices skyrocketed to 4.58 (now near $5).  JP Morgan warns of $6 gas by August, which translates to $6000.

This would result in an INCREASE of $4000 under Biden for families who must travel to work.

It should be noted in the Obama administration, they thought $8 gasoline would accelerate the move to electric vehicles. If Biden stubbornly pushes gasoline to $8. The impact would be $6000 to families who can not afford the big investment in electric vehicles. They would see AN INCREASE OF $6000.

HEATING OIL/GAS

In New England, the heating season begins early and ends late. Prices often rise some in colder winters due to demand and supply issues but now large scale supply issues are growing and we saw prices skyrocket in 2022.

In January 2021 $2.55/gallon for heating oil by May 2022 rose to $5.999/gallon, a 235% increase

The $3854 in 2021 would become $9057, AN INCREASE OF $5,200.

Natural gas prices similarly (Henry Hub) rose 25%.

image
Enlarged

ELECTRICITY

In recent decades, electricity prices in nations that took a aggressive green agenda increased to levels 3 to 5 times higher than the US. This chart prepared by an Australian organization using EIA data from the US showed that.

image
Enlarged

More (some long lasting) blackouts occurring as wind and solar are unreliable!! Many households are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). Elderly and retirees on fixed income often are forced to “choose between heating and eating”

US STEPS BACKWARD INTO AN ENERGY ABYSS

Electricity is about to start rising or even jumping by at least 50% as the US pushes wind and solar. Other energy pundits expect that a doubling is likely. Remember, in Europe and Australia, who led the way on a green agenda, they pay 3 times what we paid.

The northeast states are already paying much more as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative, market-based effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce CO 2 emissions from the power sector. See how they rank in the top 10 with California and Michigan.

image
Enlarged

In a modest well-insulated two story home I spent $2136 in 2021. The biggest bills come in the hot summer months and around Christmas (lights). A doubling of rate would translate to AN INCREASE OF $2100

image
Enlarged

Current trends suggest average electricity prices will at last triple by the end of a decade, a decade that began with the US being energy independent.

THE DAMAGE - INCREASES IN ENERGY COSTS

GASOLINE - $4,000 (eventually to 6,000)
HEATING FUELS - $5,200
ELECTRICITY - $4,300

TOTAL INCREASE over $13,000
TOTAL ENERGY COSTS over $20,000

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

This is not to be taken lightly.

Note Countries In Europe and in Australia, that went heavily green, brownouts and blackouts occurred not unlike what the US saw in Texas in 2021 during the cold and heavy snow and snow that froze turbines. 

Many deaths occur in cold when the lights go out. In fact research has shown, 10 to more than 20% more deaths occur in the cold than heat. An international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings were published in The Lancet.

image
Enlarged

In countries like the US, Canada and the UK, they track mortality in winter - a metric called Excess Winter Mortality.

image
Enlarged

Countries rushed to build coal plants to provide base load or import natural gas from Russia and keep the lights on. France invested in modern nuclear. Others relied on old reliable coal.

image
Enlarged

The greens objected to dirty coal. They started importing natural gas - from Russia. By the way Russian natural gas in 2017/18 saved NH from going dark in the extreme cold on late December and early January.

The Russian war has many European countries planning to use coal this upcoming winter to keep the power going in the cold. This is true even as our nation, two years ago energy independent, is moving to abandon our energy dominance for a not ready for primetime gamble on renewables. 

Will Biden say we just have to tough it out so we can reach their green dream that in countries in Europe turned into a nightmare?

Jun 20, 2022
“The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors”.

William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 17, 2022

Comment and Declaration

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed SEC requiring disclosures of climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.

In our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.

Further, nowhere in the more than 500 pages of the proposed rule is there any reliable scientific evidence that there exists a climate related risk. None. It refers to the International Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures ("TCFD") and other outside groups, but never provides any reliable scientific evidence that supports the rule. The science is just assumed. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific basis for the proposed SEC rule.

Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe.

Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country.

Finally, the cost of the proposed rule is enormous and would have no public benefit. It would increase the reporting burden to companies $6.4 billion, which is 64% more than the $3.9 billion all SEC reporting requirements have cost companies from its beginning in 1934. Id., 87 Fed. Reg., p. 21461.

Thus, the rule must not be adopted or, if adopted, ruled invalid by the courts.

To view the entire comment view pdf here: Happer Lindzen SEC 6-17-22

Reader note the link takes you to 28 pages of detail on WHY Science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency

And explains their CONCLUSION

Thus, in our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate emergency and n0 climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific evidence that supports the SEC proposed rule. Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe. Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no reliable, low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the United States and the rest of the word, especially for lower-income people.

Jun 17, 2022
Net-zero Reality Check #1 - Wind Only

image

Donn Dears - June 10, 2022 CO2 Coalition

(This is the first of four articles, using published data and simple logic, to demonstrate net-zero carbon is unattainable by 2050 with wind, solar or nuclear, or a combination of these methods for power generation.)

The total number of new wind turbines to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 is: 995,141. Climate change scaremongers insist we eliminate the use of fossil fuels. But what does that really entail?

Here is the first reality check: Can wind turbines achieve net-zero carbon?

Three steps are required to determine the number of wind turbines needed to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.

Step 1

Step one determines the number of new wind turbines needed to replace all the electricity generated by fossil fuels in 2021.

Wind produced 380 billion kWh, or 9.2% of all the electricity generated in 2021.

The average nameplate rating of existing wind turbines in the United States is approximately 2.5 MW. Based on a Capacity Factor of 32% for these turbines, there were 54,244 wind turbines in the US in 2021.

Subtracting nuclear and renewables from total generation determines the kWh generated by fossil fuels. Dividing the kWh produced by fossil fuels, by the kWh generated per wind turbine determines the number of additional wind turbines needed to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuels in 2021.

Number of new wind turbines needed to replace fossil fuels = 358,447

Step 2

Step two is to determine the new wind turbines needed to supply the electricity needed when light vehicles are all battery-powered, and homes use electricity for heating rather than natural gas. The national renewable energy lab (NREL) has determined that total electricity consumption will double when all light vehicles are BEVs and homes rely on electricity for heating. Hydro can’t be doubled, and without increasing other miscellaneous renewables, the additional electricity generated by wind turbines will equal the amount generated by all methods in 2021, i.e., 4,116 billion kWh.

Number of new wind turbines to double electricity consumption by 2050 = 587,329

Step 3

Step three is to determine the number of new wind turbines needed to generate the electricity required to produce enough hydrogen to make steel and cement that meet net-zero carbon requirements. There’s little reliable data on using hydrogen in the making of cement, while there is considerable data for using hydrogen in the making of steel. The estimate shown here for the number of new wind turbines is based on the amount of hydrogen required to make 62 million tons of steel, which excludes the amount of steel made using scrap in electric arc furnaces, and then doubling the number of wind turbines to compensate for the production of cement. (The United States produced 87.9 million tons of steel in 2021.)

Number of new wind turbines required to generate the electricity used by electrolyzers to produce the hydrogen to make steel and cement = 49,365

Summary

The total number of new wind turbines to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050 is: 995,141
(358,447 + 587,329 + 49,365 = 995,141)

The average number of wind turbines installed in one year after 2004 was 3,000, which, at that rate, means it will take 332 years to install all the wind turbines needed to achieve net-zero.

The maximum number ever installed in one year was 5,680 which, at that rate, would mean it would take 175 years to install all the needed wind turbines.

Wind turbines larger than 2.5 MW are under development, mostly for off-shore installations, however a very few units rated 5 MW or more have been installed in the US. Recognizing there is a possibility that units rated 5 MW might be installed in the US:

It would be necessary to install 17,770 units rated 5 MW every year over the 28 years between now and 2050. This is three times the number of smaller units ever installed in one year.

Additional considerations

Nuclear power plants are scheduled to be shut down beginning in 2032, with all existing nuclear power plants shut down by 2064. There is no provision in the above calculations for the additional wind turbines needed to replace the nuclear power plants shut down before 2050.

Wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years. This means that:

All 54,244 wind turbines installed before 2022 will also have to be replaced before 2050.
All wind turbines built between now and 2030 will also have to be replaced before 2050.
These additional wind turbines have not been included in the above calculations.

Batteries are required to provide back up for when the wind doesn’t blow. No battery has yet been invented that can provide the needed amount of storage to replace the electricity lost if the wind fails to blow for a week or two.

Conclusion

If wind turbines are used in an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, it will require building over 995,141 new wind turbines rated 2.5 MW between now and 2050.

The largest number of wind turbines ever installed in one year was 5,680, which means it would take 175 years to build the necessary number of units rated 2.5 MW. If larger 5 MW units were used it would require installing over 17,770 units every year between now and 2050, which is three times the number of smaller units ever installed in one year. And of course, storage using batteries that have yet to be developed will also be required. This reality check should give everyone pause, as it demonstrates that it’s not possible to eliminate fossil fuels using wind turbines.

Net-zero carbon cannot be achieved using wind turbines.

Jun 25, 2022
Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM Link

Below are a series of fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The contributors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields. For each claim, a brief summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided along with a link to the full text and graphical support of the rebuttal and the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

A paper just issued here “A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events in Trends in Times of Global Warming”, Gianluca Alimonti et al., European Physical Journal Plus, 2022 reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. “None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

----------

Claim: The globe has experienced among the warmest ever month or year. This claim is recurrent - often monthly.

Fact Check: These claims are totally unsupported by any credible analysis of raw global surface temperature data and its availability.  Moreover, this Global Average Surface Temperature Data invalidation alone, invalidates the EPA 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as the subsequent EPA Findings’ claimed link between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the other Climate Alarmist claims - which are also independently invalidated below by relevant empirical data. Thus, all such climate alarmist claims are in reality just politically driven fictions. See details here. See more details hereSee a Timeline of Surface Data versions here
Fact Check as of: 06/14/22
----------

Claim: Heat Waves are more frequent and extreme. Heat waves kill people and greenhouse gases are to blame.

Fact Check: Heat waves like cold waves are a normal part of our global climate. Heat Waves have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally. See details here.  See Dr. Cliff Mass’s excellent 2021 post “Flawed Heatwave Report Leads to False Headlines in Major Media Blogpost.  “Last week we witnessed a major failure in science communication regarding the Northwest heatwave. A failure that misinformed you and millions of others, and a failure that highlighted glaring weaknesses in the media’s ability to cover important scientific issues.  And it revealed the disappointing behavior of some members of the scientific community.” See full detailed analysis here. See here what the media won’t tell us about heat waves.Roger Pielke Jr, tells “What the media won’t tell you about U.S. heat waves here. See this why amplified patterns, a feature of cooling climates, are behind the warm and cold extremes in 2021 and again this year here. here.  Cold is the real threat. Cold kills up to 20 times more than heat globally and has disastrous economic impacts. See details on why cold not heat is the main danger to humanity here.
Fact Check as of: 06/18/22
----------

Claim: Hurricanes have been increasing in number and/or extremity.

Fact Check: Even with a few very active seasons, the decade just ended was the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. 2020 saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the the late 1800s and active periods this past century, but the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE) ranked only 13th highest in 2020. The 1860s and 1880s had the most landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes. See details here. See this June 2021 NOAA study that though 2020 was technically a record, modern technology is likely a reason including the ability to see storms over the open oceans of the central and eastern Atlantic with satellites that would not have been seen and counted in the pre-satellite era. See 2020 season similarity to late 1800s here and global comparisons here.  See a perspective on deadly CAT4 hurricane Ida and a similarity to Camille in 1969 here. See the summary on 2018 here.
Fact Check as of: 04/8/22
----------

Claim: Tornadoes have been increasing as the world has warmed due to human influences.

Fact Check: More active months and seasons occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present. Warmer cycles feature fewer big tornado seasons. The number of strong tornadoes has declined dramatically over the last half century. That will reverse as we go into the next cold phase. Even with a major, deadly outbreak and long track storm in December, 2021, the year ended in the lowest 25th percentile for tornadoes. See why this may signal a return to more active seasons as the earth cools with the colder Pacific and low solar. See full story here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Droughts and Floods are becoming more severe worldwide due to global warming.

Fact Check: Droughts and Floods. Droughts and floods here has shown no statistically significant trends. Each year wet and dry areas are seen but their locations change, related to ocean warm and cold pools that drive atmospheric patterns that persist for months at a time. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Wildfires are increasing due to drought and increasing heat.

Fact Check: Wildfires diminished very rapidly in size and numbers after the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See details here. See Australia Wildfire story here.  See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Snow is decreasing as the earth warms, threatening the winter sports industry.

Fact Check: Snowfall has actually been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. This has been true not only in mountain areas but even to coastal cities and urban areas where snow had been rare decades ago. See more here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Melting of the glaciers and ice caps are causing sea levels to rise at an alarming rate threatening coastal cities
Fact Check: The rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See details here. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here. to better fit the theory. See how between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km2 more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).
Fact Check as of: 03/21/22
----------

Claim: Ice in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctic is melting at an alarming rate.

Fact Check: The polar and glacial ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See details here. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar cycles and Arctic temperatures. See here how the South Pole had its coldest winter on record last season (with readings averaging -78F at the South Pole Vostok station!). Records began in 1957 here.  Note the polar ice is this season (2021/22) is the 16th lowest on record with a nice rebound. NSIDC continues to hide data before 1979 which shows the changes are cyclical.

The alarmists jump on any yearly anomalies if they suit their theories. See the latest claims here. See the real story here and here. See the Alaskan winter temperature extremes that are characteristic of La Ninas with long brutal cold spells and warm spikes. The media ignore the extreme cold but focus on the warm days shown here. Also see the failures of the arctic’s demise in this post on “Is the Arctic Ice to Disappear?” in Human Progress here. See how the polar bears are thriving even in the warmer periods here.

See Tony Heller’s check on NYT’s Paul Krugman’s latest flawed article on the heat and Norway warmth.

Fact check as of: 06/16/22
----------

Claim: Climate change is endangering food supply.

Fact Check: The vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. See the update here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

Claim: Carbon pollution is a serious and growing health hazard.

Fact Check:  The term “carbon pollution” is a deliberate, ambiguous, disingenuous term, designed to mislead people into thinking carbon dioxide is pollution. Thanks to the use of clean burning natural gas and other measures, the amount of particulate matter and other criteria pollutants identified by the EPA have declined over 77% and are well below the standards set. The United States had in 2020 the cleanest air in the world according to NASA and the World Health Organization (WHO). See details here.
Fact Check as of: 04/22/22
----------

Claim: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life.
.
Fact Check: Ocean acidification (really only slightly reduced alkalinity) is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated the robustness of multiple marine plant and animal species to ocean acidification when they are properly performed under realistic experimental conditions. See more here. See also Peter Ridd’s recent finding of a New Record High Coral Cover of the Great Barrier Reef here.
Fact Check as of: 02/03/19
----------

Claim: There is a 97% Consensus of the world’s scientists that climate change is serious and man-made.

Fact Check: The claim of a 97% scientific consensus is a contrived fiction. CO2 is not a pollutant but a beneficial gas, particulate matter is. But as shown above, small and large particulate matter is not an issue. As also shown above all the claims of dangerous effects on the climate are also shown to be exaggerated or outright falsifications. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 08/04/20
----------

Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and links. 

See how the global deaths related to all the extremes have declined dramatically the last century.

image
Enlarged

Jun 17, 2022
What the media won’t tell you about U.S. heat waves

By Roger Pielke Jr.

image
Enlarged

It’s hot. Real hot. Heat waves in the United States surely must be the most visible and impactful sign of human caused climate change, right? Well, actually no. Let’s take a look at what the U.S. National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say about heat waves in the United States. What they say may surprise you.

Before proceeding, let me emphasize that human-caused climate change is real and significant. Aggressive policies focused on both adaptation and mitigation make very good sense. So too does being accurate about current scientific understandings. The importance of climate change does not mean that we can ignore scientific integrity - actually the opposite, it makes it all the more important. So let’s take a close look at recent assessment reports and what they say about U.S. heat waves.

The figure below comes out of the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). It shows the frequency (top) and intensity (bottom) of heat waves in the U.S. since 1900. The bottom figure is actually based on a paper that I co-authored in 1999, which serves as the basis for an official indicator of climate change used by the Environmental Protection Agency.

image
Enlarged

US heat wave frequency (top) and intensity (bottom) since 1900, from the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment. Source; USNCA 2017

There are a few things that jump out from these figures. One is that heat waves of recent decades have not reached levels seen in the 1930s, either in their frequency or intensity. The NCA observed that the IPCC (AR5) concluded that “it is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed changes in frequency and intensity of temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century.” But at the same time, the NCA also concluded,

In general, however, results for the contiguous United States are not as compelling as for global land areas, in part because detection of changes in U.S. regional temperature extremes is affected by extreme temperature in the 1930s.

The more recent IPCC AR6 concurred. The complex figure below (which I consolidated from the even more complex IPCC AR6 Figure 11.4) indicates low confidence (~20%) for the detection of trends in extreme heat and the attribution of those trends to human causes for both central and eastern North America (CNA and ENA). In western North American (WNA) detection is judged likely (>66%) but with low confidence in attribution.

image
Enlarged

Annotated version of IPCC AR6 Figure 11.6, showing confidence levels in detection and attribution for extreme heat, cold and precipitation for 3 regions in North America, West, Central and East. Source: IPCC 2021

The extreme temperatures of 1930s present a challenge for the detection and attribution of trends in heat waves in the United States. That means that consumers of climate reporting need to have their antennae up when reading about heat waves. It is true that if analysis of data begins in the 1960s, then an increase in heat waves can be shown. However, if the data analyses begins before the 1930s then there is no upwards trend, and a case can even be made for a decline. It is a fertile field for cherry pickers.

Even though U.S. heat waves have increased since the 1960s, societal vulnerability has decreased over that time. The figure below presents mortality risk in “extreme heat events” across the U.S. since the 1970s, showing an overall decline. This is good news, because it shows that the climate can become more extreme, but society has significant adaptive capacity.

image
Enlarged

Relative risk by region for total mortality on “extreme heat event” days versus non-extreme heat event days. National total is shown in the bottom right figure. Source: Sheridan et al. 2021

Make no mistake, looking to the future, the IPCC projects an increase in heat waves around the world, including in the United States. Here is what the IPCC projects for the future:

In summary, it is virtually certain that further increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, and decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, will occur throughout the 21st century and around the world. It is virtually certain that the number of hot days and hot nights and the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heatwaves compared to 1995-2014 will increase over most land areas. In most regions, changes in the magnitude of temperature extremes are proportional to global warming levels (high confidence).

How bad things get is a function of how quickly mitigation occurs. Achieving net-zero carbon dioxide is thus not about the weather this year or next, but about what happens later this century.

But regardless how fast we achieve net-zero carbon dioxide, there is good reason to believe that the societal impacts of extreme heat are manageable, and across different scenarios. For instance, according to the World Health Organization, even with increasing heat waves, mortality does not have to increase. Assuming adaptative responses (like air conditioning), the WHO concludes that future “attributable mortality is zero.” The importance of adaptation to reducing vulnerabilities to extreme heat is a robust finding across the literature.

The climate is changing, there is no doubt. In many places around the world the signal of these changes has been observed in the occurrence of heat waves. But the United States is not among those places—not yet.

But so what? If climate change is real and responding to it is important, why does it matter if we incorrectly attribute today’s weather to climate change? Maybe such incorrect attribution will be politically useful?

I can think of two reasons why it matters.

First, our assessment of risk can be skewed. If we think this week’s heat wave is a novel event juiced by climate change, rather than within the bounds of observed variability, then we are fooling ourselves. If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present. We need only look back to the 1930s to understand that we are also not prepared for the past, much less a more extreme future. Casual claims of detection and attribution can mislead.

Second, sustained support for action on climate will require also sustaining public and policy maker trust in science and scientific institutions. Claims that go well beyond scientific understandings place that trust at risk. A scientific consensus doesn’t exist only when it is politically useful - it also exists when it is politically unwelcomed. Accurately producing and reporting on scientific assessments surely helps to foster trust in experts and the institutions that they inhabit.

The scientific community and the journalists who report on its findings would do well to call things straight, rather than make a mockery of climate science by quickly claiming that every weather event that just happened was due to climate change.

Jun 15, 2022
Bad Ideas Have Bad Consequences!

E. Calvin Beisner

If you haven’t noticed rising prices here in America for the past twelve months, you’re either Rumpelstiltskin or dead. And if you didn’t expect rising prices, either you’ve not been paying attention to American monetary, fiscal, welfare, and pandemic policies or you’ve not understood basic economics.

image

So, May’s year-on-year “inflation” rate was 8.6%, following April’s 8.3%, continuing a rapid rise that started in October.

The Federal Reserve’s contribution has been a stupidly loose monetary policy for the last decade, with negative interest rates (i.e., paying people to borrow money) and “quantitative easing,” which is “Modern Monetary Policy’s” (aka Keynesianism’s) term meant to mask the fact that it is just creating “money” out of thin air, every new dollar reducing the spending power of every dollar already in the market, resulting in higher prices for goods and services.

The federal government’s contributions have been multiple. First, it is over-regulated and otherwise overly restricted in almost all sectors of the economy, restricting productivity, leading to fewer goods being chased by all those imaginary dollars, resulting in higher prices for goods and services paid for by those imaginary dollars. I said “almost all sector” because one sector it hasn’t regulated enough but has instead subsidized like crazy is “renewable energy,” basically wind and solar, which can’t generate electricity as cheaply or reliably as coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro and therefore push prices up and reliability down.

Second, the federal government has imposed, or encouraged states to impose, lockdowns on our economy in the vain, utterly unsuccessful effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, leading to far fewer people going to work producing all the goods and services for which those imaginary dollars bid, resulting in higher prices for goods and services.

Third, the federal government gave pretty much every American taxpayer three fat checks in the vain notion that these would offset the harm done by forcing so many of them to stay home from work, leading to millions leaving the labor force and the closure of millions of small businesses, resulting in fewer goods and services to be chased by those imaginary dollars, hence rising prices.

Oh, by the way, Democrats and Republicans share the blame for all this craziness.

America’s governments- federal and state- aren’t alone in having done such stupid, destructive things. China, of course, hugely reduced its manufacturing of all the things we and other countries worldwide import from it, leading to fewer goods chased by those imaginary dollars, hence rising prices.

Honestly, anybody who didn’t foresee if not the timing at least the inevitability of serious price increases was either asleep or ignorant of basic economics. But I repeat myself.

The editors of National Review published some sober suggestions on June 13 about how the Fed and the governments should respond now. One thing’s for sure: more of the hair of the dog that bit us will only make matters worse. A 180-degree reversal (Biblically, that’s called repentance) is what’s needed.

Sad to say, politicians’ worries about the next election cycle stand in the way of that. And they do so because the public is as ignorant of basic economics as they are. The public doesn’t want to go through the painful belt-tightening necessary to end this government-caused crisis. It wants to mask the disease, not cure it.

So, what is to be done? We must generate widespread public understanding of basic economics and the determination not to vote for anybody who supports policies that are inconsistent with it.

I tried to impart such understanding with my book Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity, an introduction to economics built on the foundation of Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics. Make no mistake about it: if our executive and legislative branches had been controlled by people who understood that and were committed to governing according to its principles, we wouldn’t be where we are today - we’d have a much more prosperous, just, peaceful, and free society than we do.

More recently, Rainer Zitelmann, in The Power of Capitalism: A Journey Through Recent History Across Five Continents, has presented not so much a theoretical as an empirical defense of the free-market, capitalist economics the betrayal of which brought us to the present crisis. Chapter after chapter compares countries that chose more capitalist policies with similar countries that chose more socialist policies and shows the indubitable preferability of the former over the latter.

The cure of America’s-and any other country’s-economic ills will not come from the top down. It will come, if it comes, from the bottom up. Time to learn the economics we didn’t learn in high school or even in college but should have.

Jun 20, 2022
Indian Coal Makes Electricity as Wind Farms Sit Idle

by Vijay Jayaraj

Amidst the clamor surrounding the intensive use of coal in China and India, one may not realize that these nations have some of the world’s largest renewable energy installations.

image

In fact, I hail from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu which is often compared to Scandinavia for its large number of wind farms. Accounting for 25 percent of the country’s wind capacity, the state has the largest share of such generating assets in a nation of 1.3 billion people.

Yet even Tamil Nadu relies heavily on coal to meet its electricity demands, with power emergencies and blackouts being the order of the day anytime there are shortages of fuel. It is much the same across the country, where 70 percent of the electricity comes from coal.

The much-touted wind farms are of little help in such emergencies. Yes, they generate electricity, but it is highly insignificant, only 4.6 billion units compared to coal’s 92 billion units. Despite wind accounting for 10 percent of total installed capacity in the country’s power sector, its total contribution to generation is less than three percent. Wind farms simply cannot produce on-demand electricity, and certainly not in the amount needed by large cities.

“Yet again, power cuts have become the norm in Tamil Nadu; there is already a huge impact on people’s lives,” said the former chief minister of the state.

Last month, Tamil Nadu’s chief minister pleaded for more coal as supply was critically low: “The Chief Minister M K Stalin wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding his intervention to ensure the supply of 72,000 (million tonnes) of coal per day.”

Even a small hiccup in the supply of coal results in widespread blackouts across an entire state. This reveals that the wind capacity of the state is an exaggerated asset that cannot deliver when power is needed. The wind farms work well only during optimum wind months, which means they are useless for more than half of the year.

The officials in charge of delivering power to people are aware of this pathetic situation and, hence, continue to invest in fossil fuel energy sources, especially coal.

The state recently approved the construction of an additional 2,640 megawatts of capacity at a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired plant despite opposition from various quarters. A total of 607 hectares were acquired for the installation of stages 2 and 3 at the Super Critical Thermal Power Project at Udangudi. The plant will look to import 30 percent of its coal from Indonesia, South Africa, Australia, and China.

Further, the federal government of India has now decided “to tackle the power crisis by invoking Section 11 of the Electricity Act, mandating all imported coal-based projects to generate power at full capacity.”

Instead of curtailing coal plants, as climate doomsayers demand, India is increasing its coal dependency. With a forecast of severe shortage in the coming months, the federal government is stepping in to import more coal and avoid more blackouts. “Coal India would import coal for blending on a government-to-government basis and supply ... to thermal power plants of state generators and independent power producers,” the federal Power Ministry said in a May 28 letter.

The federal government has asked coastal plants to import as much coal as possible and promised to provide loans to do so. Electricity demand from coal plants is so high that the state of Tamil Nadu and a few others have allowed plants to increase prices.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

First published here at Human Events on June 6, 2022.

Apr 12, 2021
Lessons In Woke “Science”: Covid-19 And Climate

Francis Menton

Over time, I have had many posts on the scientific method, most recently in January 2021 here.  You posit a falsifiable hypothesis.  Then you collect and examine the evidence.  If the evidence contradicts your hypothesis you must abandon it and move on.  Really, that’s the whole thing. 

Then there is woke “science,” most visible these days in the arenas of response to the Covid-19 virus and of climate change.  Here the principles are a little different.  In woke “science” there is no falsifiable hypothesis.  In place of that, we have the official orthodox consensus view. The official orthodox consensus view has been arrived at by all the smartest people, because it just seems like it must be right.  The official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted, particularly by the little people like you.  Based on the official orthodox consensus view, those in power can take away all your freedom (Covid) and/or transform the entire economy (climate).  After all, it’s the “science.”

But what if evidence seems to contradict the official orthodox consensus view? I’m sorry, but as I said the official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted.  Today’s news brings a couple of extreme examples of that, one on the virus front, and the other relating to climate.  Both of these are from Europe, so you may not have seen them.

On the virus front, we consider the case of Germany.  For some reason, Germany has been relatively lightly hit by the virus, at least so far.  According to the latest from Worldometers, Germany has had 940 deaths per million population to date.  This compares, for example to 2,593 deaths per million in Czechia (worst of all countries), 1,864 in the UK, and 1,732 in the U.S.  But starting in about mid-March, Germany has seen a renewed “surge” of cases.  Why?  Some might say that the virus is just going to get you sooner or later.  But on March 23 German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a new three-week “lockdown” of the strictest variety, which included the forced closing of most stores from April 1 to 5.  And with that three-week period about to expire, the website No Tricks Zone (German speakers) reports today that even further extensions are under consideration:

The German government is looking to impose even stricter lockdown measures.  Liberty has been suspended indefinitely in Europe. 

The problem here is that if the proposition that lockdowns work were a falsifiable hypothesis, it would have been falsified by now.  The most striking data come from here in the U.S., where strict lockdown states like New York (2642 deaths per million as of today), New Jersey (2800), Illinois (1878) and Michigan (1759) continue to get shown up by wide open places like Florida (1584) and Texas (1705).  Try to find any actual data for the efficacy of lockdowns, and you can’t.  That is, except for their efficacy in generating an unemployment rate of 13% in New York City versus 4.8% in Florida.

But Germany, like the blue U.S. states, operates by the alternative principles of woke “science.” After all, data or no data, all the smartest people know that lockdowns must work.  No Tricks Zone reports today on a news conference that took place on Friday (April 9) in Germany.  An independent journalist named Boris Reitschuster got a chance to pose a question to Oliver Ewald, a spokesman for the German Ministry of Health.  Here is the question (translation from NTZ):

Herr Ewald, [a journalist] at the WZ wrote in a report that the German government has no proof of the effectiveness of lockdowns. So my question is: what scientific studies do you have? Thank you.”

And here is the initial response, plus some further back and forth:

Ewald:  Herr Reitschuster, you know that as a fundamental rule, we do not assess comments from journalists, and so here I will stick to that.”

Reitschuster: There’s a misunderstanding, Herr Ewald, I only brought up a quote and then followed it up with a stand-alone question, and this question has nothing to do with the quote. I’ll gladly repeat the question once again; what scientific study...”

Ewald:  When you read one sentence from this comment here and request an assessment without, so to speak, providing further context or basis, I can’t say anything on that.”

Reitschuster:  Completely without the sentence, for the third time, what scientific study does the German government have? Thank you.”

Ewald:  I’ve said what I have to say say on that!”

NTZ comments: “We all know there is no study that supports lockdowns, and so spokesman Ewald is clearly trapped.” However, you should expect the lockdown to continue in Germany.

Over to the subject of climate change.  As you may have read, last week brought record-breaking cold to much of Europe which, given that we are well into April, caused substantial damage to crops in their early stages of Spring growth.  Actually, it’s likely that you didn’t read about that at all.  That’s because the U.S. mainstream media mostly only report on record warmth, not record cold.  As an example, I can’t find any mention of the subject of Europe’s cold snap in the New York Times (although I do find an article in the Washington Post).

But, particularly given the extensive crop damage, let alone the readership personally experiencing the bitter cold temperatures, the European press can’t avoid reporting on the subject.  Doesn’t this extreme cold kind of undermine the official orthodox consensus view that the climate is rapidly getting warmer?

Here is the story from France’s Le Figaro, April 9 (my translation):

A bout of severe frost struck numerous crops this week in France.  Temperatures plummeted, in some places, below 0 degrees C (32 F) at a speed never seen since 1947 for the month of April.

Quick, somebody needs to explain how that is consistent with “global warming.” Le Figaro calls in one Thierry Castel, identified as a “climatology researcher.” Here’s his explanation:

This is well linked [to global warming].  The differences in temperatures between the polar zones and the mid-latitudes are decreasing.  That process modulates the undulations of the jet stream (the fast winds over the North Atlantic that play a big role in atmospheric circulation).  Because of that, we are faced with the descent of cold Arctic air, and the more important northward movement of warm air. 

Sure, Thierry.  Meanwhile, the UAH guys report another substantial drop in world atmospheric temperature in March 2021.  The global temperature anomaly for the month is -0.01 deg C (as against the 30 year average of 1991-2020).  That brings us back down to about the same temperature we had back in 1988.  Needless to say, Le Figaro was way too polite to confront M. Castel with this information.

Here is the latest UAH chart of global temperatures, going back to 1979:

image

Aug 18, 2020
Green California Has the Nation’s Worst Power Grid

By Steve Goreham

image

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Washington Examiner.

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability. 

At 6:30 pm on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 pm. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to two million customers until 11 pm.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency, the first Stage 3 emergency since 2001. Spot power electricity prices soared to over $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.

In 2018, 19 percent of California’s electricity came from roof-top and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 pm each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run the air conditioners during hot summer evenings.

California has the least reliable electrical power system in the US. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the state leads the US in power outages every year, with more than double the outages of any other state over the last decade.

image

The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups, which in order of importance are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.

For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.

In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional 3 converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal plant.

California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.

Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10 percent since 2013, with additional reductions planned.

Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 pm on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power when the wind subsided and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.

The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On September 10, 2018, then Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue erode grid reliability.

As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10 percent of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.

California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.

California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

Apr 22, 2022
Climate alarmism posing as science education for children

By David Wojick

The beginning: “The new and so-called Next Generation Science Standards are now law for about a third of American children. They say what will be taught in each grade from first grade through high school. At least 20 states have adopted them. See

Traditional standards still govern in the other States. These generally mandate that climate science will be taught in high school Earth Science courses. Earth Science is an optional course, not a requirement, and even then climate is a minor topic.

In stark contrast the Next Gen standards are alarmist to the core. They mandate that climate be taught in middle school science, which everyone takes. The topic is emphasized, with alarmism a central feature. This means lots of climate modeling, even though these students have had relatively little prior science. They cannot possibly evaluate the models they are forced to use.

Implementing Next Gen requires developing lesson plans that say what will be taught in each one hour class, often including how it will be taught. Writing these lesson plans for every topic, in every grade, is a huge ongoing effort.

Next Gen has just approved a big climate science unit and it is very bad. It starts with newspaper accounts of floods and droughts, blames them on our CO2 and methane emissions, then ends with community action. And this is for 7th graders, who are typically around 13 years old and know very little hard science. This is pure alarmism presented to children as science. It is purely shameful.

The developer is OpenSciEd, where open means their products are free for schools to use. Who pays is an interesting question. The title is “OpenSciEd Unit 7.6: How Do Changes in Earth’s System Impact Our Communities and What Can We Do About It?” Get it? Changes cause impact requiring community action. The standard alarmist formula, action not science.

You can find the junk here.

They even have a neat trick in their advertising. They claim the students “figure out” all this alarmism, saying this: “This unit on Earth’s resources and human impact begins with students observing news stories and headlines of drought and flood events across the United States. Students figure out that these drought and flood events are not normal and that both kinds of events seem to be related to rising temperatures.”

Also:

“Students figure out that the rising temperatures are caused by an imbalance in Earth’s carbon system, resulting in a variety of problems in different communities. The unit ends with students evaluating different kinds of solutions to these problems and how they are implemented in communities.”

A lot of student figuring, right? They must think a lot. Wrong! This is pure indoctrination!

There is more in the article including a revealing lesson list. Please share it.

We need a campaign to block the adoption of these horrific lessons

Note that I have a Climate Change Debate Education site with lots of skeptical materials, including links to about 350 videos by leading skeptics.

I also have a fundraiser for this education effort here.

We have been relatively inactive but are now gearing up to fight this indoctrination. Donations are most welcome. You can donate anonymously.

David

Apr 08, 2022
The dread 1.5 degree target is dead

By David Wojick |April 8th, 2022

A foolish end to a foolish target - limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. That is the warming from 150 years ago, just 0.5 degrees or less from today forward. Of course this is all according to the worthless computer models, but let’s go with the flow.

The massive new IPCC report makes it clear. You can’t get there from here (not that we wanted to). Not by any even reasonably possible means, so the target will be missed (according to the models). What will the alarmists do without their beloved target?

It is all about something called the “carbon budget”. Unlike the climate, and the climate models for that matter, the carbon budget is very simple. It is how much CO2 the human race is allowed to emit in order to stay below the target warming.

Not how much this year, or this decade, or even this century. This is the limit forever. So enjoy it while you can because time is very short, or so says the IPCC report. In fact time is up, over and past.

First, here is the budget: The IPCC says “...the current central estimate of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for limiting warming to 1.5C with a probability of 50% has been assessed as 500 Gt CO2...”

500 Gigatons is a suspiciously round number but never mind. Just how big is it? The IPCC explains it nicely: “....cumulative net CO2 emissions between 2010-2019 compare to about four fifths of the size of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for a 50% probability of limiting global warming to 1.5C...”

So our forever budget, starting in 2020, is just a bit bigger than our emissions in the last decade! That is it, for all eternity. Note that even then we are just buying a 50% chance of staying under the dread 1.5 degree target. Not a good way to bet the global economy.

But our emissions are not going down, in fact they are still going up. Nor can they possibly come down enough to make any difference. We do not have time to open all the mines and build all the factories (after getting all the permits!) then make, install and operate all the stuff we would need to meet that budget (after getting all the permits). In fact building all this stuff might well double our emissions for the next ten years. Oh wait, we have less than 8 years.

The conclusion is obvious. We are going to burn the carbon budget and keep on emitting many hundreds of gigatons of CO2 after that. There is no feasible way not to.

So how are the alarmists going to handle this failure? They have foolishly hyped their way into a corner.

The standard way the 1.5 degree target is explained in the green media is “to avoid the worst effects of climate change” but that has always been nonsense. The worst effects would occur at 6 degrees or more, not as we pass 1.5 degrees.

There is nothing in the science about a 1.5 degree threshold. No tipping point, no catastrophe, no emergency. Nothing at all, so it is a made up number. The models get a little bit worse with every temperature increase, but just a tiny bit and passing 1.5 degrees is no different than passing any other level. When it comes to being the threshold to catastrophe, there is no there there.

In this very real sense the reported 1.5 degree threshold to catastrophe is a hoax. Except the people pushing it do not know that, so it is more of a colossal blunder. Except the IPCC does know it and has never corrected the activists and governments that are calling the meeting of this harmless target an emergency. This makes it a hoax by omission.

I have no idea what the alarmists will do as they finally admit that the 1.5 degree target cannot be met. But it should be fun to watch.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see here For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see here Available for confidential research and consulting.

Sep 26, 2021
Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth

Claim: 23 Million Year Old Fossilized Leaves Offer Proof of CO2 to Greening the Planet link
Anthony Watts

From the we told you so department.

image
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS

The links between rising carbon dioxide levels, and greening trends have been supposedly confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.

Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in atmospheric CO2 during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between CO2 and greening in the fossil record.

This is something NASA satellites have already observed in the modern-day era. Recent satellite surveys suggest rising CO2 levels are responsible for greening patterns across the planet, including Arctic and drylands ecosystems.

The latest research suggests that greening trends are likely to continue as CO2 levels approach those recorded during ancient period of warming.

According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions. In addition, previous studies suggest increases in rates of photosynthesis can prevent staple crops from absorbing calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health.

By comparing the fossilized leaf structures, including microscopic veins, stomata and pores, to those of modern leaves, researchers designed a model to more accurately predict CO2 levels.

“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study co-author William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. “This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”

Well, it may :"all fit together’ but the plants sure seem happy as of late.

------------
NASA: Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth
By Brooks Hays

image
A map of the world visualizes the change in leaf area, or greening, over the past 30 years. Photo by Boston University/R. Myneni
Enlarge Photo

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI)—New research confirms rising CO2 levels are driving the “greening” Earth effect observed by satellites.

Greening is evidence of accelerated plant growth and heightened rates of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a main source of fuel for plants—and thus, all life on Earth—and previous studies show a rise in CO2 results in plant growth.

But other sources of nutrients and external factors can accelerate photosynthesis and greening, including changes in nitrogen levels, land usage, temperature and weather.

An international team of researchers isolated each of these factors and ran them through a series of computer models. The results suggest rising CO2 levels best explain the increase in leaf cover, or greening, measured by NASA and NOAA satellites.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

-----------

An orchestrated movement:

Puppet masters (Government agencies, NGOs, billionaires and politicians), many who believed the world has too many people that consume too much of the world’s resources decided to move us towards one world government to control both.

They use the UN as the organization that would unify the word around their agenda using the lure of money (redistribution of wealth). They take control of the science through funding.

They take control of the universities and research labs again through funding efforts that supported their agenda, purging or silencing the faculty not tenured and making life miserable for those that were tenured who did not go along, firing lab employees who resisted. Take control of the curriculum from K-8 to college on science and social issues.

Take control of the professional societies - easy to do since most were academics riding the grant gravy train - have many work on statements endorsing their theory as fact never voted on by their members.

Take control of the major journals used by scientists, removing editors who allowed papers that challenged the tenets of the theory, ensuring at least one reviewer would be assigned to every submitted challenging paper who would reject it.

Take control of the media (easy since 95% are sympathetic to the ‘cause’wink. The Society of Environmental Journalists actually published a handbook on how to deal with doubters and slant their coverage. The NJOS, WH, Media Matters provide talking points to the media after official reports are issued.

They demonize skeptics - using words like climate change deniers, claim they were funded by big oil (when big oil was funding their side - BP $500M to UC Berkeley, Exxon $100M to Stanford and all told well over 1 Trillion..  They claim we don’t publish in the major journals they control, though many thousands have published real science in journals that they do not control.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

image

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

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

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

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

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

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

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

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

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

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

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

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

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)