The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

/in , , , , , , , /by

“If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels,” warns a recent article from Foreign Policy.

“The Limits of Clean Energy” is the title of an article by Jason Hickel in Foreign Policy, with the sub-title “If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels.” Here’s the opening:

The conversation about climate change has been blazing ahead in recent months. Propelled by the school climate strikes and social movements like Extinction Rebellion, a number of governments have declared a climate emergency, and progressive political parties are making plans—at last—for a rapid transition to clean energy under the banner of the Green New Deal.

This is a welcome shift, and we need more of it.

But a new problem is beginning to emerge that warrants our attention. Some proponents of the Green New Deal seem to believe that it will pave the way to a utopia of “green growth.” Once we trade dirty fossil fuels for clean energy, there’s no reason we can’t keep expanding the economy forever.

This narrative may seem reasonable enough at first glance, but there are good reasons to think twice about it. One of them has to do with clean energy itself. The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

MP: As we learned from Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” See video below.

This article was reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.

COLUMN BY

Mark J. Perry

Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Buckets of Icy Cold Energy Reality

Climate Change: The End Is Near (And It Can’t Come Fast Enough)

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Energy and Environmental News

/in , /by

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

Here is a useful list of reputable agencies trying to help the people of the Bahamas. Also add Catholic Relief Services. Please be generous to this devastated area.

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into seven (7) categories.

My vote for the three most outstanding articles this cycle: 12 Reasons Why Wind & Solar Power Make No Sense, The Cynical Myth of a Global Warming “Consensus” and How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World.

Energy Economics

Wind Turbine Health Matters

Nuclear Energy

Solar Energy

Energy Misc

Global Warming (AGW)

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

© All rights reserved.

Video of an Exceptional Speech on ‘Green economy’ in the German Parliament by Alice Weidel, Co-leader of AfD

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

This is a must watch.

Direct link.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

Climate Kid Greta’s Global Strike Underway

41 Climate Doomsday Predictions That Didn’t Come True

Canada Deletes 100 Years of Inconvenient Temperature Data

Cannibalism and the Democratic Progressive Caucus’ Green New Deal love affair

/in , /by

The 98 member Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus (which includes the four members of The Squad) sent out an email titled, “Read what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal just said.” Here is the content of the email:

Scientists estimate that we only have 12 YEARS until the effects of climate change become IRREVERSIBLE. We have to act, now!

That’s why Progressive Caucus members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal are speaking out:

We must pass bold initiatives, like a Green New Deal, if we want to stop climate change in its tracks.

But we can’t do that unless we elect a wave of pro-environment Progressives who will fight to keep our planet habitable for future generations.

We’re starting an ambitious $20,000 fundraiser to make that happen, so we’re reaching out to our top supporters (that’s you!) for help.

What do you say? Chip in a few dollars now to help elect Progressives to Congress who will pass a Green New Deal:

Climate alarmism has become even more alarmist than it ever has. Laura Williams wrote a column titled “4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True.” Laura listed the following as alarmist predictions that never happened:

  1. GLOBAL COOLING. The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.
  2. THE GREAT DIE-OFF. The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
  3. POLLUTION PARTICLE CLOUDS. The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.
  4. 75% OF SPECIES WILL GO EXTINCT. The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Progressives have gone through phases in their climate alarmism. As each alarm doesn’t happen they just change the narrative: from global cooling, to global warming to climate change.

Cannibalism

If you think killing unborn children and selling their body parts is bad, the latest woke on the liberal left is cannibalism.

Breitbart reported in a September 6, 2019 article titled “Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change” reported:

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

Read more.

But this idea of eating human flesh in order to save the planet is not new with progressives. In this video from the Charlie Rose Show on PBS on April 1, 2008 Ted Turner said that Global warming can lead to cannibalism.

Shawn Hannity in an article titled “GREEN NEW MEAL: Scientist Says ‘Consuming Human Flesh’ May Be Needed to Fight Climate Change” reports:

A European scientist speaking at a summit in Sweden last week suggested a controversial new trend to combat climate change: consuming human flesh as an alternative to animal products.

“Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to ‘awaken the idea,’” reports the New York Post.

“At a summit for food of the future (the climate-ravaged future) called Gastro Summit, in Stockholm on Sept. 3 to 4, a professor held a PowerPoint presentation asserting that we must ‘awaken the idea’ of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change,” adds the Epoch Times.

Conclusion

The opposite of peace is not war. The opposite of peace is fear. If you believe the progressive bunk on climate change then you are in fear. Fear that the planet earth will die and take you along with it.

Of course this has been a big lie propagated by the progressives to take control of all means of production, especially fossil fuels.

There are three absolute truths about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles (i.e. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to alter these natural cycles.

Eating our dead will not save the planet. What will save the planet is exposing this big lie for what it is – a United Nations effort to impose a one world government. This, as it always has, will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of human being, born and unborn.

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Climate Change.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk

/in , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The humanitarian hoax of climate change is so enormous and far-reaching that one article on the subject is simply not enough.

My first article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 4, was published two years ago on 7.21.2017. The second, The Riddle of Climate Change, published on 2.27.19 continued the discussion. Now it is necessary to explore the ever-expanding climate change hoax and examine the progress the hucksters have made in advance of the pivotal 2020 elections.

Let’s begin with huckster-in-chief Barack Obama and his recent staggeringly hypocritical purchase of a 15 million dollar waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. Why would Obama purchase a waterfront mansion doomed to sink underwater in twelve years? He wouldn’t. Let’s review.

In Obama’s first inaugural address 1.20.09 he pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In his second inaugural address 1.21.13 he affirmed climate change saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagreed with his assessment saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

The overwhelming judgment of science?? Why did Obama ignore the damning 2009 Climategate scandal, NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s 2010 book, and later the 2014 Senate testimony of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore? Let’s find out.

“Climategate is the scandal that erupted on 11.19.09 when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the global warming theory. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history.

It’s findings revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by manmade adjustments of the temperature data.” WHAT?

The Climategate emails showed how all the data centers worldwide, including American NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

Climategate occurred in the first year of Obama’s first term. Climategate’s stunning revelations showed that the “settled science” of climate change was completely fraudulent and politically motivated. Yet, the mainstream media attempted to bury the story for years and continued to push for passage of Obama’s Paris Accord during his second term.

Obama committed his second term to promoting the fiction of manmade climate change, and implementing regulatory environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency. New York Times writers Stevenson and Broder compared Obama’s environmental efforts in their 1.21.13 article, Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage. “The approach is a turnabout from the first term, when Mr. Obama’s guiding principle in trying to pass the cap-and-trade bill was that a negotiated legislative solution was likely to be more politically palatable than regulation by executive fiat.”

Executive fiat is an executive order – a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. The Paris Agreement aka Paris Climate Accord was enacted by Barack Obama during his second term by executive order. The Paris Agreement was made with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, never ratified by Congress, and effective 11.4.16. Remember the date.

Doomsday articles warning of cataclysmic flooding and drought began appearing. The narrative of manmade climate change hysteria was launched to support Obama’s executive order limiting emissions, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media kept repeating the narrative incessantly. The problem, of course, was that unbiased scientists continued challenging the narrative and climate “science” of the the United Nations. Let’s review.

The climate changes, but “manmade” climate change is the deliberately misleading narrative that human behavior is causing cataclysmic changes to the Earth’s climate. The Climategate scandal exposed the fraudulent “research” that supported its politically motivated claims and exposed the hoax.

Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the new world order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations. Oh my!

Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author, and former NASA senior scientist helped debunk the bunk being foisted on an increasingly worried American voting population in 2010. Dr Spencer explained that climate sensitivity is the critical issue in finding the truth of climate changes. “Climate sensitivity is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing,’ of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.”

Political science and climate change huckster extraordinaire Al Gore claimed climate sensitivity is very high. Dr Spencer relied on satellite evidence that suggest climate sensitivity is very low. He made the claim for natural climate change and that climate change happens with or without our help.

Dr Spencer’s 2010 book, The Great Global Warming Blunder presented stunning new evidence that warming is not the fault of humans, it is the result of chaotic internal natural cycles that have been responsible for fluctuating periods of warming and cooling for millennia. The book reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect of cloud behavior and fallen prey to group-think acceptance of misguided political global warming policy proposals.

Dr Spencer’s analysis is atmospheric science not political science – he completely discards the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that greenhouse gases are all that are needed to explain global warming. Spencer shows that a natural, internally generated climate variability called “climate chaos” that is generated by clouds is responsible. Spencer exposes the political motivations of the United Nations IPCC reports saying, “The IPCC process for reviewing the science of global warming and climate change has been a peculiar perversion of the usual practice of scientific investigation. Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.”

Of course it is. Dr Spencer discovered the IPCC politicization of science saying,

“As I wrote this book, I found myself increasingly criticizing the IPCC’s leadership and the way it politicized my scientific discipline, atmospheric science, in order to promote specific policies. The truth is that the IPCC doesn’t actually do scientific research. It is primarily a political advocacy group that cloaks itself in the aura of scientific respectability while it cherry-picks the science that best supports its desired policy outcomes, and marginalizes or ignores science that might contradictory the party line. It claims to be policy-neutral, yet it will not entertain any science that might indicate there is no need for policy change on greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the IPCC’s relatively brief Summary for Policymakers is not written by hundreds of scientists, but by about fifty handpicked true believers who spin the science of climate change to support specific policy goals.”

The United Nations IPCC goals are unapologetically stated in United Nations Agenda 2030 – the manifesto for imposing the new world order of one world government. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals reaffirm the United Nations globalist stance that planet Earth and its ecosystems are “our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.” This is all Orwellian doublespeak to rationalize imposition of a new world order of one world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Nazi Joseph Goebbels infamously remarked, “If you repeat a lie often enough people believe it.” That is exactly what happened with manmade climate change. Let’s recap.

Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama presented himself as your children’s advocate who is altruistically implementing policies for their safety. The presidential huckster issued executive orders that seriously restricted the emissions you are told are killing your children and the planet. The lie was told so often by so many that the general population started believing it, and then began ostracizing and shaming anyone who didn’t believe the lie.

Apostate Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore told a US Senate Committee unequivocally on 2.25.14, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

Patrick Moore exposes the lie of “settled science.” He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore explains:

“When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea.”

Patrick Moore described the details of the climate change hoax and the green movement:

“And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children.”

Shaming is a powerful tool used and abused by humanitarian hucksters to promote their manmade climate change narrative, and to silence any opposition to their false claims of “settled” climate science.

The manmade climate change hucksters continue to perpetrate their monstrous hoax through fear and guilt. Fear is a powerful motivator for behavior change. If parents can be convinced that catastrophe will strike their children unless they change their own behavior, their guilt will motivate parents to change and the big lie of manmade climate change becomes generational.

Children are being indoctrinated to believe the lie by their parents and by the collaborating educational curriculum courtesy of Obama’s Common Core and UN Agenda 2030. More on that later.

The big lie continues today. A recent bill proposed by Democrat Senator Edward Markey (MA) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a “Climate Change Education Program.” This legislation deceitfully denies that manmade climate change is a disputed scientific theory and, instead, presents its disinformation as undeniable.

Markey, like his fellow Democrats, ignore Patrick Moore’s emphatic warning, “The narrative of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming or ‘climate change’ is an existential threat to reason:

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

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

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

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

Obama’s Paris agreement deceitfully ignored the Climategate scandal, Dr Spencer’s theory, and Patrick Moore’s testimony. It required individual countries to comply with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020. The contribution required of each participating country were labelled “nationally determined contributions.” What happened?

President Donald J. Trump defeated Obama’s legacy candidate and fellow manmade climate change huckster Hillary Clinton. One of the first things President Trump did was withdraw the United States from the egregious Paris Agreement. WHY?

The climate change hoax is being perpetrated worldwide by globalists in charge of global education and the United Nations Agenda 2030. The hucksters do not care about Climategate and that their “science” is demonstrably false. They continue to perpetrate the lie with confidence that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough it will be believed. So it is with climate “science.”

Manmade climate change hysteria has reached epic proportions in advance of the 2020 elections. America-first President Donald Trump recognizes the humanitarian hoax of climate change being perpetrated by the enemies of American sovereignty, and stands firm on his decision to withdraw from the deceitful Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is an anti-America humanitarian hoax designed to transfer the wealth from industrialized countries, especially the United States, to non-industrialized countries. The purpose of the climate change hoax is to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy in preparation for one world government.

American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government with President Donald Trump as America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed as a con man it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and socialism with his “resistance” movement. The globalist elites who fund the leftist humanitarian hucksters are using them as useful idiots to facilitate climate alarmism and the great humanitarian hoax of climate change worldwide. It is a deliberate plan to create the overwhelming social chaos necessary to impose their own special brand of a new world order.

Debunking the bunk of the humanitarian hoax of climate change exposes its sinister objective to return the world to the feudal system of one world government. Obama ignored Climategate, Dr Spencer, and Patrick Moore because he knew they were all telling the truth. Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama, his 15 million dollar waterfront mansion, and his family are all safe because manmade climate change is bunk.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change and the Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

An open letter to Greta Thunberg

/in , , , , , , /by

Dear Greta –

Congratulations on making a carbon-free trip to New York. You are setting a great example for people who believe fossil fuel use is destroying the planet. While I fully support your right to protest, I hope you’ll allow me to explain why I’m skeptical of the cause you embrace.

I’m not a scientist, but do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I have at least some basis for arriving at reasoned opinions concerning dire claims about the climate. I guess I’m what’s referred to as a climate denier, but I bend over backwards to limit my own carbon footprint. I use less than two gallons of hot water to shower, wash dishes by hand, wash clothes in cold water, never use my electric clothes dryer, never have my groceries put in plastic bags, and keep my thermostat at 61 in winter, 81 in summer. The monthly energy bill of my 1,800 sf home has never been above $100. I believe we all are duty-bound to be good stewards of the planet, but I have many doubts about man-made global warming theory. In the interest of brevity, I’ll touch on just one of those concerns here.

As you may have noticed, the wealthy people who talk the loudest about the need for “each and every one of us” to make dramatic cutbacks in the way we live aren’t making dramatic cutbacks in the way they live. These wealthy climate preachers are many in number. Since you’re aware of the most prominent, I won’t list them here. Suffice it to say that not a single member of their living-large alliance practices what they preach.

Please allow me to cite one example.

Since leaving the White House, President and Mrs. Obama have amassed an enviable fortune of $100 million. President Obama speaks passionately about how we all must choose to live in smaller homes that require less energy to heat and cool. During a speech in South Africa last year, he criticized rich people for their lavish lifestyles:

“There’s only so big a house you can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.”

Big houses…

The first major purchase the Obamas made as private citizens was an 8,200 sf mansion in the nation’s capitol. They reportedly are buying another spacious mansion, a luxurious oceanside estate in Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe it’s impolite to say, but two high profile climate preachers living in such spacious homes just because they can afford it is not what most people would refer to as of environmental leadership.

Nice trip …

President Obama speaks with deep conviction about how we all must dramatically cut back on leisure trips fueled by carbon energy. As I’m sure you know, Greta, private planes are the most planet-abusive way to fly. Here’s a list of leisure trips President Obama took during the first four months of his retirement:

► The day he left office, he flew 2,200 miles in a near-empty U.S. government Boeing 747 all the way across the continent to Palm Springs, California for his first post-presidency vacation.

► After relaxing in an 11,000 sf villa at the exclusive Thunderbird Heights Resort in nearby Rancho Mirage, he flew 3,300 miles, by private jet, all the way back across the continent to the Caribbean, where he vacationed with Richard Branson on Branson’s private island.

► After that vacation, he flew 6,000 miles, by private jet, for a brief stay at Marlon Brando’s French Polynesian hideaway in Tahiti.

► He left Tahiti, by private jet, on a 2,700-mile trip to Hawaii, where he golfed for a few days before leaving, by private jet, for the 4,800-mile return trip to his DC mansion.

► Once home, he twice traveled 400 roundtrip miles to New York, both times by private jet, the first to take in a play on Broadway, the second to have dinner with U2’s Bono.

► In early May, he flew 8,400 roundtrip miles, by private jet, to Milan, Italy, where a caravan of 14 carbon-powered SUVs took him to a conference to give a speech about—sit down for this—people burning more than their fair share of fossil fuels.

► While in Italy, he flew, by private jet, from Milan to Tuscany, where he unwound at Borgo Finocchieto, an exclusive resort featuring luxury villas measuring out at 9,500 sf.

► After leaving Italy, he returned, by private jet, to his home in DC.

During his first four months of retirement, America’s most recent former president flew more than 27,000 miles, a distance greater that Earth’s circumference. There’s no telling how many private jet leisure trips he’s taken in the last two years.

Other prominent climate preachers indulge in the same type of lavishness as the Obamas. To justify living large, some purchase ‘carbon offsets,’ which allegedly are used for some green purpose, such as planting a few trees. When eco-preacher Prince Harry recently took heat for his incessant use of private jets, Elton John came to his defense by purchasing a carbon offset that purportedly neutralized the atmospheric degradation caused by the private jet flight Harry and his wife took for a leisurely stay at the famous singer’s extravagant home in Nice, France.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems carbon offsets are little more than a clever fig leaf that enables wealthy climate preachers explain away unlimited private jet travel, which cannot occur without using copious quantities of fossil fuel. These mega-rich people rationalize pigging out on fossil fuel energy by purchasing offsets, the cost of which is an infinitesimal drop in their immense financial buckets. Offsets are useful for environmental chest thumping, but do nothing to change the fact that the virtue signaling rich folks who purchase them are nevertheless guilty of burning unconscionable amounts of carbon energy in their insatiable pursuit of lavish living.

Despite your young age, Greta, you have considerable sway with the wealthy elitists whose only contribution toward saving the planet is preaching. Because you walk the walk, you have the moral standing to call them out. And you should, because they’re the same self-indulgent carbon gluttons who terrified you when you were a little girl. Their opulent lifestyles are unmistakable proof that not a single one of them is the least bit concerned that CO2 is destroying the environment.

Call them out, Greta. Make them man up. They owe it to you and the millions of other young people they traumatized, all while burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow.

Respectfully and best wishes,

John Eidson
Atlanta, GA

RELATED ARTICLES:

Free Greta Thunberg From Her Cruel Political Exploitation By Leftists

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

America Tunes Out the Demented Dems

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

/in , , , , , /by

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don’t know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.

If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

  • Newsweek Magazine’s “The Cooling World” Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975 
  • Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
  • BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
  • Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
  • University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

COLUMN BY

Laura Williams

Dr. Laura Williams  teaches communication strategy to undergraduates and executives. She is a passionate advocate for critical thinking, individual liberties, and the Oxford Comma.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Myth That Our Planet Faces an Overpopulation Crisis

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

5 Surprising Scientific Facts about Earth’s Climate

/in , /by

There are many environmental facts that run contrary to popular belief. Here are five of them.

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

COLUMN BY

Vijay Jayaraj

Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Data on Amazon Rainforest Fires Tell a Much Different Story Than Social Media

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

CNN Climate Townhall: Cements the Re-election of Donald J. Trump and insures Republican Majorities in U.S. House and Senate

/in , , , , /by

CNN has done a great service to America. I know, you’re asking yourself why did I write this?

CNN hosted a seven hour townhall with key Democratic primary candidates for president. The topic was climate change. During the CNN Climate Townhall each Democrat put forth policies that would make any American citizen cringe. It seems that Democrats just can’t help themselves. Let’s look at some of the highlights.

Highlights of CNN’s Climate Townhall

Here are some key statements made by Democrats who participated in the Climate Townhall:

  • Socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders says if he’s elected, he wants American taxpayers to pay for abortions in poor countries around the world to limit population growth. Why? Because Sanders claims mass abortions will limit climate change. (Source: BizPac Review)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tell his town hall audience, his sweeping Green New Deal is a logical and practical response to climate change. But Sanders’ description of how he plans to raise the money to fund his plan — an estimated $16 trillion over the course of a decade — shows he is planning to profoundly transform American society. (Source: CNN)
  • As for the people in the oil and gas business who would lose their jobs, Sanders says he would provide 5 years of income as well as education for displaced workers. (Source: CNN)
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren embraced flawed policy priorities during the CNN town hall, rejecting nuclear energy and calling for expensive, job-killing carbon mandates and $3 trillion in new taxpayer spending. Her proposal to ban offshore oil drilling would hike gas prices and the cost of household goods, hurting middle-class families. (Source: CNN)
  • Andrew Yang supports ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. He wants everyone to love driving electric cars, as opposed to “gas guzzlers” and “clunkers.” Andrew Yang said, “This is not a country where you take someone’s clunker away from them. But you are going to offer to buy the clunker back and help them upgrade.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro highlighted an ambitious plan aiming to get the United States to net-zero by 2045, meaning all coal-generated electricity will be phased out and replaced by zero-emission sources. And while Castro focused on taxing “corporate polluters,” he could not name one of the culprits when asked. (Source: CNN)
  • Senator Kamala Harris, “If Republicans continue to block progress, I’ll get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” (Source: CNN/Twitter)
  • Joe Biden, “I will bring the world together — and that’s what we need to address climate change.”
  • Amy Klobuchar, “[T]alked about the importance of environmental justice for communities of color living on the front lines of pollution; she touted plans for moving money from polluters’ pockets into programs that can lift these communities up with a price on carbon.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro, “more people are protected by national flood insurance” by subsidizing it. That would be a mistake. Flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones that should never have been populated in the first place, and are now more vulnerable than ever. It’s sad, but the reality is that climate adaptation will necessarily involve relocating some Americans out of high-risk flood zones. (Source: CNN)
  • Beto O’Rourke promised that he would re-enter the Paris agreement on “day-one” of his presidency. The Texas Democrat announced his climate plan in April, which will cost $5 trillion over 10 years to build out renewable energy and infrastructure, among a host of other pet projects. (Source: The Daily Caller)
  • Pete Buttigieg, Industrial America — including South Bend and the Studebaker cars we once produced — was built on oil and gas. But just as my community has moved forward, so must our country. So we’ll launch a 21st-century Industrial Revolution, investing in mass transit, transitioning to electric vehicles, and making buildings and homes more energy efficient. And with scientists indicating our soil can absorb as much carbon as the global transportation system emits, we’ll put American farmers at the center of our climate revolution. Too often, rural America has been told they’re the problem, not invited to be part of the solution. Through investments in soil management and other technologies, we can make a farm in Iowa as much a symbol of confronting climate disruption as an electric vehicle in California. ( Source: CNN Op-ed)
  • Democrats concur that rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is important. (Source: CNN)

How CNN became the Committee to Re-elect Donald J. Trump

President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, which every Democrat wants to rejoin. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the Paris Climate Accord punishes America and the American worker and rewards China, the worlds largest polluter.

I have learned three things about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles. Nothing.

The policies put forth during the CNN Climate Crisis townhall are not only inhuman but will certainly lead to greater centralized government control of all aspects of our lives. The goal is to achieve the fantasy of “environmental justice.” At whose expense exactly?

You guessed it, America’s working class.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Fox & Friends hosted Marc Morano on the CNN Climate Crisis town hall.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

Bernie Sanders Says Abortion Will Help Fight Climate Change

Democrat Prez Candidate Castro Proposes New Category of Refugees—Climate Refugees

Banning Plastic Straws, Fossil Fuels: Here Are Seven Standout Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall

Pete Buttigieg: Combatting Climate Change May Be ‘More Challenging Than’ Winning WWII

Elizabeth Warren To Struggling Families Dependent On Oil Jobs: ‘That’s Not the Only Job’

Video: ‘Miss NY Earth USA’ couldn’t be more wrong about climate

/in , , , , /by

CFACT’s Undercover operative recently interviewed Nicolette Templier, aka “Miss New York Earth USA”, at the United Nations’ Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to Templier, the “Miss Earth USA” organization is “a beauty pageant organization that focuses solely on environmental action.”

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to focus on environmental “facts.”

Our investigative reporter asked Templier’s opinion on climate skeptics and climate change in general. Her answers are simply a regurgitation of UN climate change alarmist talking points on everything from polar ice to polar bears, that fall to pieces when confronted with the facts.

You can watch Templier’s comments here:

Author

CFACT Undercover

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

/in , , , , /by

Our normal publication date is next Monday — but that is a major US holiday (Labor Day). To avoid that conflict the Newsletter is being issued before the holiday weekend, so that you have more time to review it. For the full version of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material this cycle, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories!

My vote for the most outstanding material this issue: Public Officials say that Wind Turbines Can Cause Sickness, The Latest Travesty in Climate “Consensus” Enforcement and How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate plus two excellent short videos: PragerU v. YouTube and True for You but Not for Me.

Energy Economics

China has slashed clean energy funding by 39%, leading a global declineChina switches $1B in ‘green’ finance to coal projects in first half of the yearThe Misanthropic Bankers Behind the Green New DealHow Elon Musk Fooled Investors, Bilked Taxpayers, etc.
General Electric shares tank following accusation of ‘bigger fraud than Enron’NY Offshore Wind bids rigged for unions

Renewable Energy Health Effects

Wind Turbines Can Cause Sickness, Say Public Health Officials
Wind Turbines and Adverse Health Effects: A Cardiologist’s View
Duke Energy study points finger at solar for increased pollution

Nuclear Energy

Report: Advancing Nuclear InnovationThe new nuclear option: small, safe and cheap
Nuclear is a clean, reliable source of energy that we should embrace
Britain’s Mass Blackout Drives Push For Ever-Reliable Nuclear Power

Offshore Wind Energy

Troubling questions, concerns raised about off-shore wind projects
Opposition Grows Against Vineyard Wind Ocean Wind Project
Vineyard Wind 720′ Turbines Risk To Military Radar Unanswered
Wind turbines and radar mix poorly
NY Offshore Wind bids rigged for unions

Wind Energy and Blackouts

Telling the Story of a Blackout
Australia’s Energy Regulator Sues Four Wind Farm Operators Over Blackout
Former National Grid director says there should be limits on wind and solar to avoid blackouts
Britain’s Mass Blackout Drives Push For Ever-Reliable Nuclear Power

Energy Misc.

Green New Deal Trial Crashes and Burns
Utility Studies delay both Wind and Solar Projects in the US Northeast
Renewable Energy Hits the Wall
Why Wind and Solar Aren’t Enough
Big Wind’s Big Headwinds
Wind Project is Trespassing
Physics Professor: Turbines could compromise radar signals
Short Video: The Green Real Deal
China and India Will Watch the West Destroy Itself

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Change: What’s the Worst Case?
The Latest Travesty in “Consensus” Enforcement
Re-evaluating the manufacture of the climate consensus
Dr Roy Spencer: How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate
Superior Video: Global Warming — Fact or Fiction
Dr. Tim Ball wins Dr. Michael Mann lawsuit
Frontal Assault on Our Standard of Living: Multi-billionaires Are Financing ‘Climate Protectors’!
See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda
Climate Change Discussions Need to Include A Few Cold Facts
The Climate Change Crisis Racket
Ice-pack of Lies
The Great Failure of Climate Computer Models
Global Warming? Climate Doomsayers Are The Problem
Exposing radical UN sustainability conference

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

Short Video re Major Lawsuit: PragerU v. YouTube
Scientist: A Major Cyber Attack Could Be Just as Deadly as Nuclear Weapons
US House Testimony: Scientific Integrity in the Legislative Process
Short video: True for You but Not for Me (Is Truth relative?)
Clean air law: A study in arbitrary rule
Why Everything They Say About The Amazon Rainforest Is Wrong
Why Google Poses a Serious Threat to Democracy, and How to End it

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: 5 million years of climate data shows the Sun is the driving factor not CO2

/in , , , , /by

In this December 15, 2011 video (below) Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and director, G.G. Hatch Isotope Laboratories, one of Canada’s leading analytical facilities, testifies before a Canadian Senate hearing on climate change.

Professor Clark presents three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Please take the time to watch this entire video to understand how data and science are used to define green house gases and their effect over time on our climate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Peoples Party: ‘Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.’

Don’t Let Climate Change Alarmism Ruin Your Future

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

Rain forest fires are not climate

/in , , , /by

Some pertinent points:

  1. Rainfall has been ABOVE AVERAGE in much of the Amazon Rain forest unless the rain forest has extended offshore, Panama has been below average something we see during lower than average ACE index hurricane seasons in the Main Development areas, as was forecast by my company in April.  That was well seen.
  1. South America has not been warm in any kind of overpowering fashion. In fact, one can argue that it has been average or below, more than above. It has been warm in the eastern part of the Amazon rain forecast, but there has not been a climate emergency pattern there.
  2. And this may have longer term climate implication given the nature of the oceans and total solar irradiance (both huge drivers in the climate) the southern oceans have cooled quite a bit, most notably around South America.

So here is what some objective journalist might want to do. Bring this up with the people pushing that the rain forecast fires are a part of climate change.  If that’s the case, its because the climate and some large scale indicators around South America are opposite of what is being pushed.

I suspect some people on the other side of the AGW issue are seeing the southern oceans cooling down some and also the major imbalance between the southern oceans and northern oceans, which has to be having an impact on the overall global weather pattern when one considers the southern hemisphere contains 80% of our oceans. Oceans are the greatest storehouse of heat, with low estimates at 80% and the highest at 99.9% . The AGW argument puts all their eggs in the basket that a warming atmosphere is causing the oceans to warm. An interesting example is the analogy of a boiling a pot of water.  The outside of the pot warms first. Unfortunately its an apples and oranges thing, since the pots temperature becomes HIGHER than the water it is heating, so eventually it warms it.  Given the stored nature of heat in the ocean, whether 80% or 99.9%, it is intuitive that an ocean should control the air above it.  The question is why is it warming? I can see the argument that if you warm the atmosphere above, then the oceans cool less quickly, giving them a higher base point to warm from, but that would mean decreased sensitivity to CO2, which is a huge point raised by climate skeptics who question the amount of warming. The IPCC has some scenarios of a 4-5 degree C warming, while people on my side of the issue put it more at 1-2 degrees C.  Given the greening of the planet so far (the greatest in the satellite era) this would be a good thing.

It it is warming a bit, we should adapt to it, and use the benefits to help further the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The straw man argument is that we climate skeptics “deny” climate change. That should raise red flags right off the bat.  Questioning a cause, or even agreeing that it has some impact, yet questioning the amount, gets you branded. Is that how scientific inquiry works now? The skeptic side points to natural cycles inherent in our unbalanced climate system, and how that imbalance is corrected.  You have some brilliant solar scientists, examples in my previous piece, that trace it back to the sun, which I think has merit, but even I question the timing of the response. Remember if one wants to use the solar argument, there were 200 years of high sunspot activity before we started entering this minimum. If the sun is the player, then where is the heat from all those years stored? Should be the oceans.

But if we are going to play the denial game, then perhaps we should note there is a denial of natural climate change as a the MAIN driver, and the blind acceptance of CO2 as the climate control knob from the warming campaign. Lets not though, lets just say that many of us are of the opinion the attribution to CO2 is overdone.

We are approaching 2020 and none of the dreadful forecasts from around the turn of the century have come true. Man is better off now than we were 20, 40, 60, 80 ,100 etc years ago in the good old days without energy and fossil fuels and a slightly cooler planet.

Matt Ridley Points it here and nails it, “There are fewer ongoing wars than ever before in history. Extreme poverty is declining dramatically. Green areas on the planet are expanding. Infant mortality is decreasing. Deaths from storms and other natural disasters have dropped 90% since the 1920s.”

If you are simply agenda driven, you are going to dismiss the cooling of the southern oceans, and point to the warmth of the northern oceans relative to average. But time will tell, it always does.

It seems like there is some degree of denial of Le Chatieiers principle on the other side.  This is a principle stating that if a constraint (such as a change in pressure, temperature, or concentration of a reactant) is applied to a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium will shift so as to tend to counteract the effect of the constraint.

So the deviations from average in the northern hemisphere are likely due to both more land surrounding the northern oceans and hence influencing them, and increased water vapor leading greater warming where it is cold and dry. That can vividly seen here in winter warming, increase in WV 2006-2017.

Increase in winter temperatures.

There is a much stronger increase in water vapor in the low levels over the tropics than in the arctic, yet look who has the lions share of winter warming. And that is seen in no uncertain terms here. Arctic temperatures since 1958.

The red line is the summer where the mean temperature is a bit above freezing. Summer temperagtures have a built in thermostat called melting ice. Melting takes energy which it takes it out of the air.  Warming its capped, again a natural counter to the missive the arctic will melt completely away.  Not with the summer season barely above freezing.

So we have gone from rain forest fires to a brief look at why all we are seeing natural variation inherent to the system, that we have never been able to observe before. Over the years, I have grown more open to the other side of the argument ( though I cant say the same is true from the other side, given the blacklisting that recently occurred), but I see and understand what they are looking at. If I also only looked at that, I would also believe it totally. But I don’t demonize honest, hard-working people that have devoted their careers to it.  They are just as passionate in what they do, as an I.  Beyond that, there is an entire cottage industry and political movement now built around this.  I can see why it would be hard to question that authority if one was all-in on it. In the end I seek to convince no one, I merely raise some questions that many of us have, and some are afraid to ask due to  an issue that is growing larger every day; intimidation. I want people to question what they are being shown. The first place an open minded journalist can start with is the “climate justice” warriors who are weaponizing the weather.  The rain forest fires are only their latest.  The don’t talk about the tropics globally, because it is quiet and the heat has backed down.

BTW we have been forecasting the development off the Carolinas since Tuesday.  This is yet another feature out of the main development region, which is seasonal.  If this starts getting hyped, its been there, done that.

As someone who has watched and loved the weather since my first memory, there is always something happening somewhere that we used to marvel at.  Sadly there is now an agenda leading pressure groups to treat natural weather into as a case for a cause.

Author

Joe Bastardi

Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs

How to measure the liberal bias in Google News

We should embrace nuclear energy

Will Al Gore be the first fake meat billionaire?

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Nature Communication’s Black List of Climate Change Contrarians

/in , , , , /by

People with the temerity to correct the record on climate change must be silenced.

That’s the outrageous point of a new study published in the journal Nature Communication.

“The time has arrived for professional journalists and editors to ameliorate the disproportionate attention given to (climate change contrarians) by focusing instead on career experts and relevant calls to action,” the authors said.

While the study’s goal is severely off base, it nonetheless produced two mathematical rankings CFACT is more than a little tickled by.

According to a ranking of how often “contrarians,” as the study labels us, are cited in the media, CFACT’s Marc Morano is far and away the world’s most effective climate communicator.

Marc is number one, with 4,171 media references, nearly double Senator James Inhofe’s 2,628 and Secretary Rick Perry’s 1,903.  Marc appeared in many multiples of media references compared to anyone else as you proceed down the rankings.

Steven Hayward of the Powerline Blog wrote, “Morano is truly the Pete Rose and Hank Aaron of climate contrarians.”

The study also ranks our website, CFACT.org, on its list of the  top 100 “most prolific media sources” for articles skeptical of the global warming narrative and ranks Climate Depot number 1!   See, figure 2b.

The list of 386 people on the climate blacklist reads like an honor roll.  Here’s a sample:

  • Apollo Astronaut Harrison Schmitt – the only scientist to walk on the moon;
  • Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham –  from the first crew to ride the Saturn V rocket;
  • Freeman Dyson – The eminent Princeton physicist who postulated the Dyson sphere;
  • Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre – the Canadian researchers whose meticulous mathematical audit debunked Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph;
  • Anthony Watts – The prominent meteorologist and creator of Watts Up With That;
  • Rick Perry – The U.S. Secretary of Energy;
  • Judith Curry – A climate scientist with over 130 peer-reviewed papers;
  • Roy Spencer and John Christy – Scientists who manage temperature satellites and developed the first successful satellite temperature record;
  • Fred Singer – The genius scientist who established the weather satellite network;
  • Roger Pielke, Jr. – The professor who showed that extreme weather hasn’t worsened and disaster costs declined;
  • Richard Lindzen – The MIT scientist known for his brilliant work on atmospheric physics and author of over 200 papers;
  • Will Happer – The Princeton atomic physicist and pioneer in optics;
  • Rudy Giuliani – America’s Mayor;
  • Mike Pence – Merely the Vice President of the United States (V.P. Gore’s OK?)

While the rankings appear to be genuine in terms of the amount of media individuals garnered, the study’s black and white, unnuanced choice of whom to include on its contrarian list is bush league.  It actually used DeSmog Blog as a major source!  It’s mathematical comparison showing that people who debate climate policy in the public policy arena have greater media exposure than researchers who are cited in academic journals is an apples and oranges comparison, lacking scientific validity, that yields a no-brainer.  It’s decision to not rank the amount of media garnered by warming campaigners,  which would have yielded a useful comparison, reveals this for a bogus and offensive propaganda hit piece.

We are each exposed to a mountain of media every day.  Peruse the headlines and media coverage of climate for yourself.  Do you need a mathematical analysis to determine which way the coverage is skewed?  Wouldn’t you love to see those hard numbers?

Shame on study authors, Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling.

But, thank you to all our friends and supporters who helped CFACT become the most effective climate communicators in the world.  Facts matter!

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change Activists Bring Mayhem To The DNC Summer Meeting 

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Eco-Gadflies lament Endangered Species Act reform

/in , /by

The Endangered Species Act is a perfect example of a good law gone wrong.

The important goal of protecting biodiversity and helping species recover is all too often used by eco-gadflies to violate property rights and stifle economic activity.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Margaret Everson said, “The Endangered Species Act has led to important conservation efforts that have brought species back from the brink of extinction,however, there are improvements we can make.”

CFACT’s Bonner Cohen was consulted by the Administration on how best to reform the ESA.  He explains at CFACT.org:

Over time, a statute originally intended to save bison, condors, bald eagles, and the like morphed into a powerful legal instrument that environmentalists adroitly used to shut down any activity – farming, ranching, logging, mining, energy extraction – they didn’t like. Rural communities in the West bore the brunt of the assault. Even worse, the ESA provided no incentives for landowners to cooperate with government officials in helping species to recover.

Now, the Trump administration has rolled out long-overdue reforms to both ease the burdens on landowners and actually aid in the recovery of species. The new regulations will affect future listings and will have no effect on species already listed.

The reforms keep the ESA’s protections solidly in place.  They merely ease bureaucratic overreach.  Placing huge areas off limits by designating them as critical habitats, with little or no benefit to the species in question, is an abuse of power.  The reforms also make it more possible to move species from endangered to threatened, or off the list entirely, as we succeed and they recover.  Government should plan for success.

CFACT has educated the public about abuses of the ESA for years and has long advocated for reform.

These reforms are small, measured public policy tweaks, that nudge the way we protect endangered species closer to reality.  You wouldn’t know it from the hue and cry emanating from the Left.

“Trump extinction plan guts Endangered Species Act,” proclaimed the Sierra Club.  “These changes crash a bulldozer” through the ESA said the Center for Biological Diversity.  Watch the headlines run by much of the media.  They are lifted right out of the press releases issued by these and other Green pressure groups.

California and Massachusetts have announced plans to sue.

Protecting endangered species is too important a priority to allow it to be misused by Green gadflies seeking to replace our free market economy with government control.

The Administration’s reforms ease the burden on property and business owners, while keeping species protection incredibly strong.

This is sound public policy and about time.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump ESA reforms emphasize species recovery over endless red tape

3 Ways Trump’s New Regulations Will Better Protect Endangered Species

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.