Equal Warming, 1900 to 1950 versus 1950 to 2018: Why the UN Knows the First Half was Natural

Mathematics and Statistics Professor Caleb Stewart Rossiter Helps You “Do the Math” of Logarithms

CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. Using log math, CO2 levels from 1950 to 2018 have 5.23 times the impact of levels from 1900 to 1950. That means there was no measurable warming from industrial CO2 emissions in the earlier period. Recorded temperature rose the same amount in both periods, and rates of extreme weather and sea-level rise were also the same in both. Hence the data to date do not support claims of a CO2-caused “climate crisis.” 

The public often hears about a “consensus” of scientists on climate change. Studies making that claim all concern not the existence of a current or future “climate crisis,” but rather the cause of the half-degree Celsius rise in the average measured global surface temperature since 1950. Here is the key claim in the executive summary of the latest UN IPCC report: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” (GHG stands for greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is by far the most important human source.)

The IPCC is a political body of UN member governments. It bases its confidence on there being at least a quarter (its half of a half) degree of warming since 1950 on the expert opinion of the government-appointed scientists who draft IPCC reports. Interestingly, the IPCC maintains a deafening silence in its reports about the cause of the equal half degree of observed warming from 1900 to 1950. Why? Probably because that warming was almost entirely natural. UN member governments who promote a “climate crisis” narrative appear to be embarrassed by the UN data that show warming and rates of extreme weather and sea-level rise are the same in both periods, the all-natural earlier one and the latter one it claims was mostly man-made.

The reason the earlier period is almost entirely natural is that there was only a 15.6 parts per million increase in the share of the atmosphere that is CO2 from 1900 to 1950, compared to a six-times greater 96.1 ppm increase since 1950, as the world industrialized after World War II.

If the impact of CO2 on temperature were “linear,” meaning the same impact on temperature for every additional molecule, that would cause the latter period to have 6.16 times more warming than the earlier one. Since the IPCC is confident of only a quarter of a degree from industrial CO2 for the latter period, it could only attribute a four one-hundredths degree increase in the former period to CO2, an amount far too small to be measured within the error bands of its estimates.

But specialists agree that the CO2-temperature relationship is not linear. Like many physical relationships it is logarithmic, meaning that each added CO2 molecule causes a little less warming than the previous one.

Therefore, doubling CO2 concentrations from 200 ppm to 400 ppm produces the same surface-temperature increase as doubling again from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, even though the second doubling requires twice as much CO2 as the first. This is because CO2 molecules absorb and emit thermal radiation when the frequency with which they vibrate matches the frequency of infrared waves leaving the earth. These frequency bands become “saturated” because previous molecules have already produced close to the maximum possible change. The logarithmic relationship is non-controversial and well-documented with spectroscopy and measurements of radiative flux.

The table on page 3 shows why the warming impact of CO2 levels was 5.23 times greater from 1950 to 2018 than from 1900 to 1950. Here’s how:

Moving from the left-hand side, the table first finds the relative percentages of CO2 increase in the two periods and places those percentages on a doubling scale. Then it applies logarithms to these increases and takes the ratio of the logs for the two periods, finding 5.23. The table includes a simpler, more elegant form of this relationship: log (latter increase/earlier increase), which of course provides the same 5.23 result.

Finally, on the far right, the table illustrates the diminishing logarithmic return to the increase by tenths of the amount of CO2 during a doubling. For example, the first tenth of the way accounts for 13.8 percent of warming impact, and the last tenth only 7.4 percent, illustrating the logarithmic relationship.

The policy implication of this mathematical reality is that, indeed, the IPCC is right not to attribute to CO2 emissions any of the half degree of warming from 1900 to 1950, as the world came out of the Little Ice Age that ended in the 19th century. That warming was entirely natural. As I have testified before Congress, IPCC and U.S. Government data show no increase in rates of sea-level rise, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods from the period of natural warming (1900 to 1950) to the period the IPCC claims is one of largely human-caused warming (1950 to 2018). This calls into question not just claims of current CO2-driven “climate crisis” but projections of future damage.

A PDF version of this article can be downloaded at CO2 Coalition Science & Policy Brief_EqualWarming

H0w the Despair of Humanism Leads to Climate Doom

How the Despair of Humanism Leads to Climate Doom

Those who sincerely believe in “anthropogenic” (formerly manmade) climate change are a hard bunch to understand. This excludes those who cynically use environmentalism to promote an overall leftist agenda or to sell books and turn a profit.

Millions of people really await an apocalypse that they see as imminent. They have a deep emotional connection to the movement as a defining part of themselves.

Enter Jem Bendell, climate change advocate extraordinaire. He argues that the end is near, very near. He is the author of Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy. According to BBC, it has been downloaded over half a million times.

Deep Adaptation argues that “climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term.” The culprit is a gradually warming climate. Dr. Bendell cites the claim that “Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, and global temperatures have increased by 0.9°C since 1880.” He sees that extra degree in temperature as catastrophic because “we need to stay beneath 2 degrees warming of global ambient temperatures, to avoid dangerous and uncontrollable levels of climate change, with impacts such as mass starvation, disease, flooding, storm destruction, forced migration and war.” The only cure would be to expand current efforts, “by a factor of 2 million within two years.”

Since the paper is dated July 27, 2018, his two-year window has nearly expired.

The Academic Doomsayer

Dr. Bendell has some serious academic credentials. He graduated from Cambridge and is currently the Professor of Sustainability Leadership at the University of Cumbria (UK).

Unlike the alarmism of Deep Adaptation, his more recent writing is melancholic. Consider the first paragraph of the article “A Pandemic of Love – Deeply Adapting to Corona,” posted to his website on March 18, 2020:

“I’ve not been breathing so deeply recently… I’ve been wondering how best to protect myself, loved ones, and participate in wider efforts at change. I’ve felt anger as I witness slow and ethically dubious responses from people with the power to make decisions that matter… But rather than get stuck with blame, I am also hearing of heart-warming action from people all around the world.… we can become part of an exponential pandemic of love.”

These words appear to be the work of a man battling his anger and resignation. Dr. Bendell is not alone. He claims that his “Deep Adaptation Forum” has fifty volunteers and an audience of over 15,000 people around the world.

He sums up his strategy in three words, resilience, relinquishment, and restoration. Resilience refers to clinging to positive attitudes that might survive the collapse. Relinquishment is letting go of those aspects of life that only make the meltdown worse. Restoration is looking to the past to recover aspects of life that will assist us in creating a new society. Among other things, he mentions restoring landscapes to their wild state and changing diets to reflect the seasons of the year.

The Followers

The BBC refers to Dr. Bendell and his followers as “climate doomers.” It quotes one of his excursions into wishful thinking. “People are rising up in love in response to their despair and fear, [Deep Adaptation] seems to have reached people in all walks of life, at least in the West – heads of banks, UN agencies, European Commission divisions, political parties, religious leaders…”

The same article profiles two of Dr. Bendell’s British followers.

One is “Rachel,” who cultivates foodstuffs in the small yard behind her home. “I find the more I do it, the less anxious I am. It’s better than just sitting in the living room looking at the news and thinking, ‘Climate change is happening, what do we do?’” Every six weeks, she takes a 450-mile round trip with two of her daughters to an organic farm in Wales, where the children learn to forage. “I don’t say to them that in five years we won’t be here, but they do accept that food will be difficult to find.”

Another follower is Lionel Kirbyshire, who left his career as a chemical engineer and settled with his wife in a small town in Fife. Like Rachel, he cultivates small amounts of food in growing boxes. “We’re not stockpiling food but as the years go on, I can’t see us having much left.” Mr. Kirbyshire draws much of his emotional support from online forums like “Near-Term Human Extinction Group,” where he can share his thoughts with the like-minded. “Sometimes I say that I’m feeling quite low and someone will say they’re feeling the same, so you know you’re not in it alone.”

The Extinction Group’s Facebook cover page states its purpose. “The Near Term Human Extinction Support Group is for people who have accepted that HUMAN EXTINCTION IS INEVITABLE IN THE NEAR TERM due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the consequences, based on trends determined by scientific research… This is a forum for friendly and non-threatening discussion… Discuss, laugh, cry, hold hands, share ideas, and know you are not alone.

The Despair of Humanism

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines despair as “the voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for that end. It is not a passive state of mind: on the contrary, it involves a positive act of the will by which a person deliberately gives over any expectation of ever reaching eternal life.

The climate doomers seem to participate in this despair since they exclude any possibility of a Providential God who watches over humanity and guides them to eternal life.

These people are trapped in naturalistic humanism. Their science has no room for God. They only believe in what they see, and that view is bleak. They talk of love without knowing its source. Their naturalistic manner of understanding the universe excludes the Creator and therefore makes no sense. Despair is almost a logical consequence of their limited vision of the universe.

Escaping the Trap

These doomers entrap themselves by allowing the environmentalist cause to define their lives. Even if it leads to despair, they still see this skewed vision as preferable to a life without any meaning. Embracing true Christianity is a psychological risk that they are unwilling to take.

In Matthew 16:24, Our Lord said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” That denial of self is precisely the step that activists will not risk. Thus, everything takes on a sense of doom.

‘Ozone hole’ shenanigans were the warm-up act for ‘Global Warming’

The saga is told in four stories in 12 years. The world had already spent billions to change from CFCs like Freon based on flawed science rushed after newly available imagery from satellites showing the ozone hole developing at the peak of the Antarctic cold season. We start with a story in 2011, following a story in Nature ignored by scientists and the media from 2007 that the theory was flawed and one from Australia in 2008 suggesting in might be cosmic rays not CFCs. We end with a story from NASA in fall 2019 when a strong stratospheric warming event produced the smallest ozone hole in the satellite era. You see it is really the formation of ice in the very cold air that gobbles up ozone not CFCs.

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 7.34.37 AM

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Friday, January 07, 2011 Icecap.us

Dr. Wil Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC.  Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).

Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.

James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the leaked CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist. “I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”

Will Happer further elaborated “The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth.  We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows.  If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”


The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature about how the Consensus about the Ozone Hole and Man’s Role (with CFCs) May Be Falling Apart.

The size of the hole has hardly changed since 1990 (enlarged here).

“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”


Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF

Posted on 01/07 at 04:33 PM

Oct 03, 2007, Icecap.us

Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” Post is here.

Study: Solar Wind Influenced Cosmic Rays Not CFCs Produce Ozone Hole

Exchange Morning Post, 2008

New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month.

A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole—and predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks. Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy who studies ozone depletion, says that it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by sunlight-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. But more and more evidence now points to a new theory that the cosmic rays (energy particles that originate in space) play a major role. The ozone layer is a layer in Earth’s atmosphere that contains high concentrations of ozone. It absorbs almost all of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on Earth and causes diseases such as skin cancer and cataracts. The Antarctic ozone hole can be larger than the size of North America.

Lu says that data from several sources, including NASA satellites, show a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Lab measurements demonstrate a mechanism by which cosmic rays cause drastic reactions of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds. Satellite data in the period of 1980-2007, covering two full 11-year solar cycles, demonstrate the significant correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion. “This finding, combined with laboratory measurements, provides strong evidence of the role of cosmic-ray driven reactions in causing the ozone hole and resolves the mystery why a large discrepancy between the sunlight-related photochemical model and the observed ozone depletion exists,” Lu says.

For example, the most recent scientific assessments of ozone depletion by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, which use photochemical models, predict ozone will increase by one to 2.5 per cent between 2000 and 2020 and Antarctic springtime ozone is projected to increase by five to 10 per cent between 2000 and 2020. In sharp contrast, Lu says his study predicts the severest ozone loss—resulting in the largest ozone hole—will occur over the South Pole this month. The study also predicts another large hole will probably occur around 2019. See story here.

Well the cosmic rays are are century high levels and the ozone hole set a new record low. So it is more likely the warming in the Antarctic stratosphere is to blame.

Screen Shot 2020-03-06 at 5.26.56 PM

Tho other hemisphere:

Meanwhile in the arctic a deep cold stratosphere developed with temperatures as low as -97C in January, coldest in 40 years.

t_in_323-1 (1)

Incredible ice clouds formed in the frigid air. In the antarctic they would have feasted on ozone.


NASA,Oct. 21, 2019

2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery

Scientists from NASA and NOAA work together to track the ozone layer throughout the year and determine when the hole reaches its annual maximum extent. This year, unusually strong weather patterns caused warm temperatures in the upper atmosphere above the South Pole region of Antarctic, which resulted in a small ozone hole.
Credits: NASA Goddard/ Katy Mersmann

The annual ozone hole reached its peak extent of 6.3 million square miles (16. 4 million square kilometers) on Sept. 8, and then shrank to less than 3.9 million square miles (10 million square kilometers) for the remainder of September and October, according to NASA and NOAA satellite measurements. During years with normal weather conditions, the ozone hole typically grows to a maximum area of about 8 million square miles in late September or early October.

“It’s great news for ozone in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “But it’s important to recognize that what we’re seeing this year is due to warmer stratospheric temperatures. It’s not a sign that atmospheric ozone is suddenly on a fast track to recovery.”

Ozone is a highly reactive molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms that occurs naturally in small amounts. Roughly seven to 25 miles above Earth’s surface, in a layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, the ozone layer is a sunscreen, shielding the planet from potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and also damage plants.

The Antarctic ozone hole forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the returning Sun’s rays start ozone-depleting reactions. These reactions involve chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine derived from man-made compounds. The chemistry that leads to their formation involves chemical reactions that occur on the surfaces of cloud particles that form in cold stratospheric layers, leading ultimately to runaway reactions that destroy ozone molecules. In warmer temperatures fewer polar stratospheric clouds form and they don’t persist as long, limiting the ozone-depletion process.

NASA and NOAA monitor the ozone hole via complementary instrumental methods.

Satellites, including NASA’s Aura satellite, the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite and NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System NOAA-20 satellite, measure ozone from space. The Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder also estimates levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere.

At the South Pole, NOAA staff launch weather balloons carrying ozone-measuring “sondes” which directly sample ozone levels vertically through the atmosphere. Most years, at least some levels of the stratosphere, the region of the upper atmosphere where the largest amounts of ozone are normally found, are found to be completely devoid of ozone.

“This year, ozonesonde measurements at the South Pole did not show any portions of the atmosphere where ozone was completely depleted,” said atmospheric scientist Bryan Johnson at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

Uncommon but not unprecedented

This is the third time in the last 40 years that weather systems have caused warm temperatures that limit ozone depletion, said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist with Universities Space Research Association, who works at NASA Goddard. Similar weather patterns in the Antarctic stratosphere in September 1988 and 2002 also produced atypically small ozone holes, she said.

“It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,” said Strahan. “If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.”

There is no identified connection between the occurrence of these unique patterns and changes in climate.

The weather systems that disrupted the 2019 ozone hole are typically modest in September, but this year they were unusually strong, dramatically warming the Antarctic’s stratosphere during the pivotal time for ozone destruction. At an altitude of about 12 miles (20 kilometers), temperatures during September were 29 degrees F (16˚C) warmer than average, the warmest in the 40-year historical record for September by a wide margin. In addition, these weather systems also weakened the Antarctic polar vortex, knocking it off its normal center over the South Pole and reducing the strong September jet stream around Antarctica from a mean speed of 161 miles per hour to a speed of 67 miles per hour. This slowing vortex rotation allowed air to sink in the lower stratosphere where ozone depletion occurs, where it had two impacts.

First, the sinking warmed the Antarctic lower stratosphere, minimizing the formation and persistence of the polar stratospheric clouds that are a main ingredient in the ozone-destroying process. Second, the strong weather systems brought ozone-rich air from higher latitudes elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere to the area above the Antarctic ozone hole. These two effects led to much higher than normal ozone levels over Antarctica compared to ozone hole conditions usually present since the mid 1980s.

As of October 16, the ozone hole above Antarctica remained small but stable and is expected to gradually dissipate in the coming weeks.

Robert Schwarz/University of Minnesota
This time-lapse photo from Sept. 9, 2019, shows the flight path of an ozonesonde as it rises into the atmosphere over the South Pole from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Scientists release these balloon-borne sensors to measure the thickness of the protective ozone layer high up in the atmosphere.
Credits: Robert Schwarz/University of Minnesota

Antarctic ozone slowly decreased in the 1970s, with large seasonal ozone deficits appearing in the early 1980s. Researchers at the British Antarctic Survey discovered the ozone hole in 1985, and NASA’s satellite estimates of total column ozone from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer confirmed the 1985 event, revealing the ozone hole’s continental scale.

Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

To learn more about NOAA and NASA efforts to monitor the ozone and ozone-depleting gases, visit:




Banner Image: The 2019 ozone hole reached its peak extent of 6.3 million square miles (16. 4 million square kilometers) on Sept. 8. Abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica dramatically limited ozone depletion this year. Credit: NASA

One in five UK children report nightmares about climate change


  /  Tue, March 3, 2020  /  07:07 pm
One in five UK children report nightmares about climate change

One in five children are having nightmares about climate change, according to a British survey on Tuesday, as students globally stage protests over a lack of action to curb global warming.

About 17 percent of children in Britain said worries about climate change were disturbing their sleep while 19 percent said these fears were giving them nightmares.

The survey of 2,000 children aged eight to 16, conducted by pollster Savanta-ComRes for BBC Newsround, also found that two in five, or 41 percent, did not trust adults to tackle the climate crisis.

Over the past year, millions of young people have flooded the streets of cities around the world demanding political leaders take urgent steps to stop climate change, inspired by 17-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

Emma Citron, a consultant clinical child psychologist based in London, said young people were clearly fearful about climate change with the survey finding 58 percent were worried about the impact that climate change will have on their lives.

Read also: Eco-anxiety: Managing mental health amid climate change impacts

“Public figures like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg have helped young people to voice their worries and we have to make sure that we as adults listen to them and … help them become involved in positive change,” she said in a statement.

“We all need to support them not to feel hopeless but rather to present to them hopeful and balanced messages about their futures and ensure that they get the right professional help if their anxiety is unduly high.”

The American Psychological Association has said it was aware of reports of growing “eco-anxiety” in children, but research was needed to establish how common it was.

Britain’s Oxford Dictionaries recorded a 4,290 percent increase in the term “eco-anxiety” in 2019, particularly among young people.

Alaska’s Throwback Winter – a one-off or an omen of a change?

Alaska’s Throwback Winter

Joseph S. D’Aleo, CCM

Last summer when Alaska reached 90F, many claimed it unprecedented. The record for Alaska actually was 100F at Fort Yukon June 27, 1915, near the summer solstice. A big turn around took place this winter. I haven’t heard much about it.

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 6.13.14 AM

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 6.14.10 AMScreen Shot 2020-03-01 at 6.13.55 AM

Screen Shot 2020-03-01 at 6.13.37 AM

Fairbank’s average 2019/20 daytime high was -2.1F, while the daytime low -20F, average daily mean was -11F!

The coldest was -43F while the warmest was 31F December 9. 33 days were at or below -30F, 5 were at or below -40F.

The winter averaged 4.7F below normal, the coldest (3rd) since before the Great Pacific Climate Shift (a shift of the so called Pacific Decadal Oscillation to positive) in the late 1970s when warmer Pacific waters favored warmth in Alaska and western North America.

See how the world’s oceans in the year of the lowest sunspot action in at least a century cooled (here I used change in the anomalies to remove seasonal changes).

Screen Shot 2020-02-29 at 9.51.27 AM

Note NOAA estimated the PDO in January as -1.17, characteristic of the colder periods 1950s to 1970s. We had a few periods in the late 90s and early 2000s where it teased us with negative PDOs, which flattened the warming curves (the pause).

See how the polar high atmosphere (vertical cross section of temperature anomalies 60-90N) cooled dramatically after late December and remains that way at the end of meteorological winter. Temperatures there are record cold for so late.

Models suggest that continues at record low levels. Here is a two week forecast (50mb).

The cold arctic favors what we call a zonal flow that drives milder Pacific air inland into North America and from Atlantic into Eurasia.

We lost a big chunk of winter in the lower 48 despite a cold start in November and very early December as the Madden Julian Oscillation shifted into warmer regions with the demise of the positive IOD in the Indian Ocean (that led to record crops in India and drought in Australia.) When it weakened and it started looking in the models the cold would return, the high arctic cold that danced for weeks with a warm pool settled into the western arctic. That meant a positive AO and NAO (and EPO) states that favor zonal flow into the land-masses from the oceans.

The cold pool will break down and it may or may not do it in a way that brings surprises. March is often fickle and anything can happen as the sun begins operating on the land and atmosphere. When the cold pool and three wave pinwheel begins to break down we would have the best chance of one or late surprises. The first hint was on the Saturday GFS with a fickle finger of cold into the U.S. Regardless,

As is often the case at this time range, the model backed off the next run.

At this point we all are saying ‘I’ll believe it when i am out shovelling.”

Most in the lower 48 are saying ‘what winter?, Alaskans are saying “What a winter!”.


Heightening the Contradictions

By J.R. Dunn

Much conservative writing about communism being published today amounts to little more than nostalgia reading. It seems that every year we see yet another of the endless line of books dealing with either the Red Era in Hollywood or the glories of Joe McCarthy. The purpose of these appears to be to generate feeling of comfort on looking back at an era in which men were men, commies were commies, and J. Edgar… Well, we’ll overlook what he was doing.

The problem is that this stuff, pleasant though it may be, tends to push out work that deals with aspects of communist theory and practice that have an actual impact on the current situation. Too few conservatives are adequately informed about these matters. Not many could define the Iron Law of Wages, surplus value, or, in particular, “heightening the contradictions.”

Heightening the contradictions… that sounds pretty harmless. But in fact, it is the most important element of Marxist thinking as applies to things as they are in the opening decades of the third millennium. Heightening, or enhancing, or exploiting the contradictions is the concept used to push every last political and social program of the modern Left.

How often does the Left come up with ideas that, on the face of it, appear absurd, irrational, or utterly insane? The answer, is, of course, all the time. The general response is bewilderment or incomprehension – a shrug and an assertion that “those lefties are crazy.”

But in truth, they’re no such thing. There’s nothing irrational about it. It’s all part of the program.

The concept comes directly out of Marx. Capitalism, according to Marx, is filled with contradictions, all of which guarantee its eventual failure. One example is the belief that capitalists, seeking every greater profits, will increase the “immiseration” of the working class, which will in turn encourage “revolutionary consciousness,” leading to the downfall of the capitalist system. This leads to the idea of “heightening he contradictions” – encouraging matters so as to bring about the emergence of the glorious worker’s paradise even sooner. This involves activities – both propaganda and direct action – that increase anxiety and dissatisfaction among the workers while generating isolation, fear, and doubt in the targeted classes.

This concept has been dealt with in detail by numerous Marxists, including LeninMao, and Rosa Luxemburg, to mention just a few. Following the master, communist-era Marxists largely confined the concept to economic matters. Expanding it to the social sphere was an American contribution. Appealing to American workers on an economic basis was hopeless – they were the best-paid laboring class in the world, largely content with things as they were. But there were other apparent schisms in the American social structure that might be open to exploitation.

  • Drugs – Widespread drug use became politicized in the late 1960s. It wasn’t just a matter of waving your freak flag high – it was also a means of putting it to the Man. Drugs, whether pot, acid, heroin, what have you, immediately turned America’s youth into an oppressed minority. Arrests of drug users created cynicism and bitterness. The Hard Left valorized users and addicts. Heroin use became endemic in the 1970s, leading to increased crime and destroying entire neighborhoods, particularly in the inner cities. Not a single policy created to “control” drugs accomplished anything other than increasing drug use and further damaging society. But that was the point.
  • Race – The American racial problem was essentially solved in the mid-60s. But the Left, sensing a dramatic opportunity, leapt in, raising marginal racial crackpots such as Huey Newton, Stokely Carmichael, and H. Rap Brown to the status of racial spokesmen, deliberately antagonizing working-class whites through bussing and legal block-busting, and constructing elaborate theoretical (Black Liberation Theory), and legal (affirmative action) systems designed to institutionalize  racial hostility.
  • Abortion – The two decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) written by the incompetent Harry Blackmun were so incoherent that they could tolerate virtually any interpretation whatsoever. The left took advantage of them to attack religious belief, increase tensions between the sexes, and degrade the very definitions of life and personhood.
  • Immigration – in 1967, a perfectly worthwhile and well-managed system of overseeing Mexican migrant labor (the Bracero program) was eliminated by liberal bureaucrats. Desperate workers began sneaking across the border to find work, often remaining rather than returning and risking another cross-border passage. Leftists seized on the resulting illegal “community” as an oppressed proletariat deserving protection along with privileges largely denied the native-born.
  • LGBTHX1138 – During the 60s, homosexuals, understandably tired of persecution and second-class citizenship, began agitating for a new social status. This unfortunately became melded with leftism, resulting in the “gay” concept, which can be defined as homosexuality plus new leftism. This pitted gays, lesbians and those associated with them such as cross-dressers as a sexual proletariat against the straight majority. As with blacks and immigrants, the gays constituted a “new proletariat” that could be exploited to undermine the status quo.

The list is effectively endless. To go from general to particular, consider the Obama/Holder “Fast and Furious” program. In this puzzling scheme, powerful firearms were deliberately sold to border drug cartels on the promise that they would be “tracked,” even though there was no means of doing so. But puzzlement vanishes once we apply the “contradictions” paradigm. Clearly, the intent was to increase border violence, inflict terror on the public, and utilize that to curtail Second Amendment rights.

The same is true of any other “senseless” or “irrational” leftist program. None of them, whether they involve introducing transsexualism to schools or placing jihadis in Congress, occurred by accident. They were meant to happen exactly the way they did, to heighten the contradictions.

How has conservatism responded? It hasn’t. In fact, there’s no sign that conservatives, mired in the Cold War interpretation of communism, have any idea that the concept exists. The contradictions tactic is next to universal and ever-present in any leftist effort or scheme, but far from having workable countermeasures, traditional American conservatives have been utterly oblivious.

Open any conservative magazine, access any website, go through the archives of any conservative think tank, and you will find myriads of articles, blogs, and papers dealing with the issues mentioned above. All of them contain precise, carefully researched information, well-crafted arguments, all bulge with quotes from Tocqueville, Chesterton, and Russell Kirk. All of it is excellent of its kind, and all of it is utterly useless.  Because that’s not where the battle is being fought. The Left isn’t interested in rational arguments, but in bringing the temple down.

What’s the solution? The answer is simplicity itself — argue the strategy. Instead of constructing lapidary responses, start out by stating bluntly and straightforwardly that this isn’t about transsexuals, or immigrants, or race, or whatever. What it’s about, first and foremost, is a method of attacking this country and its people, an effort to make an end run around the rules without admitting they’re doing any such thing. The record is clear that the Left doesn’t actually give a damn about blacks, or women, or anybody else. The record is clear that the left is not interested in solutions. Once that is made evident, the battle will be half won. You will immediately throw leftists on the defensive, forcing them into a position of having to prove their bona fides – which they will not be able to do. It will also open up the debate to past efforts of a similar type. The ball will be in their court, and they will fumble it, as they always do.

Chances are that there will be no necessity for fancy, filigreed arguments – with leftists on the defensive, it will never reach that point.

Conservatives have been neglecting an effective weapon. It’s time to start heightening their contradictions.


Is The United States Economy “Working” For Everyone?

At his various speeches and rallies, President Trump likes to tout a particular list of recent indicators of a strong U.S. economy — relatively robust growth, very low unemployment (including for women, African Americans, and other minorities), and a booming stock market. Meanwhile, the recurring theme of his Democratic rivals is that the economy is somehow not “working” for average Americans. Here are some examples of Democratic candidates expressing that theme:

  • Bernie Sanders, from February 5, 2019: “Despite what President Trump says, it is not “a hot economy” when 43% of households can’t afford to pay for housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone without going into debt. That is not a hot economy.”

  • Elizabeth Warren, from July 19, 2018: “There was a time when saying, ‘Hey the unemployment rate has gone down,’ that [was] a great thing. But you know, when people are working at minimum-wage jobs that won’t support them or they’re working two, three, or four jobs to try to pay the rent and keep food on the table, then simply saying ‘The unemployment rate figures have gone down’ just doesn’t get you there.”

  • Pete Buttigieg, from his current website: “In America today, it is harder and harder not only to get ahead, but also to hold on to what we’ve got. The stock market may be up, but millions of Americans see their paychecks stay flat even as the costs of health care, housing, and college are rising. For too many workers, one job is not enough. Working and middle class families simply can’t keep up.”

All of those three, as well as the other six or so remaining in the race, propose massive increases in government spending and programs supposedly as the way to make the economy “work” better for the average family.

Without minimizing any of the statistics cited by the President, there is an even more revealing place to look to get a true idea of the overall success of the American economy, including success for those toward the lower end of the income distribution. That place is the statistics for per capita GDP and income. The statistics on those subjects show the extent to which the U.S. economy greatly outperforms all of its competitors on the world stage.

In making these comparisons, note first that the United States has a large and very diverse population that includes every ethnic group in the world, and very large numbers of immigrants, many of them recent and unskilled. Among the countries of the world, the U.S. ranks third in population, after only China and India. Our 330 million or so people include close to 40 million legal immigrants, and another 10 or more million illegal. The comparison of U.S. economic performance to that of the other large-population countries is truly dramatic (IMF figures for 2019):

  • China: population 1.4 billion, per capita GDP $10,098

  • India: population 1.3 billion, per capita GDP $2,171

  • United States, population 330 million, per capita GDP $65,111

  • Indonesia: population 270 million, per capita GDP $4,163

  • Pakistan: population 216 million, per capita GDP $1,388

  • Brazil: population 207 million, per capita GDP $8,796

  • Nigeria: population 200 million, per capita GDP $2,222

  • Bangladesh: population 163 million, per capita GDP $1,905

All of those outside the U.S. suffer from unjustifiably large government role in the economy and lack of personal freedom for the citizens. The results are there for all to see. China is the best of the bunch, with per capita GDP less than one-sixth ours. Most of China’s wealth is concentrated in the gleaming new coastal cities, while out in the hinterlands hundreds of millions continue to live in abject poverty. How has 70 years of socialism worked out for them? Meanwhile, as China increasingly cracks down on freedom of expression and even slight political deviation, it remains to be seen whether it can continue the rapid economic growth of the past couple of decades.

Democratic candidates like Sanders and Warren like to ignore any comparison with the countries above that are the U.S.’s real competitors, and instead focus on a few tiny, ethnically uniform countries in Europe, like Sweden and Denmark, that are not really “socialist,” but have more extensive social welfare programs than we have. Remarkably, despite their small size and uniformity, they still can’t match the U.S. for economic performance:

  • Sweden, population 10.1 million, per capita GDP $51,241

  • Denmark, population 5.8 million, per capita GDP $59,795

As the European countries get bigger and more diverse, with their high social spending model, the degree to which they lag the U.S. widens:

  • Germany, population 83.7 million, per capita GDP $46,563

  • France, population 65.2 million, per capita GDP $41,760

  • UK, population 67.9 million, per capita GDP $41,030

None of these European countries bears anything near the military burden carried by the U.S. All of them suffer from very high youth unemployment that is a hallmark of overly generous social welfare schemes. (Youth unemployment rates for December 2019: United States 8.1%; Sweden 19.7%; Denmark 10.3%; France 18.8%; UK 11.2%.) And the social spending makes the assimilation of immigrants particularly difficult. From the Mises Institute, August 20, 2018, “The Swedish Welfare State Leads to Poor Immigrant Assimilation”:

At the moment, Sweden is experiencing trouble in assimilating its immigrant population. Recent reports reveal a rising number of violent crimes in immigrant suburbs. Although Sweden’s overall crime rates are low, the country is experiencing increasing levels of gang violence and shootings, and the emergence of immigrant ghettoes. . . . Sweden’s vaunted welfare state could be the very culprit behind the recent wave of immigrant unrest. Since the publication of Nina Sanandaji’s Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, a growing number of intellectuals have started to remove the magical aura of the Scandinavian welfare model. . . . Sanandaji argues that the welfare state has impaired immigrants when it comes to integrating into, and contributing to, the Swedish economy.

And finally, there is the ridiculous idea that vast and wasteful new government spending programs like the “Green New Deal” are somehow going to “create jobs” and improve economic performance. If you think that, you must not be following the latest economic developments from Germany, as it accelerates its authoritarian push to “decarbonize” its economy. From NoTricksZone, February 11: “Germany’s Green New Deal Begins To Deliver: ‘Horrible Numbers,’ A ‘Disaster.’”

Germany’s onslaught on its famed automotive and production industries appears to be taking an economic toll as the country pushes ahead to go green by phasing out internal combustion engines and coal power plants. Recently we reported how electricity prices are again slated to increase this year, and thus will continue to make German power among the most expensive worldwide. A wave of green activism has led to tighter regulations against the internal combustion engines and to a planned phase-out of coal-fired power plants. . . . “Experts spoke of ‘horrible numbers’, a ‘disaster’ [for year-end 2019 numbers]. Industry, construction, and energy providers produced a full 3.5 percent less in December than in the previous month,” the Handelsblatt reports. . . . The German auto sector has been hard hit. . . . Late last year Daimler, owner of Mercedes Benz, announced plans “to ax at least 10,000 jobs,” Volkswagen’s Audi said “it would slash up to 9,500 jobs or one in ten staff by 2025 and car suppliers Continental and Osram announced staff and cost cuts.”

As far as I can tell, all of the Democratic candidates support the policies that have gotten Germany to this point.

Why The Green New Deal Would Destroy The Environment

Why The Green New Deal Would Destroy The Environment
The Green New Deal is anything but ‘clean’ or ‘green.’ Even the relatively modest numbers of solar and wind installations in the United States today are causing serious environmental damage.


A few minutes of serious thought from self-described environmentalists would prompt a realization that if the Green New Deal, a program championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, were implemented, it would create an environmental disaster.

In recent decades, policymakers have forced public utilities to generate increasingly more electricity from fashionable “renewable energy” sources, especially wind and solar, and pushed automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles. Their chief goal is to eliminate reliable, affordable, generally clean fossil fuels, including natural gas, even though they generate most of America’s electricity and power most U.S. transportation.

Environmentalists claim to worry that carbon dioxide from these fuels will cause devastating global warming. Many would also eliminate nuclear power, which they say is inherently unsafe.

As I argue in a new Heartland Institute policy study, however, environmentalists have paid too little attention to the serious harm Green New Deal policies would inflict on the environment — including scenic lands, wildlife habitats, and threatened and endangered species. Implementing the Green New Deal would undermine the very values environmentalists have espoused for decades.

America faces a dilemma. Will it focus on real environmental problems that do measurable harm to human and ecological wellbeing, or will it mandate policies to head off climate disasters that are based on warming predictions have been repeatedly proven wrong by real-world empirical observations? Will it recognize that harnessing intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy requires enormous amounts of raw materials and mining, resulting in massive land-use impacts and human rights abuses, and is anything but clean, green, renewable, and sustainable? Or will it ignore all this?

The Green New Deal Would Inflict Countless Costs

Before formulating your own opinion, consider just some of the damage the Green New Deal would inflict.

Solar farms generate only 1.5 percent of the nation’s electricity and would be an inefficient way to generate the more than 8 billion megawatt-hours of power that fossil fuels and nuclear provide each year to meet industrial, commercial, residential, and automotive transportation needs and charge backup-power batteries. Using cutting-edge Nellis Air Force Base solar panels to generate that electricity would require completely blanketing 57,000 square miles of land — equivalent to the land area of New York and Vermont — with 19 billion photovoltaic solar panels. Because billions would be placed in less-sunny places, the area required would certainly be higher still. The effects on habitats and wildlife would be incalculable.

Onshore wind turbines are no better. Indiana’s Fowler Ridge Wind Farm covers 68 square miles, an area larger than Washington, D.C. Using similar facilities to replace all our country’s fossil fuel and nuclear power would require more than 2 million turbines on more than 500,000 square miles of farm, wildlife habitat, and scenic lands. That’s equivalent to the combined acreage of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and one-quarter of Washington state. Consider also that many of the huge number of turbines needed to meet Green New Deal requirements would have to be placed in lower-quality, less-windy sites, which would certainly drive the amount of required land and raw materials even higher.

Environmental groups have long expressed concern that onshore wind turbines kill bats and birds. In fact, the 56,000 turbines we now have could already be slaughtering millions every year, including many protected and endangered species. Remember that these birds and bats eat insects, which, when left alive, can ravage crops and harm humans. The millions of turbines required by the Green New Deal could even threaten the existence of some species.

Renewable energy proponents tout offshore wind turbines as superior to those on land because ocean winds blow more steadily. Yet because of opposition from environmental groups, only one relatively small offshore facility is operating today off Rhode Island’s coastline.

Turbines ruin scenic views, kill countless birds and bats, and harm marine mammals, which is why environmentalists — and even the late leftist icon Sen. Ted Kennedy — have long opposed the planned Vineyard Wind facility off the Massachusetts coast. To provide enough power for the country, Green New Deal advocates would have to build hundreds of thousands of truly gigantic offshore turbines.

Environmentalists Should Shun This Policy

Green New Deal-mandated solar and wind facilities would need to be located further from populated urban areas than natural gas, coal, and nuclear facilities, meaning a major expansion of high-voltage transmission lines. But as recent wildfires in California show, power lines can cause major environmental damage if brush, trees, and grass are not cleared regularly. Environmental groups have opposed new power lines, and consistently oppose clearing vegetation, calling it “unnatural” or “harmful to wildlife,” thereby making deadly, habitat-destroying fires more probable.

Solar panels require many toxic materials, and wind turbines require enormous amounts of steel, concrete, copper, and rare earth elements. Storing a week’s worth of power for periods when the sun is not shining or the wind isn’t blowing would require some 2 billion half-ton Tesla car battery packs. Meeting these needs would require a massive expansion of mining for lithium, cobalt, and other substances in the United States or in Asia, Africa, and South America. Operations in the latter countries involve extensive child labor, create environmental disasters, and even lead to premature death.

What’s more, disposing of obsolescent solar panelswind turbines, and batteries is already causing problems in the United States and in countries such as Germany. Green New Deal advocates ignore this problem, which would multiply substantially under their plan.

The Green New Deal is anything but “clean” or “green.” Even the relatively modest numbers of solar and wind installations in the United States today are causing serious environmental damage. Multiplying these facilities to meet Green New Deal goals would result in unimaginable environmental devastation and reverse decades of environmental progress. Environmentalists worthy of the name need to oppose the Green New Deal.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and author of numerous books and articles on energy, climate, environmental, and human rights issues.

Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster

The theme at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos was “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” For a gathering of global movers and shakers, who want to improve the world “by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas,” it was a deceptive and depressing thesis. It reflects how too many of these “leaders” succumb all to easily to pressure from hard-green environmentalists.

The “stakeholders” those leaders listen to never seem to represent blue collar workers or the world’s poorest citizens. The “solutions” they propose will lead to division and rebellion, not to cohesion. And the energy alternatives they offer to fossil fuels are anything but sustainable, renewable or eco-friendly.

I hope you enjoy my Davos discussion. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,



Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster

By Paul Driessen

There is nothing ‘cohesive’ or ‘sustainable’ about ‘solutions’ demanded by WEF ‘stakeholders’

The World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland is billed as the globe’s most prestigious annual gathering of movers and shakers. Its mission is to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s theme was “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” Unfortunately, the lofty rhetoric belies the misleading, potentially disastrous realities of agendas supported by many participants.

A primary basis for this year’s theme is the repeated assertion that the world faces a climate cataclysm. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen thus wants to tax carbon-based energy imports into the EU and end humanity’s practice of “taking resources from the environment and generating waste and pollution in the process.” She (and others) insist that “green energy” would do no such thing.

Climate crisis claims in turn are based on computer models that are only as good as the assumptions built into them – and on attempts to blame temperature changes, extreme weather events and future crises on fossil fuel emissions, because the assumptions and models say it’s a cause-effect relationship.

The most cited model is (naturally) the most extreme: RCP8.5, which predicts temperatures way above what we are actually measuring and all manner of future calamities. But it is based on the assumptions that: methane and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (a tiny 0.0402% of Earth’s atmosphere) are vastly more important than the sun in driving climate change; our planet will have 12 billion people by 2100; there will be no energy innovations over the next 80 years; and therefore coal use will increase tenfold by the end of the century. On that we’re supposed to base restrictive energy policies, and Davos meeting themes.

Who are the stakeholders that Davos attendees will consult? Greta Thunberg was invited, to present her patented tirade that fossil fuels are destroying her future. But no climate realists (alarmism skeptics) were given the podium, nor were representatives of EU or US factory workers or the world’s poorest citizens.

The good news is that several bankers made assurances that they were not going to stop lending funds to fossil fuel companies or “major polluters.” (Will that latter category include the mining companies that will have to provide voluminous raw materials for a US and global “green new deal,” as discussed below?) The bad news is that Davos bankers and politicians allow themselves to be pressured constantly primarily by far-left “stakeholders,” who hold the stakes that they and global ruling elites want to drive through the hearts of developed nation living standards and poor country aspirations for better lives.

Indeed, contrary to its assurances at Davos, despite consultation with indigenous peoples supposedly being a core company business principle, and without consulting with Alaska Native stakeholders who want to drill carefully and ecologically for oil and gas on their own lands, to improve their people’s living standards, Goldman Sachs has decided it will no longer fund such development in the Arctic.

With “mainstream” outlets and social media increasingly controlling news and opinion, and siding with climate alarmists and anti-fossil activists, that pressure will continue to build – to our great detriment.

Will Davos themes, agendas and policies usher in a more “cohesive” world? The opposite is infinitely more likely. Deprive people of abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy, as eco-activists seek to do – and you deprive them of jobs, living standards, food, health and life. People die in droves (itself a goal of more rabid environmentalists panicked about an over-populated world). Implement “green new deal” policies, and the results will be anything but cohesion. The policies will bring rage, protests, violence and anarchy – as France and Chile vividly demonstrated over the past two years.

Turn African, Asian and Latin American countries into vassal states, with enormous mines serving “ecologically responsible, climate-focused” nations that don’t tolerate mining within their own borders – and any cohesion will rapidly disappear. Tell American, European and other families they must accept massive wind and solar installations in their backyards or off their coasts, and the results will be similar.

A “sustainable” world? Yes, fossil fuels are ultimately finite resources – hundreds of years from now, after we run out of huge coal deposits, oil and gas from fracking, methane hydrates and other supplies, assuming policy makers don’t lock them up and “keep them in the ground.” But long before that happens, human innovation will create far better alternatives than wind turbines, if we let creativity flourish.

Meanwhile, just remember: Wind and sunshine are sustainable. But lands and raw materials required for the technologies to harness this intermittent, widely disbursed energy absolutely are not.

Sustainability is a useful concept for assessing hidden costs, risks and fiduciary responsibilities – such as those associated with climate change, as we are constantly reminded. But we must apply those same considerations to wind, solar, battery and biofuel operations; and to impacts on habitats and wildlife, air and water quality, human health and wellbeing in green new deal mining and manufacturing regions, and human welfare in an energy-deprived world of increasing hunger, death, anger, riots and chaos.

As my new Heartland Institute reports and previous articles note, fossil fuels and nuclear currently provide over 8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and electricity-equivalent power annually, to meet America’s industrial, commercial, residential and transportation needs. Using solar to generate all that power – and charge batteries for a week of sunless days – would require 19 billion state-of-the-art sun-tracking photovoltaic panels, completely blanketing an area equal to all of New York and Vermont.

But that assumes the panels are all located where the sun shines with summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365, which will never happen. So we’d probably have to double (perhaps even triple) the number of panels and affected acreage. The impacts on habitats and wildlife would be significant.

Using 1.8-MW wind turbines instead of solar panels would require more than 4 million turbines on farm, wildlife habitat and scenic lands equal to Arizona, Nevada, California, Oregon and part of Washington State combined. But the more we install, the more we have to put turbines in poor wind locations. We’d probably have to double (or even triple) the number of turbines, and acreage impacted. Their rapidly turning blades (200 mph at their tips) would slaughter millions of eagles, falcons, other birds and bats.

Going offshore instead would require hundreds of thousands of 650-foot-tall 10-MW turbines. Their impact on birds, bats, marine mammals, vistas, and ship and aircraft navigation would be intolerable.

Each 1.8-MW turbine requires some 1,200 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other materials. Each ton of materials requires removing thousands of tons of rock and ore – and processing ores with fossil fuels. In fact, wind turbines need some 200 times more material per megawatt than a modern combined-cycle gas turbine!

Storing a week of electricity for windless and sunless periods would require some 2 billion half-ton Tesla car lithium-cobalt battery packs – and more materials; more mining. Connecting wind, solar and battery facilities to distant cities would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines, and more mining.

This doesn’t include materials to replace existing cars, trucks, heating systems and other technologies.

And that’s just for the United States. Imagine how many turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines, processing plants and factories we’d need for a global transformation!

But green new deal advocates detest mining, at least by western mining companies in western countries. So it’s mostly done in faraway places that have virtually no environmental, health, safety, wage or child labor rules. Places like Inner Mongolia, where rare earth operations have fouled the air, created a huge toxic lake, and poisoned thousands of people. And Africa’s Congo, where 40,000 children labor in mines just for the cobalt needed in today’s cell phones, laptops and electric cars; not for any green new deal.

This eco-imperialism and false sustainability must end. As to all those self-styled stakeholders, You first. Lead by example. Slash your energy use and living standards. Then you can (nicely) ask the rest of us to do likewise. That means you, Greta, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Emma Thompson and all the other climate scolds. (But of course they won’t. So why should we? And why should the world’s poor?)

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on environment, climate and human rights issues.

More Government Spending Does Not Buy Results In Education Or Poverty Reduction

Here in New York, we love to feel good about ourselves for our compassion for the less well off. Yes, we pay higher taxes than they do in other places, but for that we get a much higher level of social services to lift up the poor and the downtrodden. Or at least, that’s the narrative.

I first covered this subject back in the very early days of this blog, on November 13, 2012, in a post titled “Why New York City Is A High Tax Jurisdiction.” That post pointed out that in fact the differential in public spending (and therefore taxes) between New York City and other jurisdictions could be found almost entirely in three things, none of which provided any measurable improvements in life quality to the poor and the downtrodden. The three areas were (1) overspending on public pensions, brought about by early retirement ages that enable New York City workers to have 25 to 40 years of post-retirement leisure at taxpayer expense, (2) overspending on K-12 education, brought about by paying about double the number of workers as other jurisdictions use to do the same work, and (3) overspending on Medicaid, brought about by adding every possible bell and whistle to the program without improving health outcomes in any measurable way.

For example, I had this to say about New York City spending on K-12 education:

According to census bureau figures cited here, New York City school spending was about $19,000 per student in 2009.  That’s about double the nationwide average of $10,615 per student cited here for 2010.  What do we get for double the cost per student?  Worse test scores than the national average. . . .   With over a million school children, the extra $8000 per student is an $8 billion budget item.

Somehow, in seven plus intervening years, almost no one seems to be paying attention to how New York just throws money away to achieve worse results than those achieved elsewhere for half the money. But over the weekend, the New York Post made an exception, publishing an op-ed by a guy named Ryan Fazio titled “NY and CA spend billions more in taxes than TX and FL — and get worse results.” Fazio updates many of the statistics that I had collected for the 2012 post.

Let’s focus on spending for K-12 education and for anti-poverty programs. Fazio provides the following chart of K-12 education spending and results for four states: New York, California, Texas and Florida:


K-12 education spending.jpg

New York’s spending is wildly out of line even compared to California. Meanwhile, the test results are barely distinguishable from state to state. (These results are from what is called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, sometimes called “the nation’s report card.”) Indeed, lowest-spending Florida beat New York, if only slightly, in three of four categories — 4th grade math, 8th grade reading, and 8th grade math — while spending far less than half the amount per student. Meanwhile, low spending Florida actually is a national leader in test results for minority students:

Minority students in Florida, meanwhile, tested among the highest in the nation across the board, with black students overall scoring 240 out of 500 on a simple average of the four tests (compared to 234 nationally) and Hispanic students scoring 250 (compared to 240 nationally). . . . In New York, minority students scored just above or around the national average (236 for blacks, 237 for Hispanics). . . .

In the anti-poverty department, Fazio has the following annual spending figures for the four states for 2017: New York approximately $21,000 per poor person (PPP), California $19,000 PPP, Florida $9,000 PPP, and Texas $8,000 PPP. Fazio then says that “The official poverty rate, which measures only market income, remains slightly higher in absolute terms in Texas and Florida than New York and California.” But, given the vast spending differential, the comparison looks hugely unfavorable for New York compared to Florida:

In short, we spend vastly more, and get exactly nothing to show for it.

To get an inside look at the official New York mentality, check out this piece from the Daily News for January 24, headline “Teachers unions protest state education funding shortfalls at NYC schools.” The subject is the big push being promoted by the New York teachers’ union to counter what they call the “shortfall” in state funding of New York City schools:

The city and state teachers unions visited two city schools Friday morning to highlight what they called chronic holes in school budgets resulting from annual shortfalls in state education spending. . . . This year’s initial budget proposal was no different, with New York falling more than a billion short of what the state’s Board of Regents called for, despite a suggested increase of more than $800 million from last year’s total. But union officials said the yearly funding squeeze has left schools like I.S. 81 in the Bronx unable to fund important initiatives like small-group instruction. “We hear every year that there is a budget gap, but the state can’t close it on the backs of the New York City’s middle-class families and students through more underfunding of our education system,” said Andy Pallotta, the president of the state teachers union. “Fully funding our students’ futures can’t wait any longer.”

With New York’s wild over-spending on K-12 education, how could they possibly be protesting “shortfalls”? Got me. The Daily News piece contains no mention whatsoever that other states spend on average less than half of what New York City spends on K-12 education, nor that Florida spends well less than half and actually achieves superior results both overall and for minority students. Really, it’s best that New Yorkers be left ignorant about such issues.