“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’”
In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.”
Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.
So, who are these people?
The public believes “climate change protesters” are climate experts. They believe those who “care about the environment” are climate experts. They believe Gretta is a climate expert.
Universities train students to be ecologists, environmentalists, climate activists, and socialists. These students graduate thinking they are climate experts. Governors appoint them to climate expert panels. The government gives them money. Congress, state legislatures, lawyers, and the media think these graduates are climate experts. Thus, they get the headlines. But they are not climate experts.
Climate change is a subject of physics. Without physics, there is no climate science. But who wants to study physics? It’s much easier to be a climate alarmist. Besides, that’s where the money is.
Here’s some basic science truth to help you decide who to believe about climate change.
First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.
Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day?
In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”
Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?
So, how does science work?
Glad you asked.
Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate.
Scientific truth is not decided by votes. No amount of evidence can prove a theory is true.
Yet, the promotion of that logical fallacy is at the basis of the claims that we are causing climate change and all the bad stuff that it makes happen.
Did you learn that in school?
I just finished writing another scientific paper. It proves human emissions do not cause climate change. All 11,000 who claim otherwise are wrong.
My focus on this paper kept me from writing to you every week as I like to do. Now, my preprint is finished, and I am free again to write to you again.
Why should you believe me versus all those who tell you we are causing climate change?
In high school, I scored a perfect 800 on the SAT exam while finishing in half the allotted time. I was accepted by Caltech, MIT, and Reed. I choose Caltech. Linus Pauling was among the fantastic teachers who taught me science and logic. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth College gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Then, the University of Nevada in Reno gave me a research fellowship in physics. My PhD mentors included William T. Scott and Friedwart Winterberg. Winterberg was known as the best student of Heisenberg, who was a Nobel Laureate in physics. Thirty years later, Winterberg said I was his best student. My theoretical PhD thesis was a significant breakthrough in climate physics that still gets many citations every year. Other scientists have explained my thesis work in their textbooks.
There was more to Caltech than science and engineering. It was the honor system. That meant we had to be honest. No one stole anything at Caltech. No one cheated on exams. All without policing. I bring that system to you. I will tell you the truth about climate science.
Climate science today
Until about the 1980’s climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science.
Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.
The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.
I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.
If you don’t want that to happen, then you must help bring climate truth to your country.
Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America. We need to get major media attention. We need to bring our message to President Trump and the Republican Party because they are the only people who will support climate truth.
I will tell you more about this in my next letter.
A simple way to know the climate alarmists are lying.
I know, their lips are moving. But here is something much more specific. Here is the UN IPCC Figure 6.1 that claims to represent the carbon cycle.
This figure shows the IPCC human carbon cycle is fake science. Because it is fake, all IPCC’s claims that human carbon emissions cause climate change are invalid.
Let’s see if I can explain this to you.
This figure represents the four carbon reservoirs: Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean.
All human carbon begins in the atmosphere. Then human carbon flows to the other reservoirs. You can think of these four reservoirs as water buckets of different sizes with tubes connecting them. You fill only the atmosphere bucket and let the water flow to the other buckets.
Here are 3 blatant scientific errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:
Problem 1: The Surface Ocean level is zero, but the Deep Ocean level is 155. Carbon can’t get to the Deep Ocean without first adding carbon to the Surface Ocean, and it can’t get there when the flow is zero.
Problem 2: The land level is negative at -30. That is impossible. That is like having a glass filled with negative water.
Problem 3: IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (shown only in IPCC Fig. 6.1) has the atmosphere level at 1.5%. But IPCC’s human carbon (shown here) has the atmosphere level at 65.7%.
This difference proves IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. This violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.
IPCC has stacked the deck in its invalid attempt to prove human carbon emissions cause climate change. But we have now caught them with their diapers down.
The latest “renewable, sustainable” energy claims show the IEA belongs in an insane asylum
Can anti-fossil fuel policies based on climate crisis alarmism possibly get any more insane than this?
In what might be described as a pre-Halloween trick of ginormous proportions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) now asserts that “renewable, sustainable” energy output will explode over the next two decades. Certainly for onshore wind and solar energy – but especially for offshore wind, says the IEA.
“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol noted. But “wind farms” constructed closer than 37 miles from coastlines around the world, where waters are less than 60 meters (197 feet) deep, could generate 36,000 terawatt-hours (36 million gigawatt-hours or 36 billion megawatt-hours) of electricity a year, he assures us. That’s well above the current global demand of 23,000 terawatt hours, Birol and a new IEA report say.
In fact, the potential for offshore wind energy is so great, the IEA asserts, that 20 years from now the industry will be 15 times bigger than in 2019 – and will attract $1 trillion a year in investments (riding the coat tails of government mandates and subsidies). The boom will result from lower costs per megawatt, larger turbines, and technological developments like floating platforms for turbines, says the IEA.
Wind “farms”? Like some cute, rustic Old McDonald family farm? Are you kidding me? These would be massive offshore electricity factories, with thousands, even millions, of turbines and blades towering 500-700 feet above the waves. Only a certifiable lunatic, congenital liar, complete true believer, would-be global overseer or campaign-cash-hungry politician could possibly repeat this IEA hype – or call these wind energy factories renewable, sustainable or eco-friendly.
They all clearly need yet another bucket of icy cold energy reality dumped over their heads – in addition to this one, this one and this one. If the world buys into this crazy scheme, we all belong in straitjackets.
As I have said many times, wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, lands, raw materials and dead birds required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not.
A single 1.8-MW onshore wind turbine requires over 1,000 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other raw materials. A 3-MW version requires 1,550 tons of these non-renewable materials.
By my rough calculations (here and here), replacing just the USA’s current electricity generation, backup coal and natural gas power plants, gasoline-powered vehicles, factory furnaces, and other fossil fuel uses with wind turbines and backup batteries would require: some 14 million 1.8-MW onshore turbines, sprawling across some 1.8 billion acres, some 15 billion tons of raw materials, thousands of new or expanded mines worldwide, and thousands of mostly fossil fuel-powered factories working 24/7/365 in various foreign countries (since we won’t allow them in the USA) to manufacture all this equipment.
Those overseas mines now “employ” tens of thousands of fathers, mothers and children – at slave wages.
Can you imagine what it would take to build, install and maintain 36 billion megawatt-hours of offshore wind turbines … in 20 to 200 feet of water … many on floating platforms big and strong enough to support monstrous 600-foot-tall turbines … in the face of winds, waves, salt spray, storms and hurricanes?
The impacts on terra firma … and terra aqua … would be monumental, intolerable and unsustainable.
Moreover, a new study – by the company that has built more offshore industrial wind facilities than any other on Earth – has found that offshore turbines and facilities actually generate much less electricity than previously calculated, expected or claimed! That’s because every turbine slows wind speeds for every other turbine. Of course, that means even more turbines, floating platforms and raw materials. Using 3, 9 or 10-MW turbines would mean fewer of the beasts, of course, but larger towers, bases and platforms.
More turbines will mean countless seagoing birds will get slaughtered and left to sink uncounted and unaccountable beneath the waves. The growing jungle of fixed and floating turbines will severely interfere with surface and submarine ship traffic, while constant vibration noises from the towers will impair whale and other marine mammals’ sonar navigation systems. Visual pollution will be significant. And there’d be thousands of miles of submarine cables bringing electricity to onshore transmission lines.
Maps depicting the USA’s best wind resource areas show that they are concentrated down the middle of the continent – right along migratory flyways for monarch butterflies, geese, endangered whooping cranes and other airborne species; along the Pacific Coast; and along the Atlantic Seaboard.
Coastal states, especially their big urban areas, tend to be hotbeds of climate anxiety and wind-solar activism. Indeed, many Democrat Green New Deal governors and legislators have mandated 80-100% “clean, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly” energy by 2040 or 2050. California, Oregon and Washington in the West … and Maine, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia in the East … are notable examples. So the IEA’s love affair with offshore wind energy is certainly understandable. Of course, Blue State Great Lakes would also be excellent candidates for fixed and floating turbines.
Pacific Ocean waters typically get deep very quickly. So thousands of huge floating platforms would be needed there, although Puget Sound is also windy and could be partially denuded for turbines, as they’ve done in West Virginia’s mountains. California prefers to import its electricity from neighboring states, rather than generating its own power. However, as Margaret Thatcher might say, pretty soon you run out of other people’s energy. So homegrown wind energy will soon be essential – and inland Golden State and Middle America voters would almost certainly support putting turbines straight offshore from Al Gore’s $9-million mansion in Montecito and the Obamas’ $15-million cottage in Rancho Mirage.
When it comes to actually implementing these ambitious “renewable energy goals,” resistance and delays grow exponentially. A Massachusetts wind project for 170 offshore wind turbines was originally proposed around 2001. It’s now down to 130 3.6-MW behemoth turbines, with the US Interior Department delaying permits yet again, pending “further study.” The reaction of coastal residents to the reality of endless thousands of turbines could well turn into Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Forever.
Actual electricity output is rarely as advertised. It often hits 20% or lower, depending on locations – and fails completely on the hottest and coldest days, when electricity is most urgently needed. During the July 2006 California heat wave, turbines generated only 5% of nameplate capacity. In Texas, wind capacity factors are generally 9% to 12% (or even down to 4% or zero) during torrid summer months. Offshore, echoing Samuel Taylor Coleridge, they’d be as idle as a fleet of painted turbines upon a painted ocean.
Actual wind turbine electricity output declines by 16% per decade of operation – and worse than that offshore, because of storms and salt spray. Removing obsolete offshore turbines requires huge derrick barges and near-perfect weather. Costs and difficulties multiply with turbine size, increasing distance from shore, and whether concrete bases and electrical cables must be removed and seabeds returned to their original condition, as is required today for offshore oil and gas operations.
Cutting up 300-foot (or taller) towers and 200-foot (or longer) blades from offshore turbines, and hauling the sections to onshore landfills and scrap yards, is no piece of cake. Recycling blades is also difficult, because they are made from fiberglass, carbon fibers and petroleum resins; burning blades releases hazardous dust and toxic gases, and so is (or should be) prohibited.
Dismantling and disposal costs could easily reach millions of dollars per offshore turbine, and many billions for every industrial-scale wind “farm.” But wind energy operators should not be allowed to simply leave their derelicts behind, as they have done with smaller turbines in Hawaii and California.
Bottom line: From any economic, environmental, raw materials or energy perspective, offshore wind energy is simply unsustainable. It’s time for politicians, environmentalists and industry promoters to stop selling offshore wind (and onshore wind and solar power) as magic pixie dust to replace fossil fuels.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many books, reports and articles on energy, climate and environmental issues.
More than 2 million Californians were recently left without power after the state’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric — which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year — preemptively shut down transmission lines in fear that they might spark fires during periods of high autumn winds.
Consumers blame the state for not cleaning up dead trees and brush, along with the utility companies for not updating their ossified equipment. The power companies in turn fault the state for so over-regulating utilities that they had no resources to modernize their grids.
Californians know that having tens of thousands of homeless in their major cities is untenable. In some places, municipal sidewalks have become open sewers of garbage, used needles, rodents and infectious diseases. Yet no one dares question progressive orthodoxy by enforcing drug and vagrancy laws, moving the homeless out of cities to suburban or rural facilities, or increasing the number of mental hospitals.
Taxpayers in California, whose basket of sales, gasoline and income taxes is the highest in the nation, quietly seethe while immobile on antiquated freeways that are crowded, dangerous and under nonstop makeshift repair.
Gas prices of $4 to $5 a gallon — the result of high taxes, hyper-regulation and green mandates — add insult to the injury of stalled commuters. Gas tax increases ostensibly intended to fund freeway expansion and repair continue to be diverted to the state’s failing high-speed rail project.
Residents shrug that the state’s public schools are among weakest in the nation, often ranking in the bottom quadrant in standardized test scores. Elites publicly oppose charter schools but often put their own kids in private academies.
Californians know that to venture into a typical municipal emergency room is to descend into a modern Dante’s Inferno. Medical facilities are overcrowded. They can be as unpleasant as they are bankrupting to the vanishing middle class that must face exorbitant charges to bring in an injured or sick child.
No one would dare to connect the crumbling infrastructure, poor schools and failing public health care with the non-enforcement of immigration laws, which has led to a massive influx of undocumented immigrants from the poorest regions of the world, who often arrive without fluency in English or a high-school education.
Stores are occasionally hit by swarming looters. Such Wild West criminals know how to keep their thefts under $950, ensuring that such “misdemeanors” do not warrant police attention. California’s permissive laws have decriminalized thefts and break-ins. The result is that San Francisco now has the highest property crime rate per capita in the nation.
Has California become premodern?
Millions of fed-up middle-class taxpayers have fled the state. Their presence as a stabilizing influence is sorely missed. About one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California. Millions of poor newcomers require enormously expensive state health, housing, education, legal and law-enforcement services.
California is now a one-party state. Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature. Only seven of the state’s 53 congressional seats are held by Republicans. The result is that there is no credible check on a mostly coastal majority.
Huge global wealth in high-tech, finance, trade and academia poured into the coastal corridor, creating a new nobility with unprecedented riches. Unfortunately, the new aristocracy adopted mindsets antithetical to the general welfare of Californians living outside their coastal enclaves. The nobodies have struggled to buy high-priced gas, pay exorbitant power bills and deal with shoddy infrastructure — all of which resulted from the policies of the distant somebodies.
California’s three most powerful politicians — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Gov. Gavin Newsom — are all multimillionaires. Their lives, homes and privileges bear no resemblance to those of other Californians living with the consequences of their misguided policies and agendas.
The state’s elite took revolving-door entries and exits for granted. They assumed that California was so naturally rich, beautiful and well-endowed that there would always be thousands of newcomers who would queue up for the weather, the shore, the mountains and the hip culture.
Yet California is nearing the logical limits of progressive adventurism in policy and politics.
Residents carefully plan long highway trips as if they were ancient explorers charting dangerous routes. Tourists warily enter downtown Los Angeles or San Francisco as if visiting a politically unstable nation.
Insatiable state tax collectors and agencies are viewed by the public as if they were corrupt officials of Third World countries seeking bribes. Californians flip their switches unsure of whether the lights will go on. Many are careful about what they say, terrified of progressive thought police who seem more worried about critics than criminals.
Our resolute ancestors took a century to turn a wilderness into California. Our irresolute generation in just a decade or two has been turning California into a wilderness.
America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change
Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused climate change. The purpose of this web of denial has been to confuse the public and decision-makers in order to delay climate action and thereby protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies. The fossil fuel industry’s denial and delay tactics come straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. As a result, the American public have been denied the right to be accurately informed about climate change, just as they were denied the right to be informed about the risks of smoking by the tobacco industry. While fossil fuel companies attacked the science and called on politicians to “reset the alarm,” climate-catalyzed damages worsened, including increased storm intensities, droughts, forest damage and wildfires, all at substantial loss of life and cost to the American people.
This report explores the techniques used to mislead the American public about climate change, and outlines ways of inoculating against disinformation.
The authors of this malicious and defamatory pack of lies are:
John Cook, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
Geoffrey Supran, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University
Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Naomi Oreskes, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University
Edward Maibach, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
This reads like a particularly idiotic Skeptical Science blog post.
The 97% Consensus Lie
Cook 2014 and its cooked consensus
Cook 2014 was nothing but the second hand opinions of Skeptical Science bloggers. Most of the surveys listed in figure 1 are similar second hand opinion exercises. These sorts of papers consist of abstract reviews. The authors’ then tabulate their opinions regarding whether or not the abstracts support the AGW paradigm. As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:
‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’
Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifiers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly routinely “endorsed” the so-called consensus based on this example.
The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the example Cook provided:
‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed AGW a few times in WUWT posts.
Doran 2009 was a 97% consensus among 79 respondents
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 was a survey of Earth Scientists listed in the American Geosciences Institute directory. The AGI includes AGU, AAPG and numerous other Earth Science societies. . This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
I am a member of two AGI affiliated societies, AAPG and SEG, but not in the directories of academic institutions or government agencies. So, there was as zero-point-zero percent chance of me and about 50,000 other geoscientists being surveyed.
Had I been surveyed, I would have answered risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would have depended on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would have answered “no.”
Interestingly, government and academic economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…
The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
No discipline has a better understanding of the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.
The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:
If a survey was conducted of active publishers of abiotic oil papers, it would probably also yield a consensus. The same could be said of UFO researchers. Doran 2009 was an example of expertise cherry-picking and a total non sequitur… The conclusion doesn’t follow from the survey questions.
Stenhouse 2014 was a 52% “consensus”
The 97% claim from Stenhouse et al., 2014 was also contrived via expertise cherry-picking. These were the actual survey results:
When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…
Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus. Even self-described climate scientists only reach 78%.
The 52% overall “consensus” among the membership of the American Meteorological Society was explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…
While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.
Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.
So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models. No schist, Sherlock!
On top of all that, Stenhouse didn’t even ask the right questions. The so-called consensus is that humans have caused more than half of the warming since 1950. Stenhouse asked about the past 150 years.
Why did the misleaders omit Maibach et al., 2016?
Maibach is one of the authors of the pack of lies, yet they failed to even mention his 2016 AMS survey.
This survey told us that atmospheric scientists were very divided about climate change since 1950.
The questions also eerily correlate with this infamous Tweet…
Stenhouse et al., 2017 tells us that there is conflict within the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.
This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.
The #ExxonKnew Secret Science Lie
Apart from the bit about defending “libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies”, this is a pack of lies:
Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation
campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused climate
change. The purpose of this web of denial has been to confuse the public and decision-makers in order to delay climate action and thereby protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies 1. The fossil fuel industry’s denial and delay tactics come straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. As a result, the American public have been denied the right to be accurately informed about climate change, just as they were denied the right to be informed about the risks of smoking by the tobacco industry. While fossil fuel companies attacked the science and called on politicians to “reset the alarm,” climate-catalyzed damages worsened, including increased storm intensities, droughts, forest damage and wildfires, all at substantial loss of life and cost to the American people 2.
The fossil fuel industries couldn’t have denied the American public “the right to be accurately informed about climate change” if we had tried.
Everything oil companies allegedly knew came from publicly available government and/or academic sources
One of the allegedly most damning documents was the 1968 Robinson Report for the American Petroleum Institute (API).
In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.
A page reproduced from this damning report referenced Möller (1963) as the source of a 1-7 °F rise in temperature due to a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2…
Unless Exxon owned the American Geophysical Union back then, Möller (1963) was not a secret document…
On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate
The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.
In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg. According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.
We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.
It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.
These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied. Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.
So, as far back as 1963, Exxon knew exactly what we know today:
“The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.“
The infamous 1978 Black presentation was just a review of government and academic publications on the so-called greenhouse effect.
Here’s what Exxon knew in 1978…
Black’s allegedly proprietary climate model was just another cartoon based on publicly available literature.
I added HadCRUT4 to highlight how Hansen-ian it was in its wrongness.
I plotted HadCRUT4 and MLO CO2 on it at the same scale… The models were wrong back then and are not much better now.
By 1978, Exxon knew that Gorebal Warming was 97% horst schist and that future climate models would fail miserably.
By 1982, Exxon’s “brilliant climate modelers” (/SARC) predicted that, apart from the recent El Niño, HadCRUT4 would remain within the “range of natural fluctuations (climatic noise) for at least the next 40 years.
Cook, J., Supran, G., Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., & Maibach, E., (2019). America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Available at https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters,8, 024024.
Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union,99, 22–23.
Legates DR, Soon WW-H, Briggs WM et al. (2013) Climate consensus and “misinformation”: a rejoinder to “agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change”. Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.
Möller, F. (1963). “On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate”. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.
National Research Council. 1979. “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.
Stenhouse, N., and Coauthors, 2014: Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95, 1029–1040, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1.
This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”
While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.
A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.
Pielke’s public presentation begins with a recounting of his rise and fall in the field. As a young researcher in tropical storms and climate-related damages, he reached the pinnacle of the academic community and helped organize the so-called Hohenkammer Consensus Statement, named after the German town where 32 of the leading scientists in the field gathered in 2006 to sort out the evidence. They concluded that trends toward rising climate damages were mainly due to increased population and economic activity in the path of storms, that it was not currently possible to determine the portion of damages attributable to greenhouse gases, and that they didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future.
Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 report, largely agreeing with the Hohenkammer Consensus, while cherry-picking one unpublished study (and highlighting it in the Summary for Policymakers) that suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But the author of that study — who just happened to be the same IPCC lead author who injected it into the report — later admitted his claim was incorrect, and when the study was finally published, denied the connection.
In 2012, the IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather came out and echoed the Hohenkammer Consensus, concluding that once you adjust for population growth and economic changes, there is no statistical connection between climate change and measures of weather-related damages. In 2013 Pielke testified to the United States Congress and relayed the IPCC findings. Shortly thereafter, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren accused him of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.
So where did the science end up?
In the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.
Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.
And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.
The bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and many major indicators of extreme weather that politicians keep talking about, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, rainfall and floods, despite Trudeau’s claims to the contrary. The continual claim of such links is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.
Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.
A couple of dozen left-wing environmental groups in Washington, DC, claim they are saving the planet by lighting garbage on fire and forcing automobiles to sit idle.
According to the event’s own Facebook page, the goal is to “block key infrastructure to stop business-as-usual, bringing the whole city to a gridlocked standstill.”
But who are these people, really? Degenerate litterbugs determined to create even more pollution.
Thanks to these brave warriors fighting for their precious Mother Earth, thousands of cars are spewing tons of exhaust into the air that wouldn’t have if these enviro-crybabies had real jobs. Here’s an official rundown of all the traffic that’s been blocked.
And if that’s not bad enough, they’re lighting garbage on fire…
In the middle of a city street, those who claim to care about the environment have grabbed a garbage dumpster — filled with heaven only knows what — and indiscriminately lit it on fire.
So what we have here is yet another example of so-called environmentalists behaving in a way that proves that they themselves do not believe what they claim to believe.
Just as we saw Climate Change-alarmist Barack Obama spend $15 million to live a stone’s throw from the very same ocean he tells us will soon rise and wipe out his $15 million investment, we have these spoiled crybabies deliberately creating more pollution.
Listen, if you are sincerely worried about Climate Change, you do not spend weeks organizing a protest that will contribute to Climate Change, that worsens the problem.
And that’s the thing… If you watch what environmentalists actually do, you are watching people and organizations (including the media) that live in a way that proves they know it is all a hoax… these are people who live in the very coastal regions that are supposed to be underwater, young people who live their lives on energy-sucking iPhones (instead of reading a book), who clog our streets with automobiles, who fly on private jets, who consume more consumables than any generation in history, and who are willing to create tons of unnecessary pollution as a means to feel morally superior about, of all things, their stand on the environment.
Never forget the following… when it comes to predictions from climate alarmists, from the so-called “experts,” these frauds are 0-41.
Over the course of my lifetime, these lying grifters in the environmental and scientific community have not gotten one — not one! — alarmist prediction correct.
It is all a hoax. It is all the sheep’s clothing of socialism, and do you really want people who block traffic and light dumpsters on fire and terrorize young minds in charge of your life?
Five EU countries including the UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia are looking to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies by 2030, an analysis of the 28 Member States’ draft energy and climate plans (NECPs) has revealed.
In a new report, “Fossil fuel subsidies in draft EU National Energy and Climate Plans: Shortcomings and final call for action,” experts from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Friends of the Earth (FoE) Netherlands, and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe have analyzed the EU Member States’ draft NECPs, which require governments to report on their fossil fuel subsidies and plans to phase them out, the CAN has said in a press release.
None of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out
Despite long-standing commitments to ending fossil fuel subsidies, none of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out.
The UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia even plan to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies, at a time of heightened awareness of the climate crisis and despite committing ten years ago to end such support, the CAN said.
Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones
For instance, Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones, and Poland intends to provide subsidies for underground gas storage and the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) for transport.
The authors of the report found that several of the NECPs made no mention of fossil fuel subsidies at all, despite previous research showing all EU governments are continuing to provide support to oil, gas or coal.
UK provides EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state
The report finds that six Member States – Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and the UK – claim no such subsidies exist in the country.
This is despite the European Commission previously finding all EU countries continue to provide some support to fossil fuels, with the UK providing EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state, the CAN said.
“As part of the G20, EU governments committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies back in 2009. Ten years later, as the world is in the midst of a climate crisis, EU governments continue to provide huge sums of taxpayers’ money to fossil fuels, the single biggest cause of climate change,” lead author Laurie van der Burg, climate and energy researcher at FoE Netherlands, said.
In the three months since early June, things have only gotten sillier.
The Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 from the BP oil company came out. A summary of it in Forbes on June 28 noted: “Coal consumption in most of the developing world continues to grow. Asia Pacific increased consumption [in 2018] by the most overall, but its 2.5% growth rate lagged Africa’s (+3.9%) and Central and South America (+3.7%).”
The annual Google billionaires’ climate summit was held in Sicily at the beginning of August. From euronews: “114 private jets flew into the Italian Verdura Resort, according to the Italian press, and many of the elite guest list arrived in multi-million pound yachts. With stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama and Prince Harry in attendance, reports Jim Dobson at Forbes, they were hardly going to be hitch-hiking. . . .”
So then, by now, at least some of the Democratic candidates must have noticed that the climate change thing is over, right? Don’t be ridiculous. In fact, back in June the bidding war of insane “climate” proposals was only getting started. Now, the run-up to last night’s CNN climate “town hall” provided the impetus for a round of new and ever-more-extreme bids, each one promising some new impoverishment of the American people in the name of appeasing the climate gods:
Cory Booker put out a plan on which he placed a $3 trillion price tag over 10 years. From a summary at Politico: “Booker’s campaign says his plan would ‘directly invest over $3 trillion dollars by 2030.’ That price tag includes $1.5 trillion for clean energy, energy storage, and electric vehicle technologies; $100 billion toward boosting existing sustainable agriculture practices; $400 billion to fund Moonshot Hubs in each state for research and development of new technologies; and $300 billion in climate resiliency and disaster relief.” In other words, $3 trillion taken away from American taxpayers, leaving them $3 trillion poorer, and then completely wasted on providing energy that could and would have been provided without any need for government spending at all.
Not to be out-”planned,” Elizabeth Warren also put out a pre-town-hall climate plan, also with a supposed $3 trillion price tag. And where is the money to go? “My Green Apollo plan to invest $400 billion over ten years in clean energy R&D will spur innovation . . . . My Green Manufacturing plan to invest $1.5 trillion over ten years in federal procurement of American-made clean energy products will fund the transition for federal, state, and local governments. . . . And my Green Marshall Plan will commit $100 billion to support the export of American-made clean energy products so that we can help other countries cut their emissions too. [And]I’ll commit an additional $1 trillion over 10 years . . . to subsidize the economic transition to clean and renewable electricity, zero emission vehicles, and green products for commercial and residential buildings.” Again, a program to accomplish nothing more than impoverishing Americans to the tune of $3 trillion.
But nobody out-bids Bernie Sanders. $3 trillion? That’s peanuts! Bernie put out a pre-town-hall plan with a price tag of over $16 trillion. It goes on interminably — 35 pages — with endless faux precision as to amounts of spending to accomplish meaningless or fantasy tasks. In this short blog post, I can only give some examples: $30 billion “to decrease the cost of solutions like batteries” . . . ; $500 billion “to research technologies to fully decarbonize industry” . . .; $150 billion “to fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation” (fossil fuel-free airplanes? nothing to it!) . . .; $200 billion to the “Green Climate Fund for the equitable transfer of renewable technologies, climate adaptation, and assistance in adopting sustainable energies” . . .; $40 billion for the “Climate Justice Resiliency Fund” . . .; $150 billion to build “resilient, affordable, publicly owned broadband infrastructure” . . . . That’s just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. It is not an exaggeration to say that every one of Bernie’s spending proposals is a total boondoggle or fairy tale that will accomplish nothing more than replacing more reliable and cheaper energy with more unreliable and expensive energy. The American people end up poorer by about one full year’s GDP, and that’s before you consider dealing with periodic blackouts and trying to fly in windmill-powered airplanes.
And then, the town hall. Of course, it was clear even before it started that every one of the ten participating candidates endorsed the idea that there is a “climate crisis” which however can be promptly solved by imposing sufficient punishment and impoverishment upon American citizens for their sin of prosperity. Reverend Pete Buttigieg may have expressed it best (from the summary of the town hall in the New York Times): “This is less and less about the planet as an abstract thing and more about specific people suffering specific harm because of what we’re doing right now. At least one way of talking about this is that it’s a kind of sin.” What is the atonement that must be imposed? All the candidates were on board with some form of higher prices for carbon-based fuels and/or carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade scheme. In other words, increase your price of electricity and gasoline by double, triple, quintuple, or whatever it takes until you can’t afford it any more and you stay home and freeze in the dark.
Or, end fracking. That has the explicit endorsement of at least Sanders, Warren, and (at the town hall) Harris, who said“There is no question that I am in favor of banning fracking.” The fracking revolution has brought the price of crude oil down from well over $100 per barrel in 2014 to about $55 today. That’s a saving of over $50 per barrel, or close to $400 billion per year for the 7.5 billion barrels of oil that we consume. Add in comparable savings for decline in the price of natural gas, and you could be approaching $1 trillion per year of enrichment of the American people from fracking. And that’s before you count the accompanying decline in influence of all the most malign actors on the world stage, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia.
I’m old enough that I can remember when political candidates thought that it was their job to propose policies that would enhance the prosperity of the people, let alone to make the world a safer place. Actually, Donald Trump still does think that. When did all the Democratic candidates go so completely insane?
By Allan M. R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., August 2019
CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS A FALSE CRISIS – THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING
Forget all those falsehoods about scary global warming, deceptions contrived by wolves to stampede the sheep. The next great extinction event will not be global warming, it will be global cooling. Future extinction events are preponderantly cold: a glacial period, medium-size asteroid strike or supervolcano. Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago, the blink-of–an-eye in geologic time.
Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity, and currently-observed moderate global warming increases life spans.
The re-entry into the glacial period will be a major extinction event for humanity, possibly the end of modern civilization. Not only will our land surface be devastated by glaciers, but CO2 concentrations will drop so low that C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.
GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS HAVE NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY – NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE THEIR FALSEHOODS
One’s predictive track record is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence. The IPCC and its acolytes have been consistently wrong in their predictions of catastrophic global warming. Their climate computer models run too hot, and observed global warming has actually been moderate and beneficial. Global warming alarmists have proven negative scientific credibility – nobody should believe their wild exaggerations.
In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significantly improved crop yields due to enhanced photosynthesis, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.
In 2002 we confidently published the following statements, which are still demonstrably correct:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Increased atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion and/or other causes, will have little impact on the onset of future glaciation. Climate is not highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Paradoxically, CO2 concentrations are not alarmingly high; in fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are alarmingly low – too low for the long-term survival of terrestrial life. Photosynthesis of C3 food crops ceases at 150ppm – CO2 starvation.
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
In the near term, there is a significant probability of moderate global cooling. Similar global cooling happened from about 1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated rapidly at the onset of WW2. Global warming did not occur as CO2 increased. In fact, Earth cooled significantly for over 30 years – strong evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 does not cause catastrophic global warming.
Even moderate global cooling is harmful to humanity and the environment. We predicted the return of moderate global cooling in an article published September 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald, as follows:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Our 2002 global cooling prediction is still probable. In the past five years, I’ve stated that moderate cooling will probably start closer to 2020, driven by the low activity of Solar Cycle 24. Humanity suffered during past cold periods that coincided with solar lows, such as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.
Last year there was a very late, cold spring and crops were planted one-month late in the American Midwest, but warm summer weather resulted in a good grain crop. This year, cold wet weather in the Midwest reportedly prevented about 30% of the USA corn crop from being planted – the ground was too wet for farm equipment. Were the last two years of late planting in the North American grain belt early signs of global cooling? Hope not.
I predicted in 2013 that winter deaths would increase in the UK, where energy costs are much higher than in North America. Sadly, this has proved correct. Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA. The population of England and Wales is about one-sixth that of the USA, so the United Kingdom had an Excess Winter Death Rate three times the USA average – a terrible, preventable tragedy.
If the Sun does primarily drive temperature, as I believe, then foolish politicians have brewed the perfect storm. They have adopted dysfunctional climate-and-energy policies to “fight global warming” and have crippled energy systems with intermittent, expensive “green energy” schemes that destabilize the electric grid, at a time when catastrophic global warming is not happening and moderate global cooling may be imminent.
GREEN ENERGY IS NOT GREEN; IT IS DESTRUCTIVE AND PRODUCES LITTLE USEFUL (DISPATCHABLE) ENERGY
Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow as radical green activists insist, and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in a few months from starvation and exposure.
“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine. Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power. There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-scale wind and solar power generation.
“Wind Report 2005” – note Figures 6 & 7 on intermittency. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
Vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.
This paper discusses real threats, specifically global cooling, including imminent moderate global cooling and later re-entry into another glacial period, in order to shift the climate discussion from popular scary-fantasies of runaway global warming, to cold events that actually do threaten the future of humanity and the environment.
An old mantra of the news business is, “if it bleeds, it leads”. If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.
There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don’t need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word.
Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject. The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.
When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable. The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter. Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects. The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don’t know for sure).
For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.
And still I am widely considered a climate denier.
Why? Because I am not willing to exaggerate and make claims that cannot be supported by data.
Take researcher Roger Pielke, Jr. as another example. Roger considers himself an environmentalist. He generally agrees with the predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding future warming. But as an expert in severe weather damages, he isn’t willing to support the lie that severe weather has gotten worse. Yes, storm damages have increased, but that’s because we keep building more infrastructure to get damaged.
So, he, too is considered a climate denier.
What gets reported by the media about global warming (aka climate change, the climate crisis, and now the climate emergency) is usually greatly exaggerated, half-truths, or just plain nonsense. Just like the economy and economists, it is not difficult to find an expert willing to provide a prediction of gloom and doom. That makes interesting news. But it distorts the public perception of the dangers of climate change. And because it is reported as “science”, it is equated with truth.
In the case of climate change news, the predicted effects are almost universally biased toward Armageddon-like outcomes. Severe weather events that have always occurred (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) are now reported with at least some blame placed on your SUV.
The major media outlets have so convinced themselves of the justness, righteousness, and truthfulness of their cause that they have banded together to make sure the climate emergency is not ignored. As reported by The Guardian, “More than 60 news outlets worldwide have signed on to Covering Climate Now, a project to improve coverage of the emergency”.
The exaggerations are not limited to just science. The reporting on engineering related to proposed alternative sources of energy (e.g. wind and solar) is also biased. The reported economics are biased. Unlimited “free” energy is claimed to be all around us, just waiting to be plucked from the unicorn tree.
And for most of America (and the world), the reporting is not making us smarter, but dumber.
Why does it matter? Who cares if the science (or engineering or economics) is exaggerated, if the result is that we stop polluting?
Besides the fact that there is no such thing as a non-polluting energy source, it matters because humanity depends upon abundant, affordable energy to prosper. Just Google life expectancy and per capita energy use. Prosperous societies are healthier and enjoy longer lives. Expensive sources of energy forced upon the masses by governmental fiat kill poor people simply because expensive energy exacerbates poverty, and poverty leads to premature death. As philosopher Alex Epstein writes in his book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, if you believe humans have a right to thrive, then you should be supportive of fossil fuels.
We don’t use wind and solar energy because it is economically competitive. We use it because governments have decided to force taxpayers to pay the extra costs involved and allowed utilities to pass on the higher costs to consumers. Wind and solar use continue to grow, but global energy demand grows even faster. Barring some new energy technology (or a renewed embrace of nuclear power), wind and solar are unlikely to supply more than 10% of global energy demand in the coming decades. And as some European countries have learned, mandated use of solar and wind comes at a high cost to society.
Not only the media, but the public education system is complicit in this era of sloppy science reporting. I suppose most teachers and journalists believe what they are teaching and reporting on. But they still bear some responsibility for making sure what they report is relatively unbiased and factual.
I would much rather have teachers spending more time teaching students how to think and less time teaching them what to think.
Climate scientists are not without blame. They, like everyone else, are biased. Virtually all Earth scientists I know view the Earth as “fragile”. Their biases affect their analysis of uncertain data that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Most are relatively clueless about engineering and economics. I’ve had discussions with climate scientists who tell me, “Well, we need to get away from fossil fuels, anyway”.
And maybe we do, eventually. But exaggerating the threat can do more harm than good. The late Stephen Schneider infamously admitted to biased reporting by scientists. You can read his entire quote and decide for yourself whether scientists like Dr. Schneider let their worldview, politics, etc., color how they present their science to the public. The unauthorized release of the ‘ClimateGate’ emails between IPCC scientists showed how the alarmist narrative was maintained by undermining alternative views and even pressuring the editors of scientific journals. Even The Guardian seemed shocked by the misbehavior.
It’s fine to present the possibility that human-caused global warming could be very damaging, which is indeed theoretically possible. But to claim that large and damaging changes have already occurred due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is shoddy journalism. Some reporters get around the problem by saying that the latest hurricane might not be blamed on global warming directly, but it represents what we can expect more of in a warming world. Except that, even the UN IPCC is equivocal on the subject.
Sea level rise stories in the media, as far as I can tell, never mention that sea level has been rising naturally for as long as we have had global tide gage measurements (since the 1850s). Maybe humans are responsible for a portion of the recent rise, but as is the case for essentially all climate reporting, the role of nature is seldom mentioned, and the size of the problem is almost always exaggerated. That worsening periodic tidal flooding in Miami Beach is about 50% due to sinking of reclaimed swampland is never mentioned.
There are no human fingerprints of global warming. None. Climate change is simply assumed to be mostly human-caused (which is indeed possible), while our knowledge of natural climate change is almost non-existent.
Computerized climate models are programmed based upon the assumption of human causation. The models produce human-caused climate change because they are forced to produce no warming (be in a state of ‘energy balance’) unless CO2 is added to them.
As far as we know, no one has ever been killed by human-caused climate change. Weather-related deaths have fallen dramatically — by over 90% — in the last 100 years.
Whose child has been taught that in school? What journalist has been brave enough to report that good news?
In recent years I’ve had more and more people tell me that their children, grandchildren, or young acquaintances are now thoroughly convinced we are destroying the planet with our carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels. They’ve had this message drilled into their brains through news reporting, movies, their teachers and professors, their favorite celebrities, and a handful of outspoken scientists and politicians whose knowledge of the subject is a mile wide but only inches deep.
In contrast, few people are aware of the science papers showing satellite observations that reveal a global greening phenomenon is occurring as a result of more atmospheric CO2.
Again I ask, whose child has been taught this in school? What journalist dares to report any positive benefits of CO2, without which life on Earth would not exist?
No, if it’s climate news, it’s all bad news, all the time.
More Examples of Media Bias
Here are just a few recent (and not-so-recent) examples of media reporting which only make matters worse and degrade the public debate on the subject of climate change. Very often what is reported is actually weather-related events that have always occurred with no good evidence that they have worsened or become more frequent in the last 60+ years that humans could be at least partly blamed.
The rainforest itself does not burn in response to global warming, and in fact warming in the tropics has been so slow that it is unlikely that any tropical resident would perceive it in their lifetime. This is not a climate change issue; it’s a farming and land use issue.
Greenland Is rapidly melting
The Greenland ice sheet gains new snow every year, and gravity causes the sheet to slowly flow to the sea where ice is lost by calving of icebergs. How much ice resides in the sheet at any given time is based upon the balance between gains and losses.
During the summer months of June, July, and August there is more melting of the surface than snow accumulation. The recent (weather-related) episode of a Saharan air mass traveling through western Europe and reaching Greenland led to a few days of exceptional melt. This was widely reported as having grave consequences.
Of course, only the brief period of melt was reported by the media, further feeding the steady diet of biased climate information we have all become accustomed to.
Furthermore, after all of the reports of record warmth at the summit of the ice cap, it was found that the temperature sensor readings were biased too warm, and the temperature never actually went above freezing.
Was this reported with the same fanfare as the original story? Of course not. The damage has been done, and the thousands of alarmist news stories will live on in perpetuity.
This isn’t to say that Greenland isn’t losing more ice than it is gaining, but most of that loss is due to calving of icebergs around the edge of the sheet being fed by ice flowing downhill. Not from blast-furnace heating of the surface. It could be the loss in recent decades is a delayed response to excess snow accumulation tens or hundreds of years ago (I took glaciology as a minor while working on my Ph.D. in meteorology). No one really knows because ice sheet dynamics is complicated with much uncertainty.
My point is that the public only hears about these brief weather events which are almost always used to promote an alarmist narrative.
July 2019 was the hottest month on record
The yearly, area-averaged surface temperature of the Earth is about 60 deg. F. It has been slowly and irregularly rising in recent decades at a rate of about 0.3 or 0.4 deg. F per decade.
So, let’s say the average temperature reaches 60.4 deg. F rather than a more normal 60 deg. F. Is “hottest” really the best adjective to use to inform the public about what is going on?
Here’s a geographic plot of the July 2019 departures from normal from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System model.
Some areas were above normal, some below, yet the headlines of “hottest month ever” would make you think the whole Earth had become an oven of unbearable heat.
Of course, the temperature changes involved in new record warm months is so small it is usually less than the uncertainty level of the measurements. And, different global datasets give different results. Monitoring global warming is like searching for a climate needle in a haystack of weather variability.
Bait and Switch: Models replacing observations
There is an increasing trend toward passing off climate model projections as actual observations in news reports. This came up just a few days ago when I was alerted to a news story that claimed Tuscaloosa, Alabama is experiencing twice as many 100+ deg. F days as it used to. To his credit, the reporter corrected the story when it was pointed out to him that no such thing has happened, and it was a climate model projection that (erroneously) made such a “prediction”.
Another example happened last year with a news report that the 100th Meridian climate boundary in the U.S. was moving east, with gradual drying starting to invade the U.S. Midwest agricultural belt. But, once again, the truth is that no such thing has happened. It was a climate model projection, being passed off as reality. Having worked with grain-growing interests for nearly 10 years, I addressed this bit of fake climate news with actual precipitation measurements here.
Al Gore and Bill Nye’s global warming in a jar experiment
This is one of my favorites.
As part of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, Bill Nye produced a Climate 101 video of an experiment where two glass jars with thermometers in them were illuminated by lamps. One jar had air in it, the other had pure CO2. The video allegedly shows the jar with CO2 in it experiencing a larger temperature rise than the jar with just air in it.
Of course, this was meant to demonstrate how easy it is to show more CO2 causes warming. I’m sure it has inspired many school science experiments. The video has had over 500,000 views.
The problem is that this experiment cannot show such an effect. Any expert in atmospheric radiative transfer can tell you this. The jars are totally opaque to infrared radiation anyway, the amount of CO2 involved is far too small, the thermometers were cheap and inaccurate, the lamps cannot be exactly identical, the jars are not identical, and the “cold” of outer space was not included the experiment. TV meteorologist Anthony Watts demonstrated that Bill Nye had to fake the results through post-production video editing.
The warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is surprisingly difficult to demonstrate. The demonstration is largely a theoretical exercise involving radiative absorption calculations and a radiative transfer model. I believe the effect exists; I’m just saying that there is no easy way to demonstrate it.
The trouble is that this fraudulent video still exists, and many thousands of people are being misled into believing that the experiment is evidence of how obvious it is to
Greta Thunberg’s sailboat trip
The new spokesperson for the world’s youth regarding concerns over global warming is 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg. Greta is travelling across the Atlantic on what CNN describes as a “zero-emissions yacht” to attend the UN Climate Action Summit on September 23 in New York City.
To begin with, there is no such thing as a zero-emissions yacht. A huge amount of energy was required to manufacture the yacht, and it transports so few people so few miles over its lifetime the yacht is a wonderful example of the energy waste typical of the lifestyles of the wealthy elite. Four (!) people will need to fly from Europe to the U.S. to support the return of the yacht to Europe after Greta is delivered there.
The trip is nothing more than a publicity stunt, and it leads to further disinformation regarding global energy use. In fact, it works much better as satire. Imagine if everyone who traveled across the ocean used yachts rather than jet airplanes. More energy would be required, not less, due to the manufacture of tens of thousands of extra yachts which inefficiently carry few passengers on relatively few, very slow trips. In contrast, the average jet aircraft will travel 50 million miles in its lifetime. Most people don’t realize that travel by jet is now more fuel efficient than travel by car.
The Greta boat trip story is in so many ways the absolute worst way to raise awareness of climate issues, unless you know nothing of science, engineering, or economics. It’s like someone who is against eating meat consuming three McDonalds cheeseburgers to show how we should change our diets. It makes zero sense.
I could give many more examples of the media helping to destroy the public’s ability to have a rational discussion about climate change, how much is caused by humans, and what can or should be done about it.
Instead, the media chooses to publish only the most headline-grabbing stories, and the climate change issue is then cast as two extremes: either you believe the “real scientists” who all agree we are destroying the planet, or you are a knuckle-dragging 8th-grade educated climate denier with guns and racist tendencies.