The surprising real reason for the hate against Donald Trump

February 3, 2017 (LifeSiteNews)

Forget most of the complaints and accusations against Donald Trump you are hearing these days. There is a growing, ugly and violent war being waged against the Trump administration and conservatives in general. Most of that war is being orchestrated and funded by massively-financed elites of one general movement – the several decades old movement for an aggressively secular, borderless, de-populationist New World Order and world government.

I strongly urge watching the video below produced by Remnant TV. It provides crucial context. I believe, based on all that I have seen, read and experienced for the past 40 and more years, that the video is right on the mark. Nothing else can explain the massive US and international howling and vicious, non-spontaneous, “spontaneous” demonstrations that have been taking place in many cities and nations.

All the people in the various elements of this New World Order movement fully expected that Hillary Clinton’s election would lead to the implementation of the final stages of their plans. Under Barack Obama and the powerful influence of the European Union, UN and other elites, everything had been rapidly moving towards their gaining powers they have long sought. With that power they were set to radically transform international society, take full control of the economies of all nations, eliminate national sovereignties and impose dramatic social changes and extreme de-population measures on the world.

The election of Donald Trump and a majority of Republicans to the Senate, Congress, governorships and other positions, have left the One-Worlders reeling. To them it has been like a giant earthquake upending their world and their evil plans. They are enraged and hysterical that their expectations of a dizzying final achievement of the total power of man as god has been smashed. That is their ultimate goal – replacing God with man – the great sin of pride of Adam.

Image

Here are the main, all closely interconnected elements of the New World Order movement:

  • The now totally co-opted, corrupt United Nations and European Union. Watch Nigel Farage rip the EU parliament for their condemnations of Trump’s policies. (start at 1 minute)
  • International Planned Parenthood and other abortion- and contraception-promoting organizations.
  • All population control organizations
  • Multi-billionaire George Soros and the numerous radical social agitation organizations that he has funded with hundreds of millions of dollars. Soros is one of the main drivers of the evil New World Order movement.
  • The leaders of the global warming/climate change movement, which among other things, want to destroy capitalismde-populate the world and are disposed to pantheistic occultism. See also Agenda 21.
  • Most of the mainstream media in the West that are controlled by New World Order elites. These information controllers are spewing shameless propaganda and lies that too many gullible, uninformed citizens are falling for.
  • The militant LGBT/radical feminist movements attempting to impose their sexual world view on all nations through the United Nations and by other means. These movements are essential to the NWO because destruction of traditional marriage, family life and traditional sexual morality results in dramatic decreases in child-bearing. Crippling the family also cripples the first allegiance of family members to each other, to their religious faith and their community, which then facilitates control by central or world governance – all well-documented goals of past totalitarian regimes. Most so-called LGBT (recently invented term) individuals are likely not aware they are being used for this.
  • Marxist, anarchist and other violent social radical groups, usually funded by George Soros.
  • American public education institutions, especially due to the influence of wealthy, far-leftist teachers unions, have long ago been taken over and co-opted into propagandizing students every day with their anti-American, anti-Christian ideological world view. In recent years students have been especially subjected to totally one-sided, on-going heavy indoctrination on LGBT ideology and climate change ideology, both calling for massive changes to society.
  • Masonry, forbidden to Catholics (and other orthodox Christians) under pain of automatic excommunication, and similar societies of anti-Christian elites who still exert substantial influence in the world. See e.g. Staunch Dubia Opponent Msgr. Pinto on Famous List of Freemasons
  • Most astonishingly, the Vatican itself seems involved as Pope Francis, the German bishops and others around him have openly developed close relationships with many leading One-Worlders, inviting them to the Vatican to give talks and advice (contrary to strong statements from Francis against abortion, gay “marriage”, for large families, etc.). This has been a radical change from all past popes. Reports suggest George Soros favored Bergoglio during the Conclave that elected him pope. For the first time ever, the New World Order movement has gained powerful public backing for many of their agendas from the head of the Roman Catholic Church, who has aggressively insisted that climate change, open borders, anti-capitalism and more are now issues of moral and religious obligation for a new, worldly Catholic Church. It also appears that some in the Vatican may be laying the groundwork for a moral and religious case in favor of population control, use of contraception, small families and acceptance of homosexuality, again regardless of many contrary statements by Francis. Many signs point to this. See some of the evidence herehere, here, here and here,.
  • Many of the world’s multi-billionaires and largest corporations, who have been seduced into the movement. e.g Bill Gates, Apple, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and more.
  • Militant Islam – Angela Merkel, other EU leaders, George Soros and other “progressive” New World Order advocates, even within the Catholic Church, are using a contrived, massive influx of aggressive Islamists (many Muslims are not Islamists, but too many are) into the West to force the one-world, open-borders New World Order onto the West. The Islamists are also facilitating the final smashing of Christian civilization wherever they are flooding into previously Christian nations. Canada, under open borders advocate Justin Trudeau, is accelerating this movement in his country. See this hateful speech by an Islamist Marxist at a Toronto Black Lives Matter anti-Trump rally February 4. Syed Hussan called for revolutionary overthrow of Canadian society, sowing of terror and removal of borders. I suggest many Islamists in Europe, Canada and the EU are or will be soon calling for the same. The one-worlders are playing a very dangerous game given that militant Islam has its own historically consistent desire to subjugate the world and force Islam and Sharia law onto all nations. Emboldening, financing and promoting acceptance of their ideological and political religion, which is unlike any other, has been aiding a major resurgence of ages-old Islamic world conquest efforts.
Image
Bashing an effigy of Trump

Can Trump and his administration endure this near satanic, on-going assault? Many prayed for him during the election and he astonishingly prevailed. It is clear, despite the president’s personal flaws, that he is doing many right things. He would not be so intensely hated by all these people if he were not.

Even more prayers are needed to protect, guide and inspire Trump and his administration to stay the course and serve the Will of God. Prayers are needed for his continued conversion – especially on the homosexual/transgender rights issues.

There is also great need to pray for the physical safety of President Trump and his leadership team.

The election of Donald Trump has caused the decades-old war that has been waged on what is left of Christian civilization to be suddenly revealed for the ugly and evil war that it has been all along. Until now the war has been very one-sided, with the one-world progressives generally being the only ones fighting, as the relatively passive Christians and their non-Christian allies have given naïve, timid and disorganized resistance.

Image
Typical of the anarchist, masked rioters protesting Trump. This one cited the late Malcolm X, founding father of an Islamic black terrorist movement, to justify the actions of the violent mob in Washington.

The election of Donald Trump has suddenly brought everything into the open that was already underway. It has forced a necessary climax in this world-wide culture war.

This is good. But the “good” must now respond by finally starting to earnestly wage a defensive war to completely defeat the one-worlders.  It is time to wake up to the reality of our collective and individual responsibilities in this international conflict between good and evil.

It is not possible to overstate the gravity of the situation.

Keep in mind that in 1976 (showing how long this has been on-going)  Pope John Paul II, as then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, warned,

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the Antichrist.

Also, in 2010 Pope Benedict stated the following in his Christmas message to the Vatican Curia,

“[O]ur world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function. Consequently the forces mobilized for the defence of such structures seem doomed to failure….

“Alexis de Tocqueville, in his day, observed that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function. This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. The very future of the world is at stake.

Donald Trump did not start the conflict. He has merely brought it all out into the open for us to respond to.

Dr. Neil Frank on Climate and Caring for Creation: A Book of Good Intentions but Poor Science

By Dr. Neil Frank

As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet. We should strive to reduce pollution to protect human health and the natural environment. We should explore new alternative energy sources, always seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms. We should prioritize providing electricity for the 1.2 billion people who don’t have it—and consequently suffer high rates of disease and premature death.

For these and many other reasons I applaud Mitch Hescox and Paul Douglas’s Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment (Bethany House, 2016). I enjoyed chapter 4 “We Are Easter People,” which encourages us to move forward not only in our Christian walk, but also in our physical world to explore new alternative energy sources. I appreciate their passion when discussing alternative energy in chapter 6. The success of the M-Kopa Solar Company in Africa with small solar units is impressive. As the authors point out, most of the 1.2 billion people in the world who have no electricity live in remote regions where it would be impossible, in the near term, to erect adequate power lines even if centralized power plants were built. There and in many other remote locations small solar units are the better answer.

It is unfortunate, however, that Hescox and Douglas chose not to present an unbiased discussion of the global warming debate, because this distracts from other excellent parts of the book.

As a veteran atmospheric scientist, I disagree with their basic premise. They believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming that we must stop by converting the world’s energy systems from fossil fuels (which now provide about 85 percent of all energy people use worldwide) to “green” energy.

How firmly do they believe this? Douglas writes,

“When people ask me why more climate scientists don’t debate professional skeptics in the media, I tell them the truth. At this point, it’s the rough equivalent of debating gravity or the Apollo moon landing” (p. 90).

As a meteorologist with a Ph.D. instead of a B.S., and over 20 years more experience, I can tell you, that attitude is irresponsible.

It’s also inconsistent with something else the authors do. They challenge readers to raise serious questions about the truth of dangerous manmade global warming. When Hescox is asked about the reality of global warming, he replies: “Don’t believe me without researching the facts for yourself. Don’t listen to twenty-second sound bites on FOX News or MSNBC or talk radio. Take the time to examine the facts for yourself.” That’s what I have been doing over the last nearly 20 years, building on my 55-year career as a meteorologist.

What is the global warming controversy? It is not about the earth warming. Earth has been warming for over 150 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age. The controversy is over the causes, magnitude, and possible harms or benefits of the warming. Is the cause CO2, as the authors claim, or other factors related to natural cycles, or a combination—and if so, in what balance? Is the warming rapid, large, and dangerous, or gradual, small, and benign? The intent of this review is to show that, contrary to Hescox and Douglas’s assertions, meteorological data support natural cycles, the case for CO2 as primary driver is very weak, and the magnitude of our contribution is small and not dangerous.

While Hescox has no credentials in climate science, I do not denigrate Douglas’s. He has been a TV and radio meteorologist for 35 years. But I do expect him to show me equal respect granted my 55-year career in meteorology and climate science, much of it at significantly higher levels of responsibility. I served in the Air Force as a weather officer from 1953–1957, earned my Ph.D. in meteorology from Florida State University, joined the National Hurricane Center in 1961, where I served for 25 years and was Director from 1974–1987 (the longest term of any Director), then served as chief meteorologist for the CBS TV affiliate in Houston until my retirement in 2008—a retirement during which I have continued and even expanded my studies of global climate change.

I have been following the global warming debate for almost 25 years. During that time I have metamorphosed from a mild believer in the 1980s and 1990s to a very strong skeptic. My journey is typical of a number of skeptics.

I became aware that the planet was warming in the 1980s. James Hansen (NASA) held a press conference in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1988, and announced that CO2 was causing the earth to warm. Hansen built that relationship into a numerical model that predicted disastrous warming. I had no reason to question his conclusion.

In the late 1990s, big changes occurred when, despite 1998’s global average temperature being the warmest on record until then because of an extraordinarily powerful El Niño, from early 1997 through late 2015—a period of nearly 19 years—there was no statistically significant increase in global average temperature according to our most reliable measurements. The warming trend that had alarmed Hansen and others stopped, even while CO2 levels accelerated upward. What happened? Could CO2’s role have been overstated?

About that time a meteorologist friend challenged me to go back and look at the data. After reading dozens of books and hundreds of papers, looking at reams of data and talking to numerous experts on both sides of the debate, I have concluded that CO2 is not a major factor in the earth’s temperature.

What led to that conclusion? Here are some of the basic facts.

Earth’s temperatures—local, regional, and global—rise and fall in cycles. Globally, ice ages are the longest cycle we are aware of. An Ice Age lasts about 100,000 years and is followed by a roughly 10,000-year warm (interglacial) period. We have been in the current interglacial for almost 12,000 years.

Data show a correlation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature over several ice ages, leading many to assume CO2 drives temperature. However, CO2 concentration lags temperature by several hundred years. Why? A large amount of CO2 resides in the atmosphere, but a much larger amount in the ocean. When the earth recovers from an Ice Age and warms, the ocean gives up CO2 to the atmosphere. The reverse occurs when the earth enters an Ice Age. As the water cools, it absorbs CO2.

On the time scale of ice ages, there is a direct relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature, but it is the exact opposite of what the current manmade global warming theory requires. Because CO2 follows temperature, it cannot be the cause of global warming; instead it is the effect. John Kerr’s book The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth’s Climate summarizes the paleoclimate history in terms laymen can grasp easily.

On a shorter time scale, ice core samples from Greenland for the last 10,000 years show a very strong 1,000-year cycle. As illustrated in this graph of global temperature history since about 9000 B.C., the earth was much warmer than now during the two lengthy periods called the Holocene Climate Optimum roughly 8,000–6,000 and 5,000–4,000 years ago, and it was as warm if not warmer than today 3,000 years ago during the Minoan Warm Period, 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period, and 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period—when Scandinavians farmed in Greenland for over 300 years.

image

Right on schedule, we are warm today as we recover from the Little Ice Age (roughly 1600–early 1800s).

Over the last 10,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have been very stable at about 280 parts per million. Therefore, CO2 was not responsible for any of the above warm periods, or for the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Currently the earth has been warming for almost 175 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age, yet CO2 levels did not start rising significantly until after World War I. This strongly suggests that the current warming is, like the earlier ones, the result of a natural 1,000-year cycle, and the contribution from CO2 is minor.

One fact that those who believe manmade CO2 emissions are causing dangerous warming sometimes cite is that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by about 43 percent since the Industrial Revolution. That rise sounds significant, but in context with total composition of the atmosphere it really isn’t.

Consider this illustration. The football stadium in Dallas has over 100,000 seats. If we assign a molecule of air to each seat, in today’s mix nitrogen would occupy about 80,000 seats and oxygen almost 20,000. Water vapor is quite variable but would occupy somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 seats. CO2 would occupy only 40 seats (400 parts per million).

Even after the 43 percent increase since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 is only 0.040 percent of the atmosphere. Yet, some experts would have us believe this tiny part of the atmosphere can control the earth’s temperature. Over 90 percent of the earth’s warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor, not CO2.

The cold temperatures in the Little Ice Age bottomed out in the 1600s and 1700s. That was when George Washington was in Valley Forge. The recovery from the Little Ice Age began in the mid-1800s, and the earth has been warming for almost 175 years. During this warming period another 60-year cycle in the earth’s temperature has been revealed. The earth warms for 30 years, then cools for another 30 years.

The following table and related graph show the relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature as the earth has passed through the 60-year cycles.

CO2’s Relation to Earth’s Temperature
(1850–2015)
Years Earth’s Temp. (phase) Earth’s temp.(trend) CO2 levels and trends(parts per million)
1850–1880 Warm Rapid warming ~280 and steady
1880–1910 Cool Steady cooling ~280 and steady
*1910–1940 Warm Rapid warming Slow increase
1940–1975 Cool Significant cooling Rapid increase
*1975–1998 Warm Rapid warming Accelerating increase
1998–2015 Cool No change Rising >400
*Indicates phases when the earth’s temperature and CO2 are both positive.

nlf-graph-of-co2-temp-150-yrs

A close examination of the table shows that CO2 levels and the earth’s temperature were both rising in only two of the 30-year warming phases (1910–1940 and 1975–1998). In the remaining four phases (two-thirds of the time), they were out of phase (107 years). A statistical analysis of these two parameters during the last 160 years shows at best a very poor relationship

CO2 started rising in a 30-year warming phase from 1910–1940, culminating in the 1930s—till then the warmest decade since the Little Ice Age. Some meteorologists at the time speculated CO2 was responsible, but then the earth moved into a 35-year cooling phase, by the end of which the consensus among experts was that we were heading for another Little Ice Age—even though the CO2 levels were accelerating upward. Kenneth Richard at the German website “No Tricks Zone” cites 285 peer-reviewed papers from the 1960s through the 1980s predicting global cooling

Finally, even over shorter periods—such as from the 1950s to the present (the period during which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were the primary cause of global warming)—the relationship between global atmospheric temperature and CO2 remains opposite what’s necessary for CO2 to drive temperature. The article “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,” published in the journal Global and Planetary Change, concluded that CO2 lags temperature by 9.5 to 12 months depending on altitude. (Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Senior Fellow Dr. David Legates, a climatologist, pointed this out in a critique of an article by Hescox in 2012, so Hescox should have known this when cooperating with Douglas on writing Caring for Creation.)

What can we conclude? The relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature is poor on all time scales from ice ages (100,000 years) to interglacial periods (10,000 years) to short periods of a few centuries or even decades.

Another way we can evaluate the impact CO2 has on the earth’s temperature is to examine the forecasts produced by climate models. All of the climate models have a built-in relation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature that was determined by the observations made in the 1980s–1990s. During that time, the earth’s temperature was rising and the CO2 levels were accelerating upward. Since the CO2 levels were correctly projected to continue upward in the future (see the table above), and since the modelers’ underlying theory was that the rise in CO2 had driven the rise in temperature, it is not surprising that the models forecast continued warming.

If the CO2/temperature relation built into the models is correct, then the models should make accurate forecasts. Numerous tests of the models have been conducted. In one test of over 100 model runs, every one failed. In every case the temperatures forecast by the models were much too warm. Dr. John Christy (who in addition to being a prominent climate scientist is, like Paul Douglas, an evangelical Christian), testified on Feb. 2, 2015, before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and technology that on average “the models overwarm by a factor of 2.5.” He offered this graph to illustrate.

christy-102-models-vs-4-balloon-3-satellite-datasets-1979-2015

In personal communication, Christy updated the data through the end of 2016—a year made much warmer by an extraordinarily strong El Niño. For 1979–2016, the 102-model average warming rate is 0.216˚C per decade (up 2 thousandths of a degree), while the weather balloon observed decadal rate is 0.107˚C per decade (up 28 thousandths of a degree) and the satellite observed rate is 0.124˚C per decade (up 33 thousandths of a degree). Even after the temporary upward surge of 2016, then, the models overstate the warming rate by 75 to 102 percent, and rapid cooling in late 2016 and early 2017, probably caused by the La Niña that typically follows an El Niño, suggests that the observed rate through the satellite measurement period will decline again soon. This strongly suggests that the CO2/temperature relation programmed into the models is wrong, at best overemphasizing the role of CO2 on the earth’s temperature.

In conclusion, we have two different “data” sources that tell us CO2 is not the major cause of global warming. If this is true, then the cause of the observed global warming must be something other than CO2, and there is no need for a moratorium on fossil fuels.

If CO2 is not a primary factor, what has caused the recent warming? One possibility is the sun. Two German scientists, Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, in The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, found excellent correlations between variations in the sun and global temperatures. Over 100 peer-reviewed papers support this conclusion.

The number of sunspots is one indicator of solar energy. Both the sunspot activity and the earth’s temperature peaked in the twentieth century. Today the sun is turning quiet. The last time it was this quiet was in the 1700s during the Little Ice Age. As a result, many solar experts in Europe believe the earth will cool, not warm, over the next couple of decades.

So much for summarizing my understanding of the relationship between CO2 and global warming. Now let’s turn back to Caring for Creation. The authors use a 4-step process to convince people of dangerous manmade global warming:

  1. Create alarming scenarios that appeal to the emotion.
  2. Appeal to the authority of “experts.”
  3. Appeal to consensus.
  4. Demonize skeptics.

In step 1, the authors cite testimonies of 13 people who have observed disturbing changes in weather during their lifetimes, including Hescox’s 90-year-old father (pages 17, 21, 22, 26, 45, 46, 57, 58, 59, 64, 76, 95, and 131). I would add my own experience. In my preteen years in northwest Kansas, it was an annual winter ritual to go ice skating on the streams and ponds. My grandfather harvested ice from the creek and placed it in a deep pit covered with hay for use all summer. People no longer ice skate in Kansas during the winter. The weather has changed during my lifetime because the earth has been warming.

One has to admit it: these testimonies appeal to the emotion. Their intent is to gain your support for CO2-based global warming. But the occurrence of warming doesn’t tell us what caused it.
What if CO2 didn’t cause it, and the warming was the result of natural cycles? Every one of the testimonies would still be true!

Talk about appealing to emotions! That surely is what Douglas’s outlook for the future does:

A major city will run out of water. Local officials will have no good options. A mega-fire will consume the suburbs of a large metropolitan area, fire fighters powerless to stop it. Only a reprieve in the weather will slow its advance. Not only Miami, but portions of Tampa, Norfolk, Annapolis, Boston, and the Bay Area will flood on sunny days, with a full moon exerting an additional tidal tug. The U.S. will see thousands of climate refugees permanently displaced from their homes. Extreme rains will flood a big city, disrupting life for hundreds of thousands of inhabitants for weeks. A large, violent EF-4 or EF-5 tornado will hit a downtown, with a loss of life rivaling Katrina in 2005. A Category-4 or -5 hurricane fueled by unusually warm water will devastate a major U.S. city with damage rising into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Drilling for fresh water will become more lucrative than fracking oil. Worldwide, more crops will fail and fresh-water shortages will increase over time. Residents of coastal Bangladesh will be forced inland by rising seas—a tidal wave of climate refugees igniting tensions with India. Wilting heat and perpetual drought around the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East will tempt millions to flee their homelands for norther Europe and Asia. Melting arctic ice will result in new shipping routes and arctic oil exploration, sparking new conflict with Russia. Government officials will wring their hands and point a finger of blame at each other, wondering why there was no warning, why contingency plans weren’t put into place sooner. Americans will hold their representatives responsible for political paralysis and habitual climate inaction, demanding solutions. [p. 97]

The disastrous specifics of this prediction are irrelevant to the debate. Though the cities and other human artifacts Douglas mentions are new, the climate and weather events are not. They have been happening throughout geologic history, not just since the beginning of the period of allegedly CO2-driven global warming. Further, the disasters Douglas predicts will only occur if there is dramatic global warming. Hescox and Douglas believe increasing CO2 will cause the warming and can be controlled. The data above suggest that CO2 is not the cause. Warming may still occur because of natural cycles, and some of the events Douglas listed may occur, but reducing our CO2 emissions will not prevent them.

The authors also claim that there is a perfect analogy between tobacco companies’ attempts to suppress scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer and fossil fuel companies’ financial support of “climate skeptics” to hide the danger of CO2 in manmade global warming. In actual fact, there is no analogy. The early evidence that smoking caused cancer was followed by numerous medical studies that found the same, and it was indeed discovered that the tobacco industry had hidden this information from the public.

But the hypothesis that CO2 generated by man is responsible for global warming dates back to the 1980s. At that time CO2 and global temperature were both rapidly increasing and the hypothesis seemed reasonable. However, unlike the case with tobacco, recent meteorological data seriously undermine the hypothesis. While according to our most reliable global temperature data (from satellites) there was no statistically significant warming from early 1997 to late 2015 (and renewed warming from late 2015 through 2016 was driven by a super-El Niño like what drove the warming of 1998—which 2016 edged out as warmest year in the satellite record by 0.02˚C, a statistical tie and well within the margin of error), CO2 levels continued to accelerate upward throughout the period. This strongly suggests that CO2 is not a dominant factor in controlling the earth’s temperature—and if this is true, the hypothesis is not valid.

no-global-warming-18-years-9-months

In step 2 of their process, Hescox and Douglas stress the importance of seeking truth from “experts.” “We should listen to real experts” (p. 61). Who are these experts? “People who devote their entire careers to tracking subtle, long-term changes—they all agree the planet is warming” (p. 60). But all the skeptics agree the planet is warming, too! The question is, what is causing the warming?

Step 3 is their appeal to “the overwhelming consensus: 97% of climate specialists.” Even President Obama makes frequent reference to this number.

I will challenge the consensus claim later, but first I cannot resist pointing out the irony of their appealing to consensus just one paragraph before they approvingly quote John Reisman saying, “Science is not a democracy. It’s a dictatorship.” And who or what is the dictator? “Evidence does the dictating.” Evidence—not any individual scientist, not a body of scientists, not a consensus of scientists.

Consensus is not evidence. Real-world observations, whether in laboratory or in nature, are evidence. Consensus is a political value. Want to know who won an election? Count votes. Want to know how much warming comes from rising atmospheric CO2 concentration? Don’t count votes—even of “experts.” Instead, do the hard work of generating hypotheses (based on your understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer, how that functions in the atmosphere and oceans, and how thousands of geophysical feedbacks respond to it) and then rigorously, fearlessly comparing them with real-world observations. When we do that, as we saw above, the case for CO2 as primary driver of global warming collapses.

Nonetheless, Hescox and Douglas do appeal to consensus, for example, to a letter sent to President Obama in the summer of 2015, signed by 130 evangelical leaders, supporting his “Clean Power Plan” to reduce global warming by forcing the closure of many coal-fired electric generating plants (p. 159). Who signed the letter and what are their qualifications? A careful search of the Worldwide Web failed to find the letter or a list of its signers (though it is referred to, e.g., here and here), but it is very similar to a letter sent to Congress in July 2013, signed by 194 “Evangelical Scientists and Academics.”That letter urged Congress to support action against manmade global warming. Although climate change was the primary subject, so climate scientists ought to have been well represented among signers, an analysis of the signers’ fields of expertise (which were not listed with their signatures) showed that only 5 had backgrounds in atmospheric science, meteorology, or climatology, and 11 in geology and 10 in physics—the two other fields most relevant to the global warming debate. There were 117 with backgrounds in biology, 29 in chemistry, and the remaining 22 in more distantly related fields. I called a number of the signees and asked them why they believed in manmade global warming. Every one of them said it was what they were reading in the non-meteorological science literature (Nature, Science, etc.). Not one had initiated an in-depth analysis of the topic.

Consensus does not establish truth! For example, in the 1970s the consensus was that we were heading towards an ice age.

Finally, in step 4, Hescox and Douglas demonize skeptics by suggesting they embrace conspiracy theories: “Beware of conspiracy theories. When the facts and evidence aren’t on their side, some people, institutions, special interests, and politicians addicted to a steady IV-drip of campaign donations find it easier to rely on conspiracy theories and manufactured misinformation” (p. 57); “We should listen to real scientists and not look for conspiracy theories under every rock” (p. 61); “Cherry-picking data to make a point—or relying on intellectually lazy conspiracy theories—isn’t an honest way to address the problem” (p. 69).

Before moving on, let me comment on the “97% consensus” and challenge the claim that only “a shrinking few still try to deny the scientific reality of climate change.”

A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming—something almost no skeptics would deny. No study—whether a survey of published articles or a survey directly of scientists—has found anything remotely near a 97% consensus not only that the earth has warmed and that human activity has contributed significantly but also that human activity has been the primary driver, that the warming caused by it is dangerous, and that attempting to prevent future warming by reducing CO2 emissions would do more good than harm—and those are the issues debated.

In 2004 Science published the results of a study by historian Naomi Oreskes claiming that “without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s surface.” But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions. As Benny Peiser pointed out in a letter to Science (Submission ID: 56001) that Science declined to publish but that the Cornwall Alliance summarized in 2006:

Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change” proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change”) instead of the two (“climate change”) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change” instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.” Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,” brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that

  • only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view”;
  • 29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change”;
  • 8 percent focused on “mitigation”;
  • 6 percent focused on methodological questions;
  • 8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change”;
  • 3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’”;
  • 4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change”; and
  • 42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”

Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman’s “Examining the Consensus on Climate Change” (EOS, January 2009), concluded, “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.” However, Doran and Zimmerman counted only 79 out of the 3,146 responses to their survey in determining the alleged consensus, and the two questions asked in the survey were framed such that even the most ardent skeptics—like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer—would have answered “Yes”:

  • “When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
  • “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Another study, “Expert credibility in climate change” (PNAS, April 9, 2010), by William Anderegg et al., reported that a survey of publication and citation data of 1,372 climate researchers found that 97 to 98 percent believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.” But Anderegg’s study covered only the 200 most prolific writers on climate change, excluding thousands of others, and even the conclusion that humans caused “most” of the warming doesn’t mean that those scientists consider global warming a crisis or that we should spend trillions of dollars attempting to stop it.

Probably the most widely cited study claiming to find such consensus, John Cook et al.’s “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,” purported to find that “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” Of course, “Humans are causing global warming” is something that nearly every skeptic—including myself—could affirm. The question is not whether we’re causing global warming, but whether we’re causing most of the recent warming, whether it’s dangerous, and whether we should abandon abundant, affordable, reliable energy from fossil fuels in exchange for sparse, expensive, intermittent energy from “renewables” in an effort to stop it. Cook et al.’s paper was critiqued in another paper by David Legates et al., who reviewed the same papers Cook et al. had reviewed and concluded that the actual consensus supportable by their abstracts was only 0.3%.

Legates et al. critiqued only Cook et al.’s statistical methodology and methods of interpreting the literature, not the quality of the selection process by which Cook et al. determined which papers to include and which to exclude from their survey. But another scholar, José Duarte, did look at the selection process and found it “multiply fraudulent.” So Duarte called for Environmental Research Letters to retract Cook et al. He pointed out that although Cook et al. had claimed to have excluded papers on “social science, education, research about people’s views on climate,” they had in fact included many such. He also listed some of the many properly scientific papers that Cook et al. ignored but should have included and that would have counted against their conclusion.

Cook et al. surveyed 11,944 papers on global warming that had been published from 1991 through 2012. They did not read the papers or talk to the authors, but they did read the abstracts. The results of the abstracts were divided into 7 categories:

Category Number of papers
1. Man is causing all of the warming 64
2. Man is causing over 50% of the warming 922
3. Man is causing less than 50% of the warming 2910
4. No opinion or uncertain 7930
5. Man is causing some but far less than 50% 54
6. Man is not causing warming, with qualifications 15
7. Man is not causing any warming 9

It appears that Cook et al. decided to compare only those scientists who had strong opinions. If that is the case, the first 2 categories represent scientists who believe man is causing all or most of the warming (986), while those in categories 6 and 7 believe man is causing none or almost none (24). This ratio is about 97%. But the most important result of this study is that almost 8,000 had no opinion or were uncertain. So much for the 97%.

Why were there only 24 papers published by skeptics? We found out in 2009, when 22,000 email exchanges between senior meteorologists in the U.S. and Europe where released. Many of the emails were published by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller in Climategate: The Crutape Letters (nQuire Services, 2010). We learned the following things from this scandal:

Those promoting manmade global warming:

  1. Controlled the meteorology and climatology journals in the U.S.;
  2. Controlled non-meteorological science publication (Nature, Science, etc.);
  3. Controlled Wikipedia;
  4. Manipulated data;
  5. Demonized skeptics.

Papers by skeptics were blackballed and not published in U.S. professional journals. In contrast, Kenneth Richard has documented over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers published in Europe and Asia in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that challenge the hypothesis that CO2 has been the primary driver of recent global warming (and other aspects of the bogus “consensus”) and support solar, oceanic, and other natural cycles as the primary causes of global warming, but they are not found in the U.S. publications.

Let me introduce you to a number of credible skeptics. In 2013 Forbes Magazine surveyedover 1077 earth scientists and found 64% believed global warming was from natural causes.

In 2013, 49 retired astronauts and senior NASA scientists wrote a scathing letter to the Administrator of NASA challenging NASA’s position on global warming.

In recent years a growing number of global warming believers have become skeptics. At the top of the list is Dr. Judith Curry, who was Head of the Department of Meteorology at Georgia Tech. This is what she told the National Press Club in September 2014:

“If I were a non-tenured scientist, I would fear for my job! But I am a senior scientist with retirement in sight, so I can afford to do what I want, say what I think.”

Very troubled by Climategate, Dr. Curry, formerly a believer in dangerous manmade warming and a contributing author to several IPCC assessment reports, began corresponding with skeptics and found many of their arguments persuasive. She was also greatly influenced by the pause in the global warming. She now calls herself a “lukewarmer.”

Next is Dr. Joanne Simpson. Dr. Simpson was a senior scientist at NASA and at one time President of the American Meteorological Society. When she retired, she said,

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak frankly and as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, in which he states

“There is no definitive scientific proof, through real world observations; that CO2 is responsible for warming the globe.”

Dr. Moore is now a skeptic and has abandoned Greenpeace because he feels it lost sight of its purpose.

Dr. Alan Carlin was a senior scientist for EPA for 37 years before he retired and wrote Environmentalism Gone Mad. He believed in manmade global warming until someone challenged him with the pause in the global temperature. After months of study, he became a skeptic.

Dr. Jay Lehr was one of the original designers of the EPA under President Nixon. He is now a skeptic and leading a nation-wide effort to devolve most of EPA’s functions to regional, state, and local levels.

The Heartland Institute has sponsored 11 International Conferences on Climate Changethat have been attended by thousands of scientists and other experts, and over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

I could go on with numerous other examples, but the ones I have presented should be sufficient to show that skeptics are numerous, growing in number, and most have impeccable credentials.

Let’s pause and summarize the points I have been trying to make with data:

  1. The earth has been warming for over a century and a half.
  2. CO2 is not a major factor in the global warming, and numerous credible scientists agree with this conclusion.
  3. The warming is being caused primarily by natural forces over which man has no control.
  4. If the globe continues to warm, some of the alarming predictions made by the Hescox and Douglas could occur.

But what about energy? Should we continue using the fossil fuels that provide about 85% of all energy we consume? Or should we strive to replace them as rapidly as possible with renewables—especially wind and solar?

Most skeptics I know would welcome an open discussion of energy sources. For example, in the desert regions of Africa where there is adequate sunshine, individual self-contained solar units seem to be an excellent choice. But in Europe, where there is little sunshine in the winter and wind is very irregular, nuclear would seem to be a better option. Many mountain valleys of the Alps see no sunshine for almost 5 months; there solar is out of the question.

Experience is showing that forcing the rapid move from fossil fuels to renewables has unforeseen and harmful consequences. The move to green energy in Germany has been a mild disaster. Germany had one of the finest and most reliable electric grids in the world, powered by 17 nuclear plants. After the nuclear tragedy in Fukushima, Japan, Germany decided to go green. Nine of the plants have been decommissioned and replaced with solar and wind. Electricity rates have more than doubled, and the supply has become unreliable. To supplement power when the wind doesn’t blow, Germany is now installing coal plants. Meanwhile, its citizens object to wind farms destroying the land.

Hescox and Douglas’s enthusiasm for green energy in chapter 6 has to be tempered by reality. It is exciting to learn that Tesla expects to produce 500,000 electric cars per year in another decade (p. 114), but that will hardly put a dent in the need. There are nearly 260,000,000 motor vehicles on the roads in the U.S., and over 90% of the energy they consume comes from oil. Last year 16 million new cars were sold in the U.S. They are serviced by 115,000 filling stations. Worldwide there are over 1 billion vehicles. How many decades would it take to convert from gasoline and diesel to electric engines and build a network of charging stations?

It is difficult to determine the amount the U.S. has spent on green energy, because the expenditures are spread over a number of agencies. One estimate suggests we have spent $150 billion over the past 15 years.

In their excitement over green energy, Hescox and Douglas failed to mention a number of financial disasters. Several years ago Solyndra went bankrupt, costing us half a billion dollars. Sharyl Attkisson, who used to be a reporter for CBS, wrote in her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, that she quit CBS because it refused to run some of her stories on green energy. Her chapter on green energy passes on some of what she sought to report in those articles. In 2009 the U.S. subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion; 6 are bankrupt, and the other 5 are floundering. The U.S. spent another $300 million on 2 companies to build car batteries, and both are bankrupt. In 2015 SunEdison, the largest green energy company in the U.S., went bankrupt, costing us another $2.5 billion. Abengoa, out of Spain, one of the biggest renewable energy companies in the world, is also threatening to go bankrupt. This will cost the U.S. another $2 billion. In 2016 President Obama sent $400 million to the U.N. as the down payment on our commitment of $3.5 billion to support developing countries convert to green energy. On January 17, 2017, just before he left office, President Obama sent another $500 million.

Hescox and Douglas claim this is a pro-life issue and if we control CO2, multitudes of lives will be saved in the far distant future. But what about today? In addition to 1.2 billion people who have no electricity, another 2-3 billion in the world lack safe water and sewage. It is estimated 2 to 4 million people die each year because of the lack of these two necessities. What about taking a small portion of money wasted on green energy projects and building wells in Africa and supporting companies, like M-Kopa, who are building individual solar units?

Without question the primary purpose of the book is to seek the support of Christians for green energy. It is unfortunate that Hescox and Douglas did not present a balanced view. Rather than acknowledge there are serious questions about the effect of CO2 on the earth’s temperature, they chose to belittle the credibility of anyone who would challenge their position on manmade global warming.

What are their qualifications? Douglas earned a B.S. in meteorology and has been a television and radio meteorologist for some 35 years. Hescox, a former pastor and now CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, earned a Masters in Divinity and a B.S. in geosciences. These are respectable qualifications for their respective contributions to the book, but they are by no means extraordinary, and they pale into insignificance compared with eminently qualified scientists on the other side, whose character they impugn implicitly by referring to them as a body (not by name) as given to cherry-picking data, resorting to conspiracy theories and “dishonest misinformation,” and motivated by payoffs from fossil fuel corporations. Some, like them, are also dedicated Christians—like Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, who have received national and international recognition for their outstanding work developing a method of computing the temperature of the earth from satellite data, and Dr. David Legates, Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, Dr. Anthony Lupo, and more—not to mention myself. Did they consider the Ninth Commandment (“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”) or Philippians 2:3 (“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”) when they denigrated their brethren?

This prompts one final critique of Caring for Creation. A responsible book on the subject should have interacted significantly with contrary arguments. Yet electronic searches failed to find reference to a single prominent skeptic. It’s not difficult to find out who they are. A single article in Wikipedia lists 22 who challenge the accuracy of IPCC climate projections, 27 who argue that global warming is caused primarily by natural processes, 11 who say the cause of warming is unknown, and 4 who argue that whatever its cause global warming will have few negative consequences. Among these are several Nobel Prize winners (like Ivar Giaevar) and some of the most distinguished scientists in American history (like Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Freeman Dyson). And these are just the most prominent. There are thousands of others. Surely Hescox and Douglas could have at least acknowledged the existence of some of these outstanding scientists who totally disagree with them and the experts they mention.

Their failure to grapple with opposing arguments exposes their book as an exercise in confirmation fallacy.


Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology) is a veteran atmospheric scientist of over 50 years’ service. He was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, the CBS affiliate in Houston, TX (1987–2007), and continues his study of climate change in his retirement. He is a Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Paris climate agreement exit may be imminent

The U.S. may be about to break free from the UN’s awful Paris climate agreement.

Myron Ebell, a long-time friend of CFACT, headed up President Trump’s transition team for EPA.  Yesterday, he told reporters in London the President will “withdraw from the Paris Agreement.”

We posted details on CFACT.org.

Reuters reports that “any country wanting to pull out of the Paris agreement after ratifying it has to wait four years.”

“A source on Trump’s transition team said last year that there were speedier alternatives, such as sending a letter withdrawing from the 1992 international framework accord that is the parent treaty of the agreement; voiding U.S. involvement in both in a year’s time; or issuing a presidential order simply deleting the U.S. signature from the Paris accord.”

“Ebell said the ‘cleanest way’ would be to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change itself.”

A CFACT delegation actively participated in the UN’s climate summit in Paris.  The agreement that came out of that conference was a mistake for the U.S. and the world. 

Even if one accepts climate computer models as accurate (though they never have been), the agreement will have little or no meaningful impact on future global temperature.  The costs, however, are tremendous.  The UN agreement fails any rational cost-benefit analysis.

The UN agreement would force the U.S. to throttle down its energy sector at the same time nations such as China and India are building coal plants as fast as their economies allow. 

The agreement also calls for the U.S. and its allies to transfer billions to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. 

The Paris agreement is riddled with flaws.  We have detailed coverage at CFACT.org.  The agreement has always been “all pain, no gain,” as CFACT has explained from the start.

Americans should cheer any steps that would free our nation from this ill-begotten UN climate regime.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

Posted on by

The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” story is based on a long list of misunderstandings and apples to oranges comparisons. Somehow, people seem to believe that our economy of 7.5 billion people can get along with a very short list of energy supplies. This short list will not include fossil fuels. Some would exclude nuclear, as well. Without these energy types, we find ourselves with a short list of types of energy — what BP calls Hydroelectric, Geobiomass (geothermal, wood, wood waste, and other miscellaneous types; also liquid fuels from plants), Wind, and Solar.

Unfortunately, a transition to such a short list of fuels can’t really work. These are a few of the problems we encounter:

[1] Wind and solar are making extremely slow progress in helping the world move away from fossil fuel dependence.

In 2015, fossil fuels accounted for 86% of the world’s energy consumption, and nuclear added another 4%, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Thus, the world’s “preferred fuels” made up only 10% of the total. Wind and solar together accounted for a little less than 2% of world energy consumption.

Figure 1. World energy consumption based on data from BP 2016 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Our progress in getting away from fossil fuels has not been very fast, either. Going back to 1985, fossil fuels made up 89% of the total, and wind and solar were both insignificant. As indicated above, fossil fuels today comprise 86% of total energy consumption. Thus, in 30 years, we have managed to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 3% (=89% – 86%). Growth in wind and solar contributed 2% of this 3% reduction. At the rate of a 3% reduction every 30 years (or 1% reduction every ten years), it will take 860 years, or until the year 2877 to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. And the “improvement” made to date was made with huge subsidies for wind and solar.

Figure 2. World electricity generation by source, based on BP 2016 Statistical Review of World Energy.

The situation is a little less bad when looking at the electricity portion alone (Figure 2). In this case, wind amounts to 3.5% of electricity generated in 2015, and solar amounts to 1.1%, making a total of 4.6%. Fossil fuels account for “only” 66% of the total, so this portion seems to be the place where changes can be made. But replacing all fossil fuels, or all fossil fuels plus nuclear, with preferred fuels seems impossible.

[2] Grid electricity is probably the least sustainable form of energy we have.

If we are to transition to a renewables-based economy, we will need to transition to an electricity-based economy, since most of today’s renewables use electricity. Such an economy will need to depend on the electric grid.

The US electric grid is often called the “World’s Largest Machine.” The American Society of Civil Engineers gives a grade of D+ to America’s energy system. It says,

America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s. Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions.

Simply maintaining the electric grid is difficult. One author writes about the challenges of replacing aging steel structures holding up power lines. Another writes about the need to replace transformers, before they fail catastrophically and interrupt services. The technology to maintain and repair the transmission lines demands that fossil fuels remain available. For one thing, helicopters are sometimes needed to install or repair transmission lines. Even if repairs are done by truck, oil products are needed to operate the trucks, and to keep the roads in good repair.

Electricity and, in fact, electricity dispensed by an electric grid, is in some sense the high point in our ability to create an energy product that “does more” than fossil fuels. Grid electricity allows electric machines of all types to work. It allows industrial users to create very high temperatures, and to hold them as needed. It allows computerization of processes. It is not surprising that people who are concerned about energy consumption in the future would want to keep heading in the same direction as we have been heading in the past. Unfortunately, this is the expensive, hard-to-maintain direction. Storms often cause electrical outages. We have a never-ending battle trying to keep the system operating.

[3] Our big need for energy is in the winter, when the sun doesn’t shine as much, and we can’t count on the wind blowing.

Clearly, we use a lot of electricity for air conditioning. It is difficult to imagine that air conditioning will be a major energy use for the long-term, however, if we are headed for an energy bottleneck. There is always the possibility of using fans instead, and living with higher indoor temperatures.

In parts of the world where it gets cold, it seems likely that a large share of future energy use will be to heat homes and businesses in winter. To illustrate the kind of seasonality that can result from the use of fuels for heating, Figure 3 shows a chart of US natural gas consumption by month. US natural gas is used for some (but not all) home heating. Natural gas is also used for electricity and industrial uses.

Figure 3. US natural gas consumption by month, based on US Energy Information Administration.

Clearly, natural gas consumption shows great variability, with peaks in usage during the winter. The challenge is to provide electrical supply that varies in a similar fashion, without using a lot of fossil fuels.

[4] If a family burns coal or natural gas directly for winter heat, but then switches to electric heat that is produced using the same fuel, the cost is likely to be higher. If there is a second change to a higher-cost type of electricity, the cost of heat will be even greater.  

There is a loss of energy when fossil fuels or biomass are burned and transformed into electricity. BP tries to correct for this in its data, by showing the amount of fuel that would need to be burned to produce this amount of electricity, assuming a conversion efficiency of 38%. Thus, the energy amounts shown by BP for nuclear, hydro, wind and solar don’t represent the amount of heat that they could make, if used to heat apartments or to cook food. Instead, they reflect an amount 2.6 times as much (=1/38%), which is the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be burned in order to produce this electricity.

As a result, if a household changes from heat based on burning coal directly, to heat from coal-based electricity, the change tends to be very expensive. The Wall Street Journal reports, Beijing’s Plan for Cleaner Heat Leaves Villagers Cold:

Despite electricity subsidies for residential consumers, villagers interviewed about their state-supplied heaters said their overall costs had risen substantially. Several said it costs around $300 to heat their homes for the winter, compared with about $200 with coal.

The underlying problem is that burning coal in a power plant produces a better, but more expensive, product. If this electricity is used for a process that coal cannot perform directly, such as allowing a new automobile production plant, then this higher cost is easily  absorbed by the economy. But if this higher-cost product simply provides a previously available service (heating) in a more expensive manner, it becomes a difficult cost for the economy to “digest.” It becomes a very expensive fix for China’s smog problem. It should be noted that this change works in the wrong direction from a CO2 perspective, because ultimately, more coal must be burned for heating because of the inefficiency of converting coal to electricity, and then using that electricity for heating.

How about later substituting wind electricity for coal-based electricity? China has a large number of wind turbines in the north of China standing idle.  One problem is the high cost of erecting transmission lines that would transport this electricity to urban centers such as Beijing. Also, if these wind turbines were put in place, existing coal plants would operate fewer hours, causing financial difficulties for these coal generating units. If these companies need subsidies in order to continue paying their ongoing expenses (including payroll and debt repayment), this would create a second additional cost. Electricity prices would need to be higher, to cover these costs as well. A family who had difficulty affording heat with coal-based electricity would have an even greater problem affording wind-based electricity.

Heat for cooking and heat for creating hot water are similar to heat for keeping an apartment warm. It is less expensive (both in energy terms and in cost to the consumer) if coal or natural gas is burned directly to produce the heat, than if electricity is used instead. This again, has to do with the conversion efficiency of turning fossil fuels to electricity.

[5] Low energy prices for the consumer are very important. Unfortunately, many analyses of the benefit of wind or of solar give a misleading impression of their true cost, when added to the electric grid. 

How should the cost of wind and solar be valued? It is simply the cost of installing the wind turbines or solar panels? Or does it include the all of the additional costs that an electricity delivery system must incur, if it is actually to incorporate this intermittent electricity into the electric grid system, and deliver it to customers where it is needed?

The standard answer, probably because it is easiest to compute, is that the cost is simply the cost (or energy cost) of the wind turbines or the solar panels themselves, plus perhaps an inverter. On this basis, wind and solar appear to be quite inexpensive. Many people have come to the conclusion that a transition to wind and solar might be helpful, based on this type of limited analysis.

Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated. Perhaps, the first few wind turbines and solar panels will not disturb the existing electrical grid system very much. But as more and more wind turbines or solar panels are added, there get to be additional costs. These include long distance transmission, electricity storage, and subsidies needed to keep backup electricity-generation in operation. When these costs are included, the actual total installed cost of delivering electricity gets to be far higher than the cost of the solar panels or wind turbines alone would suggest.

Energy researchers talk about the evaluation problem as being a “boundary issue.” What costs really need to be considered, when a decision is made as to whether it makes sense to add wind turbines or solar panels? Several other researchers and I feel that much broader boundaries are needed than are currently being used in most published analyses. We are making plans to write an academic article, explaining that current Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) calculations cannot really be compared to fossil fuel EROEIs, because of boundary issues. Instead, “Point of Use” EROEIs are needed. For wind and solar, Point of Use EROEIs will vary with the particular application, depending on the extent of the changes required to accommodate wind or solar electricity. In general, they are likely to be far lower than currently published wind and solar EROEIs. In fact, for some applications, they may be less than 1:1.

A related topic is return on human labor. Return on human labor is equivalent to how much a typical worker can afford to buy with his wages. In [4], we saw a situation where the cost of heating a home seems to increase, as a transition is made from (a) burning coal for direct use in heating, to (b) using electricity created by burning coal, to (c) using electricity created by wind turbines. This pattern is eroding the buying power of workers. This direction ultimately leads to collapse; it is not the direction that an economy would generally intentionally follow. If wind and solar are truly to be helpful, they need to be inexpensive enough that they allow workers to buy more, rather than less, with their wages.

[6] If we want heat in the winter, and we are trying to use solar and wind, we need to somehow figure out a way to store electricity from summer to winter. Otherwise, we need to operate a double system at high cost.

Energy storage for electricity is often discussed, but this is generally with the idea of storing relatively small amounts of electricity, for relatively short periods, such as a few hours or few days. If our real need is to store electricity from summer to winter, this will not be nearly long enough.

In theory, it would be possible to greatly overbuild the wind and solar system relative to summer electricity needs, and then build a huge amount of batteries in order to store electricity created during the summer for use in the winter. This approach would no doubt be very expensive. There would likely be considerable energy loss in the stored batteries, besides the cost of the batteries themselves. We would also run the risk of exhausting resources needed for solar panels, wind turbines, and/or batteries.

A much more workable approach would be to burn fossil fuels for heat during the winter, because they can easily be stored. Biomass, such as wood, can also be stored until needed. But it is hard to find enough biomass for the whole world to burn for heating homes and for cooking, without cutting down an excessively large share of the world’s trees. This is a major reason why moving away from fossil fuels is likely to be very difficult.

[7] There are a few countries that use an unusually large share of electricity in their energy mixes today. These countries seem to be special cases that would be hard for other countries to emulate.

Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy indicates that the following countries have the highest proportion of electricity in their energy mixes.

  • Sweden – 72.7%
  • Norway – 69.5%
  • Finland – 59.9%
  • Switzerland – 57.5%

These are all countries that have low population and a significant hydroelectric supply. I would expect that the hydroelectric power is very inexpensive to produce, especially if the dams were built years ago, and are now fully paid for. Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland also have electricity from nuclear providing about a third of each of their electricity supplies. This nuclear electricity was built long ago, and thus is now paid for as well. The geography of countries may also reduce the use of traffic by cars, thus reducing the portion of gasoline in their energy mixes. It would be difficult for other countries to create equivalently inexpensive large supplies of electricity.

In general, rich countries have higher electricity shares than poorer countries:

  • OECD Total – (Rich countries) – 2015 – 44.5%
  • Non- OECD (Less rich countries) – 2015 – 39.3%

China is an interesting example. Its share of energy use from electricity changed as follows from 1985 to 2015:

  • China – 1985 – 17.5%
  • China – 2015 – 43.6%

In 1985, China seems to have used most of its coal directly, rather than converting it for use as electricity. This was likely not difficult to do, because coal is easy to transport, and it can be used for many heating needs simply by burning it. Later, industrialization allowed for much more use of electricity. This explains the rise in its electricity ratio to 43.6% in 2015, which is almost as high as the rich country ratio of 44.5%. If the electricity ratio rises further, it will likely be because electricity is being put to use in ways where it has less of a cost advantage, or even has a cost disadvantage, such as for heating and cooking.

[8] Hydroelectric power is great for balancing wind and solar, but it is available in limited quantities. It too has intermittency problems, limiting how much it can be counted on. 

If we look at month-to-month hydroelectric generation in the US, we see that it too has intermittency problems. Its high month is May or June, when snow melts and sends hydroelectric output higher. It tends to be low in the fall and winter, so is not very helpful for filling the large gap in needed electricity in the winter.

Figure 4. US hydroelectric power by month, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.

It also has a problem with not being very large relative to our energy needs. Figure 5 shows how US hydro, or the combination of hydro plus solar plus wind (hydro+S+W), matches up with current natural gas consumption.

Figure 5. US consumption of natural gas compared to hydroelectric power and to compared to wind plus solar plus hydro (hydro+W+S), based on US Energy Information Administration data.

Of course, the electricity amounts (hydro and hydro+S+W) are “grossed up” amounts, showing how much fossil fuel energy would be required to make those quantities of electricity. If we want to use the electricity for heating homes and offices, or for cooking, then we should compare the heat energy of natural gas with that of hydro and hydro+S+W. In that case, the hydro and hydro+S+W amounts would be lower, amounting to only 38% of the amounts shown.

This example shows how limited our consumption of hydro, solar, and wind is compared to our current consumption of natural gas. If we also want to replace oil and coal, we have an even bigger problem.

[9] If we need to get along without fossil fuels for electricity generation, we would have to depend greatly on hydroelectric power. Hydro tends to have considerable variability from year to year, making it hard to depend on.

Nature varies not just a little, but a lot, from year to year. Hydro looks like a big stable piece of the total in Figures 1 and 2 that might be used for balancing wind and solar’s intermittency, but when a person looks at the year by year data, it is clear that the hydro amounts are quite variable at the country level.

Figure 3. Electricity generated by hydroelectric for six large European countries based on BP 2016 Statistical Review of World Energy.

In fact, hydroelectric power is even variable for larger groupings, such as the six countries in Figure 6 combined, and some larger countries with higher total hydroelectric generation.

Figure 4. Hydroelectricity generated by some larger countries, and by the six European countries in Figure 3 combined.

What we learn from Figures 6 and 7 is that even if a great deal of long distance transmission is used, hydro will be variable from year to year. In fact, the variability will be greater than shown on these charts, because the quantity of hydro available tends to be highest in the spring, and is often much lower during the rest of the year. (See Figure 4 for US hydro.) So, if a country wants to depend on hydro as its primary source of electricity, that country must set its expectations quite low in terms of what it can really count on.

And, of course, Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern countries don’t have any hydroelectric power at all. Middle Eastern countries tend not to have biomass, either. So if these countries choose to use wind and solar to assist in electrical generation, and want to balance their intermittency with something else, they pretty much need to use something that is locally available, such as natural gas. Other countries with very low amounts of hydro (or none at all) include Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Denmark, Netherlands, and South Africa.

These issues provide further reasons why countries will want to continue using fossil fuels, and perhaps nuclear, if they can.

[10] There has been a misunderstanding regarding the nature of our energy problem. Many people believe that we will “run out” of fossil fuels, or that the price of oil and other fuels will rise very high. In fact, our problem seems to be one of affordability: energy prices don’t rise high enough to cover the rising cost of producing electricity and other energy products. Adding wind and solar tends to make the problem of low commodity prices worse.   

Ultimately, consumers can purchase only what their wages will allow them to purchase. Rising debt can help as well, for a while, but this has limits. As a result, lack of wage growth translates to a lack of growth in commodity prices, even if the cost of producing these commodities is rising. This is the opposite of what most people expect; most people have never considered the possibility that peak energy will come from low prices for all types of energy products, including uranium. Thus, we seem to be facing peak energy demand (represented as low prices), arising from a lack of affordability.

We can see the problem in the example of the Beijing family with a rising cost of heating its apartment. Economists would like to think that rising costs translate to rising wages, but this is not the case. If rising costs are the result of diminishing returns (for example, coal is from deeper, thinner coal seams), the impact is similar to growing inefficiency. The inefficient sector needs more workers and more resources, leaving fewer resources and workers for other more efficient sectors. The result is an economy that tends to contract because of growing inefficiency.

If we want to operate a double system, using wind and solar when it is available, and using fossil fuels at other times, the cost will be very high. The problem arises because the fossil fuel system has many fixed costs. For example, coal mines and natural gas companies need to continue to pay interest on their loans, or they will default. Pipelines need to operate 365 days per year, regardless of whether they are actually full. The question is how to get enough funding for this double system.

One pricing system for electricity that doesn’t work well is the “market pricing system” based on each producer’s marginal costs of production. Wind and solar are subsidized, so they tend to have negative marginal costs of production. It is impossible for any other type of electricity producer to compete in this system. It is well known that this system does not produce enough revenue to maintain the whole system.

Sometimes, additional “capacity payments” are auctioned off, to try to fix the problem of inadequate total wholesale electricity prices. If we believe the World Nuclear Organization, even these charges are not enough. Several US nuclear power plants are scheduled for closing, indirectly because this pricing methodology is making older nuclear power plants unprofitable. Natural gas prices have also been too low for producers in recent years. This electricity pricing methodology is one of the reasons for this problem as well, in my opinion.

A different pricing system that works much better in our current situation is the utility pricing system, or “cost plus” pricing. In this system, prices are determined by regulators, based on a review of all necessary costs, including appropriate profit margins for producers. In the case of a double system, it allows prices to be high enough to cover all the needed costs, including the extra long distance transmission lines, plus all of the high fixed costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, operating for fewer hours per year.

Of course, these much higher electricity rates eventually will become unaffordable for the consumer, leading to a cutback in purchases. If enough of these cutbacks in purchases occur, the result will be recession. But at least the electricity system doesn’t fail at an early date because of inadequate profits for its producers.

Conclusion

The possibility of making a transition to an all-renewables system seems virtually impossible, for the reasons I have outlined above. I have outlined many other issues in previous posts:

The topic doesn’t seem to go away, because it is appealing to have a “solution” to what seems to be a predicament with no solution. In a way, wind and solar are like a high-cost placebo. If we give these to the economy, at least people will think we are treating the problem, and maybe our climate problem will get a little better.

Meanwhile, we find more and more real life problems with intermittent renewables. Australia has had a series of blackouts. A several-hour blackout in South Australia was tied partly to the high level of intermittent energy on the grid. The ways of reducing future recurrences appear to be very expensive.

Antonio Turiel has written about the problems that Spain is encountering. Spain added large amounts of wind and solar, but these have not been available during a recent cold spell. It added gas by pipeline from Algeria, but now Algeria has cut back on the amount it is supplying. It has added transmission lines north to France. Now, Turiel is concerned that Spain’s electricity prices will be persistently higher, because he believes that France has not taken sufficient preparations to meet its own electricity needs. If there were little interconnectivity between countries, France’s electricity problems would stay in France, rather than adversely affecting its neighbors. A person begins to wonder: Can transmission lines have an adverse impact on new electricity supply? If a country can hope that “the market” will supply electricity from elsewhere, does that country take adequate steps to provide its own electricity?

In my opinion, the time has come to move away from believing that everything that is called “renewable” is helpful to the system. We now have real information on how expensive wind and solar are, when indirect costs are included. Unfortunately, in the real world, high-cost is ultimately a deal killer, because wages don’t rise at the same time. We need to understand where we really are, not live in a fairy tale world produced by politicians who would like us to believe that the situation is under control.

Scott Pruitt’s nomination — a call for support so he can stop the trainwreck that is the EPA

Joanne Nova

Donald Trump nominated  the man who is the expert at running lawsuits against the EPA to run it. Naturally this threatens a lot of sacred totems, not to mention a very big trough.  Protests are raging. In reply, people are speaking up in support of Pruitt.

Those who think his nomination should be opposed are confused saying that “Mr. Pruitt’s backers tout it as a virtue that he has sued the EPA. … In every instance, Mr. Pruitt has joined forces with polluting industries seeking to avoid clean up responsibilities.

The EPA is so lost, it doesn’t know what real pollution is anymore. Opposing the EPA is what any good environmentalist would do.

The EPA is so lost, it doesn’t know what real pollution is anymore. Opposing the EPA is what any good environmentalist would do.

The religious mission against plant fertilizer in the hope of holding back the tide by half a millimeter in 2100 is noxious, damaging, dangerous in so many ways. It deprives the poor of cheap energy, good jobs, and warm houses. It hurts the environment because it makes the EPA, the US, so much less effective at solving real environmental problems. The pogrom against carbon (we are carbon life forms) is anti-science, eating away at the core tenets of the scientific method, and teaching a whole generation nonsense. The CO2 fixation is over-riding every other environmental issue because the EPA makes it so. The toxic effect the EPA has on the broader community, the economy, on science and on education makes this more important than any single environmental issue today.

The EPA has run so far off the rails that only someone who has opposed it could possibly fix it. Trump can’t defeat the madness on his own. The nomination hearing is Wednesday morning US time. And Dr Nan Hayworth is collecting messages and names in support. If you want to add your name and thoughts below in comments or email them to me, I will forward them to her. Thank you. And if you think that international names don’t count, remember that science is bigger than any one country, and if Obama can threaten the Brits on Brexit, why can’t Brits help explain what science is (and what pollution is) to Congress.

Here’s one from Professor J. Scott Armstrong:

Dear Dr. Hayworth,                                                                                                  January 15, 2017

Following up on your correspondence with Willie Soon, I strongly agree with the policies favored by Scott Pruitt.I have spent over 50 years as a forecaster and, over the past decade, have had the pleasure of working with Willie Soon, who I view as one of the leading climate scientists in the world. Along with Kesten Green, I am a Director of the primary website dealing with forecasting methods, author of Long-Range Forecasting, and of a handbook on forecasting methods, “Principles of Forecasting.”Our studies have produced what we claim to be the only evidence-based forecasts of long-term global mean temperatures: there is no evidence that long-term warming is occurring.I proposed a ten-year bet with Al Gore on this issue in order to increase interest in testing predictive validity. (Ten years is not sufficient time to assess long-term trends and I expected to have only a 2/3 chance of winning, given natural variability). Mr. Gore refused to take the bet, so Kesten Green has been posting what would have happened had he done so on theclimatebet.com. Year nine just ended.We have been unable to find scientific forecasts showing that that warming would be harmful. I testified before Senator Boxer’s committee on this matter with respect to polar bears. My testimony was based on this paper.We have been unable to find any scientific forecast that there are cost-effective ways to affect global temperatures, up or down.

Here is a short summary of the above studies on climate change.

Kesten Green and I have recently founded the Iron Law of Regulation website. This states that “There is no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by the political interventions intended to fix it.” We started the site with an attempt to get evidence about regulations that have been useful and thus to help design new regulations. No one has been able to produce scientific evidence about regulations that have violated the aforementioned Iron Law (i.e., to have actually improved human welfare, not to mention the preservation of individual liberties).

Kesten Green and I are currently involved with a paper called “Guidelines for Science.” In it, we document that much research currently published in academic journals violates the basic scientific principle of objectivity: We call this “advocacy research.” It allows researchers to announce their hypotheses and then to provide only the research that supports their hypotheses. This is the method used in the research papers that support the “global warming hypothesis.” This is not science and scientists have warned of this non-scientific approach for centuries. We have developed a checklist that can enable clients to evaluate whether a paper complies with scientific principles; it can be completed by intelligent adults, regardless of background, in less than an hour and we find good inter-rater reliability. The latest working paper, version #378, is attached.

I look forward to a favorable outcome for your hearings and would be willing to help in any way that I can.

Best,

Scott

J. Scott Armstrong, Professor

The Wharton School, JMHH 747
U. of Pennsylvania, Phila., PA 19104
Home Phone 610-622-6480
homepage

 

Rating: 10.0/10 (69 votes cast)

Scott Pruitt’s nomination — a call for support so he can stop the trainwreck that is the EPA, 10.0 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Is 100% Of “US Warming” Due To NOAA Data Tampering?

Final wind-turbine rule permits thousands of eagle deaths

Fox News

Fox News  (Fox News)

The Obama administration on Wednesday finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years — even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.

The new rule will conserve eagles while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“No animal says America like the bald eagle,” Ashe said in a statement.  He said the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to balance energy development with eagle conservation.

Wind power has increased significantly since Obama took office, and wind turbines as tall as 30-story buildings are rising across the country. The wind towers have spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan, and blades reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

The surge in wind power has generally been well-received in the environmental community, but bird deaths — and eagle deaths in particular — have been a source of contention.

The birds are not endangered species but are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs without a permit.

It’s unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings.

Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are about 143,000 bald eagles in the United States, and 40,000 golden eagles. Ashe called recovery of the bald eagle “one of our greatest national conservation achievements.”

The rule is set to take effect in mid-January, days before Obama leaves office. President-elect Donald Trump could change the rule or scrap it, but the process would likely takes months or years.

Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy said Wednesday that his group has “some serious concerns” that the new rule will not do not enough to sustain populations of threatened eagles.

Still, Hutchins said, he is encouraged that the rule requires independent contractors to provide data on bird kills to the government, rather than allowing energy companies to submit the information. He also praised a requirement for greater public reporting of data on the numbers of birds killed by wind turbines.

Permits issued by the government would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill.

Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said the industry was still reading the final rule, but said wind companies “strongly support its core purpose — eagle conservation.”

The industry is working to further reduce what he said was a “minimal impact” it has on eagles in hopes of “maintaining healthy eagle populations for generations to come,” Kiernan said.

Even with warm 2016/17 winter, US 20+ year trends are still down

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

This winter has started in December with some frigid cold, especially the central. Here is the last 7 days and the forecast the next 5 days.

ncep_cfsv2_28_t2anom_usa-4

gefs_t2ma_5d_conus_23-1

Maps courtesy of Weatherbell.com

Though many have argued the so called ‘pause’ was clearly over, it appears not. The pop in 2015/16 was related to El Nino.

NCDC (now NCEI) has the Climate at a Glance tool I frequently use for temperature and precipitation trend. I have used it in recent years to examine trends in winters the last 18 to 20 years. It was argued a few years back the cooling it showed was biased by the significant El Nino of 1997/98. Even after the (1) new NOAA methodology (removal of UHI adjustment, TOBS. homogenization) that made 1997/98 less warm and (2) the 2011/12 and 2015/16 warm spikes (perhaps slightly enhanced by the changes), what was called the pause (really a cooling trend) is still there in the last 20 year period for December to March.

For the nation, we have seen a cooling rate of -1.63F/century.

The NCEI CAAG site allows you to look at regional changes. I looked first at U.S. Climate Regions (Upper Midwest/Great Lakes, Ohio Valley and Northeast.

The cooling was greatest in the Upper Midwest (an amazing rate of -11.9F/century).


The Ohio Valley has cooled at a rate of -9.1F/century.

The northeast has cooled at a rate of -7.4F/century for December to March periods

Then I looked at larger NWS regions (administrative):

The large 14 state central region shows a cooling rate of -5.9F/century.

The large 16 state Eastern Region a cooling of -7.1F/century even with the 2011/12 and 2015/16 spikes.

Despite some ups and downs, we expect this year will be colder than last winter and keep the trend going.

To see how far back I could go and get a negative trend, I went to 1995 for the CONUS and found no warming trend (a not statistically significant cooling of 0.25F/century) the last 22 years.

Though the jump in major snows in the east was attributed in the media to global warming and resulting more moisture. I would argue the land cooling is responsible. Sellers back in the middle 1900’s speculated snow would increase after warm periods and the increased snowcover would initiate or enhance any cooling that followed.

 

The world needs more energy!

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

Steven Lyazi

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most important. Nothing happens without energy.

For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy. But the amount and quality of that energy was limited, and therefore what people could do was also limited.

Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do.

They are held back, condemned to continued energy poverty – and thus to real poverty and the diseases, malnutrition and desperation that go with that absence of modern energy. This is partly because many nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders, who care only about enriching themselves, their families, and their close friends, allies and supporters.

But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.

They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

And when they talk about renewable energy, they mean the very limited energy – and economic growth – that come from wind and solar power, or from growing crops for energy instead of to feed our hungry people. They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations.

They are rich and well fed, enjoying amazing homes and jobs and technologies in their modern countries. But they tell us poor Africans (and other people) that we must limit our energy and dreams to whatever can come from expensive, insufficient kinds of energies to serve our large and growing populations. This is greedy and selfish, the kind of attitude of people who only think of themselves.

Yes, they use renewable energy, but only a little. Almost all their energy still comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro power. Only a tiny amount comes from wind, solar or biofuels – that they say should be our only sources of energy.

They have money and power, and they can influence what happens to us. But they are causing massive poverty, disease, starvation and death in third world countries.

I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming. I agree that everyone should help ensure that we live in a clean environment. Everyone wants that, and to see their children and grandchildren living in a clean environment.

But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.

It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

Maybe they are right, and humans are warming the earth or changing the climate – a little. But our weather and climate have always changed, and the world was even warmer during the dinosaur era than it is today, and much colder during the ice ages, with no human activities. Climate change has been going on for millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean today’s changes are because of humans or will be disasters.

Environmental agencies and groups say the world is changing and try to tell us what to do to prevent these changes, which they say will all be bad. But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.

We’ve all been scared to death by horror movies, especially films that are just plausible enough to make us think it could happen. But when these movies (or computer models) are used to scare us away from fossil fuels, that is wrong and we should not be frightened.

What these rich country movie actors, politicians, regulators, scientists and activists forget is that our planet and environment have existed for millions of years, have changed over and over, and will continue to exist either with or without human interference. But we humans have to live here too.

Denying people their right to use fossil fuels is the worst thing someone can do to a fellow human. Western powers developed massively due to cheap fossil fuels and today live like kings. They have no right to deny their living standards to people in developing countries.

Who invented the terms “developing countries” or “third world countries” anyway”? All countries have been developing at some point. In fact, they are always still developing, all the time.

The only wrong interpretation is to say “third world countries” do not have a God-given right to use all their energy, minerals and other resources to develop themselves, and get rich, create good jobs for their people, end poverty and disease, and grow enough food to make everyone well fed and healthy.

In fact, here is a thought for all African leaders: A collective mindset supporting development will make Africa as great as any other region on earth. We all just need to unite around this idea.

The recent United States elections disappointed many people, but made many others happy. To me, they may be a very good thing. They might mean the new President Trump will be a good leader for the entire world. He might make more people question these claims that fossil fuels cause dangerous global warming – and encourage everyone to use more oil, gas and coal to improve our lives, until smart people someday discover different energy sources that really do work.

We all desire to be healthy and live better lives, just like people in developed countries. Yes, we have had greedy, selfish leaders in the past who might have contributed to our status today. But we can and must learn from our mistakes, and Mr. Trump wants to correct his and Mr. Obama’s mistakes.

African and other countries need abundant energy for economic growth. They need all kinds of energy, especially fossil fuels, to become modern and make people’s lives better.

Anyone who tries to prevent us from using these energy resources is denying us our right to improve our lives, and even our right to live, which is the most fundamental right of any human. That is wrong and immoral, and we will no longer tolerate it.

____________

Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015.

Tossing another climate scare talking point into the circular file

Anthony Sadar

One of the standard mantras of those pushing their superior knowledge of Earth’s future climate – including those who politicize science to sway the electorate – is the talking point that says climate scientists were not all that concerned about a coming ice age back in the 1960s and ’70s.

But it’s funny what you can run into when rummaging through old files.

I’ve done a lot of teaching since the mid-1980s and so have amassed a huge collection of class materials.  Of course, at some point, those materials need to be sorted; consolidated; and, in many cases, discarded.

So, when reviewing documentation from the late ’80s, I happened upon a rejection letter dated 3 April 1989 from the then editor John Maddox of the prestigious journal Nature (still one of the leading science magazines in the world).  I had sent Nature a letter regarding a 1977 paperback book titled Our Changing Weather: Forecast of Disaster? by Claude Rose.  My letter noted the teaser on the back cover of the book that claimed: “Northern hemisphere temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s.  Glaciers are advancing once again.  Scientists no longer debate the coming of a new ice age: the question now is when?”

Editor John Maddox’s correspondence stated that the magazine could not publish my letter because “[t]he difficulty is that it is well-known in the scientific community that as recently as 15 years ago climatologists were more worried about the prospect of the ice age returning than by the greenhouse effect.”  (Of course, the “greenhouse effect” was the popular designation at the time for what has since morphed into “global warming,” then “climate change.”)  Maddox went on to point out how “Professor Hubert Lamb [a top climate scientist of the time], recently retired from the University of East Anglia [where Lamb founded the Climatic Research Unit], wrote a whole book on the subject.”

We also know that the popular press, such as Time, Newsweek, and National Geographic, during the period was picking up on the scientific sense that an ice age was looming.

With my own witness in meteorology classes at Penn State in the mid-’70s of assertions concerning the coming of the next ice age, not a sweltering globe, the claim that climate scientists were not all that concerned about a coming ice age back then should be debunked.

That claim should be a lesson to “settled science,” and the only settling that claim should do is at the bottom of a circular file.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).