On November 30, 2020 Roger Pielke, jr posted “The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science”. It was subtited : “Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult”.
It is almost a year and a half since posting but the problem still exists.
President Biden has called for 50% of all new car and light truck sales be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by 2030. Even more draconian laws from States like California say:
“…….. all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide”.
That means no gasoline vehicle sales can be made in California after 2035.
What is the outcome of these proposals that only allow ZEV to be made? The Fuels Institute, a proponent of the man-made global warming, posted “Reducing carbon emissions effectively-now and tomorrow” has the answer. The charts premise is that of California’s pathway, meaning 100% of new car sales are ZEVs and no new fossil fuel powered cars can be sold.
“As the chart shows, in a hypothetical scenario in which all U.S. light duty vehicle sales are required to be ZEV in 2035, the market would likely only convert 16.5% of vehicles in operation to ZEV by that time. This would leave 83.5% of vehicles in 2035 still operating primarily on liquid fuels used in combustion engines with a potential life expectancy of longer than 20 years. This means that BEVs and a cleaner electricity grid will not be able to significantly cut transportation-related CO2e emissions for many years to come, resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations that will linger for another 100-plus years
It might be possible for the manufacturers to make enough ZEVs, but it may not make any difference if the manufacturers can. The cost, the range anxiety, the charging time, fires, etc. have turned off the common man buying ZEVs so far.
Open Letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Your leadership regarding Climate Change is very important. Your members must weigh in on the nearly a half of trillion dollars of subsidies for the so-called renewable energy projects and directing legislation to stop the urge of the Democrats to rush headlong into unproven schemes to replace fossil fuels.
Your Email for contributions has a list of your objectives beyond just energy that are things I hope you can obtain though it will be uphill with the Senate and Executive in the hands of the Democrats. I hope you can find ways to block the Biden Administration’s plans.
This letter is to focus on just one part of the House’s objectives and that is to counter the disinformation that the global warming alarmists have been spewing. The way things work now are—-Media support the alarmist’s “experts” and they know that there will be no significant effort by skeptics to counter the alarmists.
“The recent polling showed only 16% of Americans said they have a “great deal or quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers with only 11% of Americans having confidence in television. It represented a 5% decrease since 2021 and was also the lowest rating given towards newspapers since Gallup’s original poll back in 1973.
And there is no need not be afraid of the title “skeptic”. Almost without exception skeptics believe that the globe is warming.
The skeptics need a microphone that is so big it can work around the media. I think the House of Representatives can do this.
The House could have regular sessions of skeptical testimony. The House should rely on the skeptical experts, of which there are many, to counteract the alarmists. Don’t be afraid to allow the alarmists “experts” to testify, too. The alarmists usually get beaten in debates with the skeptics. In fact they have a reluctance to debate. Try getting Al Gore to debate any skeptical expert. No way, he always backs out. You will be doing this to help educate all of the Members of the House of Representatives. Record all the sessions and publish them on YouTube.
The site names 1010 experts listed by country. (The site needs to update the list as it has now grown to 1499 experts.)
The Skeptical Daily post a summary regarding the skeptics on the lists and some notable quotes. They call the list of the skeptic experts a Declaration.
“The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. A lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yield of crops worldwide.”
Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiraled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.
These experts get printed in skeptic websites, but we need to widen the audience.
Firstand foremost the media, the alarmists and some educators have convinced the young that they may die soon. This poisoning of our childrens minds must be stopped.
“The climate crisis can be overwhelming. (Click on that climate link. See what the kids are being taught.)
Statistics often paint a dire picture of the earth’s trajectory. The UN has warned that existing climate pledges provide ‘no credible pathway’ to preventing temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Deadly floods and fires are on the rise, while global wildlife populations have shrunk 70 per cent since 1970.
Presented with these facts, it’s easy to sink into eco-anxiety. Previous studies have proven that this distress is heightened in children and the new survey confirms this.”
Secondly, the public should know that the basis of the catastrophic climate change is the computer forecasted global temperatures. It goes, things get very hot, glaciers melt, sea level rises, cities are deluged with sea water, crops cannot survive, creatures cannot adapt to temperatures and huge extinctions occur, etc.
The following chart shows that the forecast temperatures by the alarmist are higher than the actual temperature readings and that the forecast temperatures become more ridiculous as time goes by. These temperatures are the ones They use to forecast catastrophe.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. The actual temperatures noted in the chart are based upon weather balloons and satellite measurements. The actual temperatures are rising but not at the rate that will cause a catastrophic outcome. The computer produced temperature forecasts are used to brain wash our children.
“In 2023 it’s hard to avoid seeing images and headlines like these. The result for many is a deep seated fear, anxiety, and pessimism about the future. The topic of Climate Change (CC) has seeped into nearly every facet of our lives, and never in a positive way. It’s always present as a dark cloud hanging over society; a source of guilt for those who indulge in some of life’s most basic pleasures, the basis of moralistic judgments by those who like to signal their concern, and the cause of nihilism and hopelessness felt by many in the youngest generations.
Why does CC have such deeply negative connotations and harmful effects on people’s mental well being? Because we are constantly reminded of the six dark and destructive consequences of CC:
1) heat will cause millions to die or live in misery
2) tens of millions (some say billions) will be forced to migrate
3) a million or more species will become extinct in just a few decades
4) sea level rise will have disastrous world-wide consequences
5) agricultural production will be devastated, causing widespread famine
6) humanity will suffer floods, droughts, and other terrible natural disasters
These are the six pillars of climate change despair that activists and the media obsess over. The activists do it because they think they are saving the planet; the media do it because bad news gets more clicks than good news. Plus, they both do it to appear virtuous. They both keep ramping up the rhetoric so that with each passing year the predictions about each of these consequences become even more frightening and apocalyptic. There are some lesser concerns (eg. Arctic and glacier melting), but these six are the catastrophic ones.
No wonder so many people are depressed and pessimistic about the future. It shouldn’t be surprising there’s an epidemic of “climate change anxiety”.
But is it in any way justified? What is the truth (if any) behind these catastrophic predictions? That’s what I want to examine here. The fact is, every one of these pillars is made of sand, and crumbles apart when subjected to the slightest critical scrutiny.
The author, Doug R Rogers, puts together a comprehensive essay. Please read it to it end by clicking here.
The Fourth issue is the headlong race to decarbonize the world. Renewables (mostly wind and solar) are believed to be the future energy sources, leaving fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to be only available chemical feed stocks, for example. Combined with electric vehicles (EV) the globe will be free of carbon dioxide gas vented into the atmosphere they say.
The benefits accrued by fossil fuels are discounted in this rush to decarbonization. The benefits from vented CO2 are enormous. The greening of the globe has been the result of the vented CO2. Crops, such as wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, cane, etc. have skyrocketed in quantity feeding billions of new people.
Renewables are not reliable. What we know is that wind and solar are dependent on the weather. No wind, no sun, no renewable produced electrical energy. No where has a major grid sourced by solely wind and solar been demonstrated. No plans have been made to prove a grid can actually run solely on wind and solar. Grids have to be supplied 24/7 with NO interruptions. Yet we find that the politicians, urged on by the media, are willing to build more wind and solar capacity and prematurely shut down fossil fuels before they can prove that renewables can provide 24/7 with no interruptions.
The enormous upset that has occurred in western Europe would not have been so serious if renewable could have done the job. For example, Germany has renewables with name plate capacity greater than the nation’s electrical needs. But at times in September ‘22 the wind did not blow, and the sun shined only intermittently. So no matter what their nameplate capacity was, wind and solar were producing little to no electricity. That happened and they stumbled through, saved by natural gas and coal based production of electricity.
Obviously, there are many more issues than the several I have mentioned. I picked them because the first one, traumatizing our children has to be stopped NOW. The other three go right to the heart of the problem. The experts could line up excellent debates or testimonies at House Committee requests.
Expert testimony by skeptics has been ignored by the media. So how can we get around that?
Freelancers Wanted: Help Knock Out the Mainstream Propaganda Machine authored by Matt Taibbi is a plan to create a team to produce a document that knocks out the mainstream Propaganda machine. Perhaps supporters that could fund similar skeptical teams. There must be NGOs that are skeptical in their view. Find them, give them help with finance, programs and topics
Another interesting team is the Center of the American Experiment. The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles. One of their tasks has been to target the objectional courses that public schools in Minnesota are putting into their schooling. The Center of the American Experiment has people and programs to show what is going on and how to change it. The group will speak to PTAs school boards or other interested groups. This group has been successfully getting schools to drop radical racial material. This could be a model for another skeptical group to copy.
Work with the local TV stations. They are often in need of topics to produce for their locality. Hire people that know how to do communications. Make sure that Federal Departments that award research money gives skeptics fair treatment. If they don’t, you can have your way with their funding.
When Solar Cycle 25 activity is view versus the forecasted path and comparison to that of SC 24’s actual path seems to provide somewhat different conclusions.
The comparison of SC 24 and SC 25 when viewed at the same amount of time after the cycles started make them look like they are on the same track. Look at about 30 to 31 months after cycle start, the green line (SC 25) and the brown line (SC24) essentially at the same place. Graph curtsey of Solen.com
NOAAs Spaceweather has this to say about SC25’s activity.
“ SUNSPOT COUNTS HIT A 9-YEAR HIGH: In a continued sign of strength for Solar Cycle 25, sunspot counts just hit a 9-year high. This plot from NOAA shows how the monthly sunspot number skyrocketed in January 2023.”
Spaceweather‘s take is versus the official forecast chart, so that doesn’t mean much at any point in time except for the end point. The first chart shows only the smoothed sunspot number.
The Spaceweather chart goes beyond the smoothed sunspot numbers with the December and January raw numbers going up rapidly. SC last roughly 11 years. On the Spaceweather chart, it shows SC 24 sunspots jumped in 2012 which is 11 years ago.
We will have to wait to see if the numbers in the coming months continue the upward trend.
This has to be terrible news for Al Gore, John Kerry , Leo Dicaprio, etc. They have been saying that their use of jet fuel and diesel fuel for ocean cruisers was alright because they have been buying offsets. What will be their excuse now?
The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.
The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.
The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies – some of them have labelled their products “carbon neutral”, or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.
But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective.
The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra’s rainforest schemes.
It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings – which have been strongly disputed by Verra – are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies. https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2023/01/carbon_credits/giv-6562QtneEGS9p8ZT/ Verra, which is based in Washington DC, operates a number of leading environmental standards for climate action and sustainable development, including its verified carbon standard (VCS) that has issued more than 1bn carbon credits. It approves three-quarters of all voluntary offsets. Its rainforest protection programme makes up 40% of the credits it approves and was launched before the Paris agreement with the aim of generating revenue for protecting ecosystems.
Verra argues that the conclusions reached by the studies are incorrect, and questions their methodology. And they point out that their work since 2009 has allowed billions of dollars to be channelled to the vital work of preserving forests.
The investigation found that:
Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.
The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022 University of Cambridge study.
Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.
The two studies from the international group of researchers found just eight out of 29 Verra-approved projects where further analysis was possible showed evidence of meaningful deforestation reductions.
The journalists were able to do further analysis on those projects, comparing the estimates made by the offsetting projects with the results obtained by the scientists. The analysis indicated about 94% of the credits the projects produced should not have been approved.
Credits from 21 projects had no climate benefit, seven had between 98% and 52% fewer than claimed using Verra’s system, and one had 80% more impact, the investigation found.
Separately, the study by the University of Cambridge team of 40 Verra projects found that while a number had stopped some deforestation, the areas were extremely small. Just four projects were responsible for three-quarters of the total forest that was protected.
The journalists again analysed these results more closely and found that, in 32 projects where it was possible to compare Verra’s claims with the study finding, baseline scenarios of forest loss appeared to be overstated by about 400%. Three projects in Madagascar have achieved excellent results and have a significant impact on the figures. If those projects are not included, the average inflation is about 950%.
The studies used different methods and time periods, looked at different ranges of projects, and the researchers said no modelling approach is ever perfect, acknowledging limitations in each study. However, the data showed broad agreement on the lack of effectiveness of the projects compared with the Verra-approved predictions.
Last week the Great Reset group gathered in Davos Switzerland to continue contriving the destruction of capitalism using global warming as the vehicle. These so-called elites arrived using an alleged 1200 private jets. If they actually believed that carbon dioxide (CO2) is pushing the planet ultimately to an apocalypse, they would do these meetings by Zoom . But instead, they choose to create large amounts of jet engine exhausts of CO2 into the atmosphere. No, they believe that they should govern the planet. To do that they need to spark fear that global warming will bring on extinction. And only these elite can save you by turning governance over to them.
“Beware of the individual who refers to his ilk as “we select group of human beings.” It’s the unmistakable mark of the elite who believe their concern for climate can save the world. Mindful that those who guaranteed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines now associated with disturbing health anomalies derive from the same exclusive class, Americans should regard the purveyors of climate change remedies with studied caution.
The most self-assured of this sort have a habit of showing up for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering, which recently concluded in Davos, Switzerland. With his “select group” puffery, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, gathered his fellow discussion panelists and audience into a league of their own.
It is all a part of forum founder Klaus Schwab’s plan to “master the future” through climate change activism. Eager to oblige, Mr. Kerry urged all within earshot to rebuff any self-image of “a crazy tree-hugging lefty liberal” and embrace their identity of the “almost extraterrestrial” breed who are “saving the planet.” He made the case that the key to staying cool is “money, money, money, money, money, money, money”: The denizens of Davos want $3 trillion annually to finance greenhouse gas reductions.
By contrast, climate guru and former Vice President Al Gore showed little hesitation in personifying the crazy tree-hugger. Referring to human-caused atmospheric emissions, the Davos forum regular claimed, “That’s what is boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land, creating the droughts and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach one billion in this century.”
All this “settled science” from a self-appointed climate expert who, according to The Washington Post, could not quite manage a gentleman’s C in his Harvard science classes.”
I think that this man-made catastrophe theory will only be abandoned when the cost to fund this program becomes too high for the average citizen and/or explicit examples of failures become so common that people will no longer put up with it. A major failure would be a long stretch of global cooling. High priced electricity and frequent black outs will be a trigger too. And ultimately when it becomes known that renewables are useless without backup nuclear and/or fossil fuels.
When politicians are faced with being voted out, we will be able to drop this crap.
Real science will then out the charlatan’s “settled science” and they will be defamed.
The average citizen may become distrustful of any scientist, unfortunately because of this.
The American Thinker site posted a blog “Too Wet? Too Dry? It’s All Climate Change”. The author Brian Joondeph debunks the catastrophic global warming. He begins with:
“Climate change, as defined by the United Nations: “Refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle.” That’s actually a good definition.”
“But not willing to leave well enough alone, the UN goes further, spoiling a simple and straightforward definition with: “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”
“It is amazing that before humans burned fossil fuels two centuries ago, it was only natural cycles that changed the climate, not backyard barbecues, gas stoves, and SUVs. Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling, followed by melting of mile-thick ice over the upper Midwest due to global warming, multiple times over the Earth’s history, long before there was any significant human activity.”
“Climate change” was first mentioned in 1975, but this was a time when climate scientists could not decide if temperatures were rising or falling, attributing sinister causes rather than natural and cyclic warming and cooling trends which have long preceded humans and their activities”.
“Since then, climate change has engulfed more than temperature, adding weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts, and flooding. It seems that any deviation from a sunny day with temperatures in the mid ’70s with a light breeze is evidence of climate change and Republicans scheming to destroy the planet”
“The New York Times, in 2014, ran an opinion piece titled, “The end of snow?” predicting the demise of winter sports and the Winter Olympics due to global warming. Eight years later in 2022, the New York Times told us, “How climate change can supercharge snowstorms.”. Or also in 2022 how, “The deadly freeze that swept the United States was extraordinary, but while scientists know that global warming can intensify extreme weather, the effects on winter storm are tricky to untangle.”
“Tricky indeed. Climate change causes both not enough and too much snow. How does that work? But it’s not only snow but water, both not enough and too much, all due to omnipotent climate change.”
From there he examines the droughts in California. He cites the California Department of Water Resources relating the droughts are frequent. They also say floods are frequent too.
“Again, floods are normal and expected. They are nothing new. Here are photos of floods going back 150 years. “
The man-made global warming alarmists are trying to prevent the poor nations from getting fossil fuels to build their nations wealth. Loans to provide money to build electrification facilities powered by fossil fuels are denied. But these nations will not be denied. They will not be tricked into building unreliable wind or solar farms. China for example installs, each year, more new coal based plants than the rest of the world combined. Annual coal consumption is setting new records. And the hypocrisy of particularly of the EU Nations that have turned to coal to power their nations when their wind, and solar are unable to make up for the lost natural gas supplies from Russia. Just one more reason for the poorer nations to turn to fossil fuels.
RealClear Energy posted an entry by Robert Bryce titled “Solar Energy Rejections in 2022 that refutes mainstream media’s assertion that the rejections are due to energy companies “misinformation. The following comes from Bryce’s entry:
“You won’t read about this in The New York Times or TheNew Yorker, but 2022 was a record year for the number of solar energy projects that were rejected by rural communities in the United States.
In all, more than 40 Ohio townships adopted measures last year that prohibit the construction of large solar or wind projects, or both. Across the U.S., about 106 communities have rejected or restricted solar projects since 2017. The number of wind rejections also jumped last year, with 55 communities enacting ordinances or other measures that prohibit the installation of large wind facilities. Since 2015, about 360 communities across the U.S. have rejected or restricted wind projects. (Note that last year, I published numbers that were slightly higher than that. In my continuing updates to the database, I found some entries that were duplicates and deleted them.)
To be sure, these facts, and these numbers, don’t fit with the narrative being peddled by legacy media outlets. Last year, National Public Radio ran an article claiming that rural Americans were peddling “misinformation” in their efforts to prevent wind and solar projects from being built in their neighborhoods. Last month, an article published in TheNew York Times claimed that opposition to wind projects in Michigan included “anti-wind activists with ties to groups backed by Koch Industries.” But the reporter who wrote the article, David Gelles, didn’t provide any proof of any Koch connections. (Gelles did not reply to two emails asking him for substantiation of his claim.) Last month in The New Yorker, climate activist Bill McKibben claimed that “front groups sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry have begun sponsoring efforts to spread misinformation about wind and solar energy.” But like Gelles, McKibben didn’t provide any proof for his claim.
In all of the years I’ve been reporting on these issues, I have seen no evidence of Koch funding or “front groups” sponsored by the hydrocarbon sector. What I have seen is an increasing effort by the wind and solar lobbies and their claqueurs to discredit people who stand in the way of these projects. Perhaps that’s not surprising. Tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits are at stake. Companies like Apex Clean Energy can’t feed at the federal trough if they don’t build projects.
Land-use conflicts are the binding constraint on the growth of renewables. The fundamental limitation isn’t money, it’s physics. Wind and solar energy have low power density. That means that attempting to use them to displace large quantities of hydrocarbons will require staggering amounts of land. For instance, last year, Jesse Jenkins and several of his colleagues at Princeton University produced a model to predict how much new wind and solar capacity could be built due to the supertanker of cash that Congress earmarked for renewables in the Inflation Reduction Act. In a Q&A published in these pages last year, Jenkins told me that the land required to accommodate the hundreds of megawatts of new wind and solar under the IRA would require a land area about the size of Tennessee. Here’s a newsflash: we don’t have any spare Tennessees lying around.
Rural Americans are fighting back against wind and solar projects because they want to retain the character of their townships, ranches, farms, and villages. And no amount of spin from The New York Times will change that fact.”