John Hinderaker at Powerline posts that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) new surface temperature measurement system in the U.S., which began in 2005, shows no warming in the U.S. since that time.
The National Post carries a piece by Rex Murphy in which he reports that celebrities and the super-rich are flocking to Sicily to attend the Google-sponsored Summer Camp to discuss global warming. How are they getting there, you might ask? Rex tells us:
How did this coven of illuminati get to Sicily? Did they walk and row? Come by Greyhound? Hitchhike? Nein. Official count of the private jets wafting into Palermo air for the “great consult” stands at 114. This for a maximum 300 people attending — three persons per jet.
Not all came from the carbon-rich sky. Some came by personal super-yacht.
These are not self-propelling bathtub toys. Outside of aircraft carriers and (“hi, irony”) supertankers, none want oil more. Super-yachts are vultures, gluttonous for fossil fuels. They can be rivaled only by the excesses of private jets flying thousands of miles to hold meetings to persuade the poor of the world to cut down on the consumption of fossil fuels.
For these folks, it’s do as I say, not as I do. Why is anybody listening to them? Rex’s perspective is spot on, and the article is well worth the read.
Have you noticed that every time the weather changes for the worse, “climate change” is to blame? If it floods, it’s due to climate change. If there is a drought, it’s due to climate change. If it’s extremely hot, it’s due to climate change. If it’s extremely cold, it’s due to climate change.
Well, Scott Adams is a great satirist, and below is his hilarious take on the climate change hysteria. Enjoy (click on image to enlarge)!
Thanks to the following newspapers for publishing two of my new op-eds!
- Deseret News, the Farmington Daily Times and the Towanda Daily Review carry my new op-ed in which I argue that the ACE rule offers a realistic plan to address climate concerns while still ensuring the future reliability of America’s power grid.
- The Waco Tribune-Herald carries my Texas specific op-ed where I conclude that it would be unwise to further reduce coal-fired generation in Texas given the high electricity needs of the state.
I live and work in Jefferson City, MO. It is Missouri’s capital city, situated in the middle of the state on the banks of the Missouri River. It’s a sleepy river town, and a great place to live for families.
Late Wednesday evening just before midnight, a strong ECF 3 tornado tore through the center of town, leaving lots of devastation in its wake. My office building was in the middle of its path. It sustained fairly extensive damage to the roof and windows, but at this point it looks repairable. Others were not so fortunate. The furniture store right next to my building was almost totally destroyed. With all of the damage, it it a miracle that there were no fatalities. Our early warning system saved lives, if not property.
I live on the west edge of town, 3-4 miles from downtown. The sirens going off woke me up around 11:45 pm, and I quickly switched on the TV. One of our local meteorologists was imploring everyone in Jefferson City to move to their basements NOW. Luckily, my neighborhood escaped unscathed. Others were not so lucky.
One of the more intriguing things I have seen on Twitter is the rush to politicize the tragedy. One twitter post said: “Hey, climate change deniers, Jefferson City, Mo was just hit w a ef 4 maybe 5 tornado. When was the last time a mountainous river town had a tornado? Please stop #tornadojeffersoncity”. This tweet, and others like it, are just erroneous on so many levels.
First, Jefferson City is not “mountainous.” The city’s elevation is 630 ft. It is hilly, but nowhere near mountainous. Second, tornadoes are not that rare around this area. Records indicate that since 1950, a total of 56 historical tornado events that had recorded magnitude of 2 or above have occurred in or near Jefferson City, MO. We are located right in the heart of Tornado Alley. Since it is a rural area, most tornadoes that occur here inflict minimal property damage–it’s when they hit populous areas that you see the terrible destruction.
We spend a lot of time on tornado emergency preparedness here in Jefferson City as well as in the entire state. We have a first-rate warning system. We also have monthly state-wide testing of the warning systems during the spring and summer months. Our schools run regular tornado drills, and have been doing so decades before there was any talk about “climate change.”
The point is, blaming climate change on this tornado event is irresponsible, in poor taste, and just plain wrong-headed.
Here in the heartland, we are a resilient bunch. We face all kinds of extreme weather events–heat, cold, drought, floods, tornadoes, you name it. Blaming it all on “climate change” to score political points would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
One of my favorite blogs, Not a Lot of People Know That, never fails to bring some sanity to the Climate Change Debate. Today it carries a cautionary tale entitled ‘Unprecedented’: Energy operator in daily fight to keep lights on in Australia. It describes that the problems caused by an increasing level of wind and solar power have forced the power system to change faster than expected and that it was failing to keep up. Apparently, the grid is holding up but only because the energy market operator is intervening on a daily basis to keep the lights on.
This is one of the problems with relying too heavily on one source of energy, especially when that form of energy (renewables like wind and solar) only generates electricity intermittently. Wind and solar are becoming a more important part of our energy mix, but moving too fast, too soon is a recipe for disaster. It’s much better to have an “all of the above” strategy when is comes to energy policy in the United States.
The left is like the boy who cried wolf and Chicken Little. We need the Green New Deal because the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something, they cry.
Fox News carries this post by Maxim Lott which details 10 (actually only 9, no. 5 was skipped in the article–I’ll post an update if the article is corrected) instances where the experts predicted the world would end by a date certain. Last time I checked, we are still here. Here is a list (read the article for details):
1.– GLOBAL WARMING TO WIPE NATIONS “OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH” IF CLIMATE CHANGE NOT ADDRESSED BY YEAR 2000
2.– MASS STARVATION BY 1975
3.– GLOBAL FREEZING AS DANGEROUS AS NUCLEAR WAR
4.– MASSIVE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2000
6.– AL GORE SAYS 10 YEARS ARE LEFT IN 2006
7.– ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE WILL CAUSE “NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST” BY THE YEAR 2000
8.– MASS EXTINCTION BY 1995
9.– METALS DEPLETED BY 1990
10.– THE REAL REASON?
I would like to introduce readers to Paul Driessen. Paul is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues. I am happy to post his latest article below. It is a thoughtful take on the Green New Deal and climate change.
Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.
The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.
No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?
No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?
For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.
For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.
And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.
If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.
After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.
Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.
A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?
You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.
While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.
Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.
Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.
Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.
Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.
The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?
Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.
Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.
A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!
Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!
Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.
In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.
Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.
It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.
We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.
Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.
Even people on the left are abandoning ship on the Green New Deal. Lifezette reports that Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, ripped into New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend as a “pompous little twit,” saying the Green New Deal plan she’s advocating is “completely crazy.”
In a series of tweets, Moore argued that Ocasio-Cortez, who has called for drastically reducing fossil fuel production, doesn’t realize what would happen across the world if the radical plan were implemented.
“If fossil fuels were banned, every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating,” Moore said in a tweet Saturday directed at Ocasio-Cortez.
“You would bring about mass death,” he also said.
Moore said, “You don’t have a plan to grow food for eight billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities.”
Moore also unloaded on her for calling climate change “our World War II.”
“It’s her @GND that would be worse than WW2,” he said.
“Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
Gotta love President Trump’s take on the left’s pet project, the Green New Deal. He voiced his opinion in his speech over the weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Here is the quote, from Politico:
“The new green deal or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right?” Trump said. “I encourage it, I think it’s really something that they should promote. They should work hard on it. … No planes, no energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric — ‘Darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.”
You better not mess with Americans’ TV watching habits, or else you might have a rebellion on your hands.
The Seattle Times reports that Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) is running for president. His campaign will have a focused message that he’s the only candidate who would make defeating climate change the nation’s top priority. Can a candidate win the presidency solely on the climate change issue?
Turns out that with all of the issues that are facing our country, voters don’t view climate change as very important. According to this column by Robert Samuelson in the Investor’s Business Daily, polling showed that while many do consider climate change an important issue in isolation, it is not as important in comparison with other national issues.
Samuelson reports that Pew conducted a poll in 2018, asking about the importance of 19 public policy priorities. Dealing with Climate Change ranked next to last. Fighting terrorism and improving schools were ranked 1 and 2. What the poll suggests is that “Americans want government to do almost everything, from fighting terrorism to strengthening the economy to helping the poor … and on and on.”
The reality is that government can’t do everything for everybody. Practical politicians judge where public pressure demands action — and where it can be minimized or ignored. Combating global warming seems to be in a gray area. It bothers more and more people, but it hasn’t reached a critical mass of public opinion that would compel Congress and the White House to act decisively.
For a one-issue candidate with climate change as the one issue, success doesn’t seem very likely.
Over at the Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Menton posts the 21st–yes, the 21st!–in a series showing the shenanigans that go on under the ruse of climate “science.” It turns out that the climate alarmists like to manipulate the data to support their premise that temperatures are climbing. They accomplish this by adjusting earlier-year temperatures downward.
Earlier today I posted about the scandal brewing over the manipulation of data by climate “scientists” who are pushing the narrative that temperatures are rising so fast that we need action now. The Manhattan Contrarian (one of my favorite blogs!) carries this post from Francis Menton in which he describes “the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending ‘climate crisis.'” As you can tell from the title of his post, this is part 20 of a continuing saga. It is well worth the read!
The Western Journal carries an op-ed by Jay Lehr and Tom Harris in which they report about the egregious manipulations of data in the absurd global warming debate.
Meanwhile, over at Power Line, John Hinderaker provides the details about this scandal in his post The Greatest Scandal In The History Of Science.
Good Saturday Morning!
Over at the PowerLine blog, a post by John Hinderaker reports that climate scientist Judith Curry testified before Congress last week. Dr. Curry is a voice of reason in the climate change debate. It is well worth the read!
The website grabienews reports on an interview with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she had no qualms admitting that her proposed “green new deal” will require massive government intrusion into the private sector.
Well duh. For Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters, this has never been about global warming. It’s about control. Of everything. By those in power. When President Trump warned us about Socialism in his SOTU address, he wasn’t exaggerating.
The Washington Times carries a piece written by Tammy Bruce that exposes the Democrats’ “Green New Deal” for what it is–a hoax targeting the liberal base, GenXers and progressives that is nothing more than an elaborate Get Out the Vote organizing effort:
Yet, courtesy of a letter being sent by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives, we now know that there is no package of implementable ideas or policy. What they do have is a press release word salad of platitudes, slogans and talking points.Bloomberg reported on the letter, with a revealing headline: “Ocasio-Cortez begins to sketch out details of ‘Green New Deal.’ ” That confirms the thing Democrats, including Sens. Kamala D. Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have endorsed isn’t even formulated yet. As Winston Churchill might note, it’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It would be more honest to call it the “Green New Hoax.”
Bloomberg’s first paragraph outlining Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s “blueprint” is at least honest: “Environmental legislation dubbed a ‘Green New Deal’ and championed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has drawn widespread attention — despite the fact that no one really knows for sure what it is.”
No one knows, because it doesn’t exist.
It is well worth the time to read the entire piece.
Today’s New York Post carries op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg where he makes the case that “Shallow, apocalyptic reporting on global warming has made us all panicky, more likely to embrace poor climate policies and less likely to think about the price tag.” He further notes:
The truth is comparatively boring: According to the United Nations climate-science panel’s latest major report, if we do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, the impact will be the equivalent to a reduction in our incomes of between 0.2 percent and 2 percent five decades from now.
Yet by the 2070s, personal incomes will be some 300 percent to 500 percent higher than they are today. Far from the “end of the world,” the impact of warming is what we’d expect from roughly a single economic recession taking place over the next half century.
Many of us question how this could be true, when we are constantly told that extreme weather is wreaking ever-greater devastation. In fact, research shows that extreme weather is having a rather minimal economic effect. Since 1990, the cost associated with extreme weather worldwide has actually declined, to 0.25 percent of global gross domestic product, from 0.30 percent.
He goes on to advocate for a common sense approach, stressing that solutions must come from technology development and innovation:
We should instead embrace ingenuity and innovation and spend far more on green-energy research and development. If we push the price of green energy below fossil fuels through innovation, everyone will switch.
If Ocasio-Cortez had stuck to the facts, she would have said: “The world is going to see costs worth about 1 percent of GDP in 50 years if we don’t address climate change — and your biggest issue is how to pay for it?” Well, yes: We need to make sure our solution doesn’t cost more than the problem. If we look at the science and stop believing the end of the world is nigh, our decisions will be much smarter.
Well said, Mr. Lomborg.
MarketWatch is reporting that some 1,500 private jets are expected at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where attendees are discussing “safeguarding our planet” from climate change. The article notes:
Air travel comes with a hefty carbon footprint, generating greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Davos attendees will have an opportunity to discuss that issue in depth, with “Safeguarding our Planet” the title of one of the panel sessions scheduled for Tuesday. “The World Economic Forum Climate Initiative provides a global platform to help raise ambition and accelerate climate action,” according to the WEF. “Public- and private-sector collaboration is essential to create a marketplace that will enable dramatic reductions in emissions and build resilience.”
If these people truly believe that climate change is a serious problem, why don’t they alter their own behavior? Turns out it’s a case of one-upmanship:
“There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice,” Christie said. “This is at least in part due to some of the long distances travelled, but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another.”
I guess outdoing your business rivals is more important than saving the planet. Actions speak louder than words.
Morning Consult sends out a “week in review” email over the weekend, and in reviewing it I noted a couple of interesting posts relating to climate:
- Acting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler told senators that he would not call climate change “the greatest crisis” but rather “a huge issue” that needs a global response.
- A study published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences said that ocean temperatures reached their highest recorded level in 2018, surpassing 2017 and making the last five years the warmest on record for the oceans.