Monday, January 01, 2024
Ominous Rumblings From the Climate Change Cult
In the past, I’ve referred to the well-funded, well-organized, but scientifically vacuous climate alarmists as a “cabal” with an explicitly socialist agenda. Indeed, in a political context that’s exactly what they are. But in a religious context, they’re a cult fanatically pushing a rigid dogma.
The climate change dogma is roughly this: The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased markedly over the past century (true); human activities have contributed to that increase (true); Earth has warmed by more than a degree since escaping the harsh Little Ice Age in the 19th century (also true, thank goodness!); temperatures will continue to rise to dangerous, catastrophe-inducing levels (unproven, unknowable, and unlikely) unless human society is radically transformed by drastically curbing the human use of fossil fuels (a power-seeking agenda that would inflict widespread impoverishment and suffering on billions of human beings).
In connection with the United Nation’s recently completed annual extravaganza in climate change propaganda and hysteria—COP28—long-time alarmist Al Gore (who still wants today the “wrenching transformation” of society that he called for in his 1992 jeremiad “Earth in the Balance”) lamented the fact that some people actually disagree with the wildly speculative alarmist predictions (guesses) that he and his fellow alarmists are making about the future. He blamed social media and algorithms for spreading what he considers disinformation (in more neutral terms: differences of perception and understanding) about climate change.
Mr. Gore explicitly called for the ban (the censorship) of social media algorithms—implicitly, those that present apostate points of view, such as de-emphasizing the role of CO2 in climate change or maintaining that Earth isn’t on the brink of climate catastrophe. (Here’s a link to the video. Start at the 22:00 minute marker to hear him say it.) He asserts that the algorithms pull listeners down into “rabbit holes” where they enter into “echo chambers.”
The “echo chamber” assertion is hugely ironic, a classic case of psychological projection. It’s the climate change cabal/cult that sets up echo chambers at events like COP28, whereas outside of those echo chambers, there’s a wide diversity of scientific research that calls into question key parts of the cultists’ dogma from many different angles—the very opposite of an echo chamber.
Here are several recent examples of scientific dissent from the alarmist projections of the climate change cult:
In Hydrological Sciences Journal, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Christos Vournas found that the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 parts per million to 420 parts per million) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere.”
Writing in the journal Earth’s Future, W. Jackson Davis “documents an overall negative correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 210 million years,” according to NoTricksZone.com. A “negative correlation” —i.e., when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, more often than not temperatures fall.
Like other scientists in earlier years, Allan T. Emrén, writing in the International Journal of Global Warming, “found that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.”
Norwegians John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen (a statistician and civil engineer, respectively), writing in a Statistics Norway discussion paper, concluded that “the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”
Other scientists believe that the “hottest ever” summer that the climate change cult has hyped in 2023 (which actually, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, was the 15th hottest since 1910 on mean temperatures and 22nd hottest for maximum temperatures) wasn’t triggered by CO2, but by a significant increase in solar radiation and/or by the 2022 eruption of the Tonga-Hunga volcano having caused a 10 percent increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to the climate change cultists’ belief that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming is a study published in Nature partner journal Climate and Atmospheric Science by H. Nair and colleagues. Those scientists came to the arresting conclusion that “we would expect from a 100% switchover from fossil fuels to zero-emission renewables, the net radiative heating would increase drastically.”
This, according to NoTricksZone.com, is due to “a dramatic reduction in climate-cooling aerosol (pollution) emissions,“ and, ”Because aerosol emissions have a relatively greater climate impact by reflecting shortwave radiation, the net effect of transitioning to renewables will be to ‘drastically’ increase Earth’s temperatures over the coming decades.”
The above examples of scientific studies running counter to climate-change-cult orthodoxy indicate that the science surrounding the issue is anything but settled in the alarmists’ favor.
Let’s switch from the science to the economics of transitioning away from fossil fuel usage. If the climate change cult succeeds in radically suppressing fossil fuel usage, human societies would be much poorer. That would be a tragedy with potentially deadly consequences. While human beings can no more tame the climate than the legendary King Canute could control the tides, the fact is that it’s prosperity that best enables human beings to cope with the adverse weather events that will periodically assail us regardless of whether the world cools or warms.
Fossil fuels not only have the advantage of being much more reliable and steady than wind and solar, but they’re also more efficient and economical. The ever-astute Rupert Darwall computed, “Thanks to [Britain’s increased use of] renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity [in 2020 compared to 2009] produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.” This is a path to energy and therefore societal impoverishment.
The economics of wind energy are brutal for taxpayers. Jonathan Lesser computed that “the average subsidy for each green job created will be over $2 million per year.”
It’s clear that there are plenty of reasons to slow down, if not halt, the frenetic drive to eliminate fossil fuels. The pell-mell charge toward renewables isn’t rational; rather, it’s the fanaticism of a quasi-religious cult.
**************************************************
Climate Scientists Say We Should Embrace Higher CO2 Levels
According to Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientist of Ecosense Environmental and co-founder of Greenpeace, the climate change messaging isn’t based in fact.
“The whole thing is a total scam,” said Mr. Moore. “There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons.”
Mr. Moore said that over the past few decades, the climate message has continually changed; first, it was global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, and now it’s disastrous weather.
“They’re saying all the tornadoes, all the hurricanes, all the floods, and all the heat waves are all caused by CO2. That is a lie. ... We’re part of the cycle,” he said.
“We don’t need CO2. For us, it’s a waste product—we need oxygen. But plants are the ones who made the oxygen for us, and we’re making the CO2 back for them.”
He said the burning of fossil fuels—which emit CO2—is a good thing for plant life.
“We are replenishing the atmosphere with CO2 up to a level that is much more conducive to life and growth of plants, in particular.”
Weather-related deaths and climate disasters have in fact declined “precipitously” over the years, according to John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Center.
In 1925, there was an average of 484,880 climate-related deaths worldwide, according to Human Progress. Since then, it’s steadily decreased, with the latest report from 2020 showing there was an average of 14,893 climate-related deaths worldwide.
“CO2 is portrayed now as the cause of damaging extreme weather. Our research indicates these extremes are not becoming more intense or frequent,” Mr. Christy told The Epoch Times. “Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause of something not occurring.”
The U.N. is planning for countries to cut emissions to as close to zero as possible by 2050.
The plan is “collective suicide,” says Malgosia Askanas, a senior research and development associate at Aurora Biophysics Research Institute.
Ms. Askanas said the concern over CO2 is not based on science.
“It started with the hysteria of the New Ice Age and a little-known CIA report in 1974 that claimed that a major climatic change was underway,” she said.
“Later, the ‘global cooling’ alarmism morphed into its opposite, by employing the false notion of global warming due to excess CO2—which is chemically a falsehood.”
Carbon Dioxide and Life
Mr. Christy said the earth’s climate has “tremendous natural variability” and that it’s currently in a gradual warming phase.
“CO2 has been unfairly demonized because it is actually plant food in its atmospheric form, and it is the consequence of generating carbon-based energy, which unquestionably improves lives around the world,” he said.
He calls CO2 the “currency of life.”
“In past epochs, there were many times more CO2 levels in the atmosphere than today.”
Mr. Moore pointed to a graph that charts CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years. “It’s very clear that CO2 and temperature have been out of sync more often than they’ve been in sync,” he said.
“That more or less negates the whole idea that there’s a direct cause-effect going on there.”
*********************************************
Nuclear Fiasco Exaggeration: Nuclear reactors have been very safe and dependable
The proliferation of articles written to scare or intimidate average Americans seems to be increasing. We have become a country obsessed with regulating risk out of existence. Many new ideas are viewed as too risky, too toxic, or too expensive. Take, for example, the recent letter “Nuclear Fiascos Revisited?” by Jack Duckworth, published in the Oct. 11–17 edition of “The Readers’ Turn.” The author begins with an assertion that over 55 nuclear accidents have occurred and that safer, more reliable nuclear power plants are unattainable.
Except for the notable exceptions of Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl, nuclear reactors have been very safe and dependable. Can you name another nuclear accident? Human error and black swan events (e.g., the earthquake and tsunami in Japan) have contributed to the three major events. But over the past 50 years, the nuclear energy track record has been very good and the learnings have been great.
The author further suggests that the competition to design new power plants is somehow imprudent or that competitive bidding is unwise. Most interestingly, he excuses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s engineers from doing the very job that they are expected to perform. Specifically, the NRC is supposed to encourage competing reactor designs, they are supposed to review these proposals and select the best design. The fact that several alternative designs are proposed is a positive feature.
Concerning costs, the NRC stipulates thousands of requirements that collectively add millions of dollars to the price tag—effectively making nuclear energy artificially prohibitive. Consider something simple like the dome of the reactor. Should construction of the dome be thick enough to withstand a direct hit by a small jet or a Dreamliner? Design engineers will quickly admit that the safety features of today’s reactors are drastically improved over the installed base—similar to the safety differences of a 1966 VW compared to a Tesla. Nevertheless, the public is unaware of these new safety features because much of the installed base lacks these upgrades.
Globally, about 300 nuclear reactors exist; about 95 are active in the USA. Most of these reactors have been running seamlessly for 40 years or more. Almost 20 percent of our American electricity is nuclear generated. Global economies increasingly rely on cheap, reliable energy. China, France, and Germany are investing in nuclear energy. High-paying manufacturing jobs require cheap energy.
The author also states that the U.S. experience with nuclear power has been an “unmitigated disaster.” Besides Three Mile Island, nuclear energy in the U.S. has been extraordinarily successful. Finally, the author believes that a singular design would be beneficial. That is in fact a responsibility entrusted to the 3,000 engineers employed by the NRC. They are to review and approve the best design. Today, a standard design reactor might be advisable, but the notion that a “design flaw or shortcoming can be rectified quickly” ignores the fact that any repairs to an active nuclear reactor are fraught with obvious operating risks.
Nuclear energy is not perfect, and spent fuel is an issue. However, all the nuclear waste produced since 1970 could fit onto a football field, 30 feet high. Nuclear energy remains a golden opportunity to produce cheap, reliable, clean energy. China is strategically building 21 reactors as they move away from coal and reduce their manufacturing costs. America doesn’t need to mimic the French; they need to encourage innovative designs and enable nuclear energy to grow as a clean, reliable source of electricity.
*************************************************
Wrong, Kansas City Star, Climate Change Isn’t Worsening Weather in Kansas or Missouri
The Kansas City Star ran an opinion piece claiming climate change is already making weather more extreme in Kansas and Missouri. This is false. There is no data supporting the claim that either flooding or drought, two specific extreme weather events cited in the story, are worse now than they have been historically. Almost all the records for such events in both states were set nearly a century or more ago, when global average temperatures were cooler.
Joel Mathis, the writer of the Kansas City Star story, “We’re watching the climate change in Kansas and Missouri. Why don’t more of us care?,” opines:
Climate change is already taking a toll on Kansas and Missouri, and not just in the form of wintertime vegetation. Both states are enduring long-running droughts that have challenged the region’s farmers and forced some communities to start hoarding their drinking water. That’s probably just the beginning.
…
Climate change is going to make the extremes more extreme — more intense rain and snowstorms, but also more extended periods of drought. Our big swings will get bigger and more destructive.
But Mathis’ sees an even worse problem, in particular, that the majority of people aren’t that concerned about climate change.
“Last week, Heatmap News reported its new poll found that Midwesterners are ‘consistently blasé about climate change,’” writes Mathis. “Fifty-two percent of folks in our region — a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless — say warming ‘poses little or no risk to their region.’”
The residents of those two states are right to be unconcerned about climate change making their states’ respective weather worse, since historical evidence and data show that neither drought nor flooding amid recent decades of modest warming are worse than they have been historically. Indeed, as Mathis himself notes, Kansas and Missouri are not strangers to droughts, floods, and rapidly changing weather extremes.
“The Midwest is already a ‘high variability’ weather region,” writes Mathis, who discussed this fact with Chuck Rice, a professor of soil microbiology at Kansas State University who served on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. “Think about all the times you’ve heard the joke that if you don’t like the weather around here ‘just wait five minutes.’”
Although it is true that parts of Kansas and Missouri are currently suffering from various degrees of drought, it is not a long-term drought, nor is it historically severe. A short-term drought is no evidence of climate change. Droughts in the early and mid-twentieth century, 70 and 90 years of global warming ago, were more prolonged and severe than the droughts experienced in either state since the beginning of the 21st century. Since official record keeping began, Kansas and Missouri both experienced their most sustained droughts in the 1930s, only to both also experience a sustained drought again in the 1950s. Longer term records developed from proxy data show even more severe and sustained droughts, multiple decades long, have not been uncommon throughout the region’s history.
What’s true of drought across Kansas and Missouri is also true of excessive rainfall and flooding. Kansas experienced its worst flood in 1844; Missouri’s largest recorded flood was 1785, with the flood year of 1844 being its second greatest flood. More costly damage has been done by floods in both Missouri and Kansas since then, in 1903, 1951, 1993, 1998, and 2007.
But the reason that more people and property were harmed by the more recent floods is not higher rainfall totals or deeper flood waters, but rather purely demographics. More people and development had taken place in the areas flooded than existed in the 19th and early 20th centuries when heavier flooding occurred. Neither recent rainfall totals nor floodwater depth have been greater in the 21st century than in the past.
Neither a single flood event, no matter how severe, nor single instances of drought, no matter how widely covered in the media, are evidence climate change is making weather in Kansas or Missouri worse or less predictable. Only a long-term sustained trend of either or both types of weather events might implicate climate change in weather changes, but there are no such worsening trends for either state. In short, data provide no evidence that climate change is making weather worse in Kansas or Missouri, so residents there are displaying common sense when they downplay the threat of climate change in their lives. The media should follow the public’s lead on this point. Follow the science, Mathis and the Kansas City Star, rather than hyping a false climate alarm narrative.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment