Friday, September 21, 2018

Hurricane Florence was due to ocean COOLING

Even before Hurricane Florence barreled into the North Carolina coast, a misleading claim about the storm and global warming echoed across the internet.

Florence made landfall in North Carolina as a Category 1 hurricane on Friday, but the day before, The New York Times published a video claiming the storm had formed in “unusually warm waters” in the Atlantic Ocean, heated up by man-made global warming.

In comparing Florence to last year’s Hurricane Harvey, the NYTimes’ reporter said “both of these hurricanes formed in unusually warm waters.” That’s false, according to Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue.

“Ocean surface temperatures along Florence track were abnormally cool for most of its life-cycle partly due to the unusual, higher latitude of the storm,” Maue tweeted on Tuesday night. “The integrated [sea surface temperature] track-based anomaly averaged from Sept 4-11 was 0.6°C below 1985-2017 ‘normal.’”

Florence formed in colder than normal waters in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Florence also reached major hurricane strength (Category 3 or higher) in cooler waters, before heading into warmer waters where it didn’t do what weather forecasters expected — it weakened and fell apart.

In fact, what’s amazing is how strong the storm got and how long it stayed together over “marginal” ocean temperatures, Maue tweeted.

The National Hurricane Center initially forecast Florence to hit land at Category 3 or 4 strength on the Saffir-Simpson scale, making it a major hurricane at landfall. Forecasters likely expected the warmer waters close to the U.S. coast to intensify the storm.

Instead, Florence weakened as it approached the Carolinas, despite the warmer waters close to the coast. Florence made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane, though the storm still brought heavy rainfall and flooding across the southeast.

However, NYTime’s video on Hurricane Florence ignored such data. Likewise, Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann claimed warmer than normal water temperatures “supercharged” Florence.

Mann blamed an “ocean heat wave,” linking to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) article published about one week before Florence made landfall.

However, the article Mann cited as evidence is referring to the warm coastal waters of New England and eastern Canada — hundreds of miles from Florence’s actual track.

But even the warmer waters near the U.S. coast were actually close to the 30-year average, Maue said.


Eco-Socialism? Hundreds Of Academics Call For An End To Economic Growth

More than 200 academics signed onto a public letter calling on governments to eschew economic growth in order to plan for a “post-growth economy” based on wealth redistribution.

“For the past seven decades, GDP growth has stood as the primary economic objective of European nations,” 238 academics wrote in public letter published by The Guardian on Sunday.

“But as our economies have grown, so has our negative impact on the environment,” they wrote. “We are now exceeding the safe operating space for humanity on this planet, and there is no sign that economic activity is being decoupled from resource use or pollution at anything like the scale required.”

“Today, solving social problems within European nations does not require more growth. It requires a fairer distribution of the income and wealth that we already have,” the academics wrote

The letter echoes the 1960s-era “population bomb” fears. Back then, academics, like former White House science czar John Holdren and biologist Paul Ehrlich, argued out of control population control would outstrip the Earth’s ability to support humanity.

Ehrlich and Holdren predicted the world would eventually move, like it or not, to a “no-growth” economy where famine, hunger and poverty would run rampant until the population stabilized.

Those predictions turned out to be wrong as humanity’s physical and material well-being has increased substantially since then as population growth exploded.

However, hundreds of academics are echoing the Malthusian fears of the 1960s, and calling for governments to prepare for a “no-growth economy” where gross domestic product (GDP) is not a concern.

“If current trends continue, there may be no growth at all in Europe within a decade,” the academics wrote in their letter. “Right now the response is to try to fuel growth by issuing more debt, shredding environmental regulations, extending working hours, and cutting social protections.”

“This aggressive pursuit of growth at all costs divides society, creates economic instability, and undermines democracy,” they wrote.

Copenhagen Consensus Center president Bjorn Lomborg, also known as the “skeptical environmentalist,” called the academics’ demands “silly,” especially the argument “that degrowth can improve our quality of life.”

“The claim that no-growth or de-growth would be good for us is simply wrong,” Lomborg tweeted on Monday.

The academics called for policies that emphasized wealth redistribution and environmentalism over those that add to the material well-being of a country. The letter, however, does not address population growth.

“Resource use could be curbed by introducing a carbon tax, and the revenue could be returned as a dividend for everyone or used to finance social programmes,” academics wrote in their letter.

“Introducing both a basic and a maximum income would reduce inequality further, while helping to redistribute care work and reducing the power imbalances that undermine democracy,” they wrote. “New technologies could be used to reduce working time and improve quality of life, instead of being used to lay off masses of workers and increase the profits of the privileged few.”


Fracking takes a step forward in Britain

Cuadrilla has today received hydraulic fracturing consent from the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) for its second horizontal shale exploration well at its Preston New Road site in Lancashire. Consent was granted for the first horizontal well in July this year. Planning and permits required for both wells are already secured.

Francis Egan, CEO of Cuadrilla, said:

“We are delighted to receive this consent. We are currently completing works on site in readiness to start hydraulically fracturing both wells in the next few weeks. The UK’s need for a new and reliable source of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, is underlined by a new report¹ suggesting the UK is going to have to rely on more coal to generate electricity. That would be a massive backwards step in reducing carbon emissions, as would continuing to import gas over long distances by pipe and ship. We are very proud to be the first operator in the UK to make significant headway in shale gas exploration.”

The first horizontal shale well was completed by Cuadrilla in April 2018 through the Lower Bowland shale rock at approximately 2,300m below surface and extends laterally for some 800m. The second horizontal shale gas well was completed in July 2018 and was drilled through the Upper Bowland shale at an approximate depth of 2,100m below the surface, extending laterally for some 750 metres through the shale. These are the first two horizontal shale exploration wells to be drilled onshore in the UK. Following hydraulic fracturing of these first two horizontal wells Cuadrilla will run an initial flow test of the gas produced from both wells for approximately six months.


Tougher Laws On Pipeline Protests Face Test In Louisiana

After a high-profile campaign to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016, a number of states moved to make it harder to protest oil and gas projects. Now in Louisiana, the first felony arrests of protesters could be a test case of these tougher laws as opponents vow a legal challenge.

The controversy here is over the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, the last leg of the Dakota Access. If completed, it will bring crude oil from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota, through Louisiana, where it will be exported abroad.

On a recent day, deep in the Atchafalaya swamp of South Louisiana, twigs snap under the rubber boots of about 40 protesters as they march through shaded woods. Many have tied bandannas around their faces, leaving only their eyes exposed. In the distance, backhoes fling mud as construction workers clear a path for the new Bayou Bridge Pipeline.

"Y'all are trespassing!" a construction worker shouts.

"Go home!" a protester yells back.

After a few minutes, the construction workers shut off their equipment and the protesters celebrate. But later, things get heated after the sheriff's department shows up. A deputy pins one woman to the ground, and the two sides engage in a muddy tug of war until she tumbles free.

It's incidents like this that have helped push lawmakers to take action. Earlier this year, Louisiana state Rep. Major Thibaut proposed a bill with stricter penalties for pipeline protesters.

"You know that there's a right way to do things and a wrong way," Thibaut told a state legislative committee. "And if you want to protest against something ... get your permit and you go do it in a legal fashion."

Trespassing in Louisiana is normally a misdemeanor offense. But the new law deems oil and gas pipelines to be "critical infrastructure," a classification that includes places like nuclear plants, oil refineries and water treatment facilities. As of Aug. 1, trespassing near oil and gas pipelines in the state is now a felony offense, with a possible sentence of up to five years in jail.

Several states have either passed or are considering similar laws, including Oklahoma, Iowa and Pennsylvania.

The oil and gas industry is a big part of many states' economies, including Louisiana. Craig Stevens, who represents pipeline interests with Grow America's Infrastructure Now, says these new laws will help ensure pipelines are not delayed and will also help keep both workers and protesters safe.

"It wasn't too long ago when there were, I think, four protesters that broke through and tried to penetrate, and actually did pierce a pipeline up in the Midwest," he says. "And they used blowtorches. I mean that's the type of thing could actually explode and kill somebody."

Pipeline opponents say more than 10 people have been arrested under Louisiana's stricter law. Journalist-activist Karen Savage captured the first arrests on video, which shows several security officers pulling three protesters from kayaks onto an airboat.

Those arrested said they didn't think they were doing anything illegal since they were on water, which is considered public property.

"It's a ridiculous over-criminalization of people who protest," says Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who represents protesters here and in other states.

Quigley calls the new law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, and he says he plans to challenge it in court. He hopes doing so will encourage other states to walk back their own laws.

So far, it's not clear whether the local district attorney will prosecute those charged with felonies. But at the Bayou Bridge protest, anti-pipeline organizer Cherri Foytlin says she and others won't be deterred.

"I hope to God no more felonies," she says. "But if there is, then they will be righteous ones."

The next day, Foytlin and three others were also arrested.


Computer Climate Simulations Just Crashed

Ross McKitrick and John Christy have an important new paper out in Earth and Space Science.

This is the latest fusillade in the long battle over whether the climate simulations that lie behind demands for decarbonisation and other political action actually amount to nothing but a hill of beans (as they say on the other side of the pond).

Computer climate simulations predict that manmade global warming will cause the troposphere over the tropics to warm much faster than the surface, and there have been a series of scientific papers arguing whether these predictions are being borne out in practice. In a blog post published yesterday, McKitrick relates some of the back story, including attempts by one mainstream scientist to withhold his data, and the subsequent revelation that he had truncated it in a way that fundamentally altered the conclusions that would be drawn. McKitrick also outlines a series of subsequent papers that have concluded that real-world warming in the troposphere is much less than predicted:

[W]hether we test the tropospheric trend magnitudes, or the ratio of tropospheric to surface trends, across all kinds of data sets, and across all major trend intervals, models have been shown to exaggerate the amplification rate and the warming rate, globally and in the tropics.

So it’s not looking too good for the models. The next logical step is to consider what this means for the bigger picture, and this is where the new paper comes in. As McKitrick points out, if climate simulators get the rainfall in the Amazon wrong, it’s perhaps not the end of the story – that part of the model might be adjusted. But he and Christy are suggesting that what the models indicate about the tropical troposphere is essentially a diagnostic of their structures – almost all climate models agree that it will warm rapidly and it should only be greenhouse gases that can cause such a warming.

In other words, if the models get this wrong, something is fundamentally wrong.

Which is why it’s so important that the authors conclude their paper thus:

Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Thursday, September 20, 2018

Container ship crosses Arctic route for first time in history due to melting sea ice

The above heading is an example of hiding something in plain sight.  It gives the impression that the transit through the Northeast passage was something new.  In fact it has been one of Russia's commercial maritime trade routes for the past 70 years. So the key thing to note in the heading above is the word "Container".  It was the first CONTAINER ship to go through

And it was certainly no epic triumph.  The ship itself was a mini-icebreaker with an ice-strengthened hull and ice cover in the Arctic is at its annual minimum in September -- but even then the ship needed "help from Russia's most powerful nuclear icebreaker" to get through.  Basically it was a nothing event and the firm behind it does not plan to repeat the exercise

A commercial container ship has for the first time successfully navigated the Northern Sea Route of the Arctic Ocean, a route made possible by melting sea ice caused by global warming.

Maersk Line, the world’s biggest container shipping company, told The Independent its ship, Venta Maersk, was expected to reach its final destination of St Petersburg next week.

The new ice-class 42,000 ton vessel, carrying Russian fish and South Korea electronics, left Vladivostok, in the far east of Russia, on the 23 August.

With help from Russia's most powerful nuclear icebreaker, it followed the Northern Sea Route up through the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska, before travelling along Russia’s north coast and into the Norwegian Sea.

The route has seen growing traffic during summer months already, with cargos of oil and gas regularly making the journey.


Climate change is real. Welcome to the new normal

An extremely unoriginal bit of Warmism below.  Tony Heller and Joe Bastardi have comprehensively debunked it so I will say no more

By Eugene Robinson

Hurricane Florence has drenched eastern North Carolina with more than 30 inches of rain, an all-time record for the state. Last year, Hurricane Harvey stalled over Houston and dumped more than 60 inches of rain, an all-time record for the whole country. Also last year, Hurricane Maria ravaged the island of Puerto Rico and caused, according to an independent study, nearly 3,000 deaths.

Welcome to the new normal.

Tropical cyclones are nothing new, of course. But climate scientists say that global warming should make such storms wetter, slower and more intense — which is exactly what seems to be happening. And if we fail to act, these kinds of devastating weather events will likely become even more frequent and more severe.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. Authorities in the Philippines are still trying to assess the damage and death toll from Typhoon Mangkhut, a rare Category 5-equivalent storm that struck the archipelago Saturday with sustained winds of 165 mph. Mangkhut went on to batter Hong Kong and now, as it weakens, is plowing across southern China.

Every human being on the planet has a stake in what governments do to limit and adapt to climate change, including leaders who, like President Trump, prefer to believe global warming is some kind of hoax. I doubt the citizens of Wilmington, N.C. — a lovely resort town that was turned into an island by widespread flooding from Florence — feel there is anything illusory about the hardship they’re going through.


North Dakota Is Now Pumping as Much Crude as Venezuela

North Dakota’s oil production surged to a new record in July, putting the mid-western state on par with OPEC member Venezuela.

Home to the Bakken shale play, North Dakota pumped 1.27 million barrels a day in July, according to state figures released Friday. That’s roughly the same output as Venezuela during the month. The South American nation, whose oil industry has collapsed amid a prolonged financial crisis, saw production fall further in August to 1.24 million barrels a day -- about half the level seen in early 2016, according to data from OPEC secondary sources.

Soaring output from shale formations, including the Bakken, helped the U.S. overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia to likely become the world’s biggest oil producer earlier this year, according to preliminary estimates from the Energy Information Administration. At the same time, Venezuela’s output is expected to tumble even lower, to 1 million barrels a day by the end of the year, according to the International Energy Agency.


Pelosi Reignites Obama Push To Shut Down Huge Chunk of Coal Industry

The Left never learn

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is renewing the Obama administration’s war on coal by supporting efforts to attack coal use in America.

On Thursday, the California Democrat criticized the coal industry during a speech at the Global Climate Action Summit in California, NTK Network reported.

“Under President Obama, we went on to pass the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House. But we were stopped in the Senate by the coal industry,” Pelosi said. “For this and other reasons, I’m so grateful to Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Beyond Coal’ initiative working with the Sierra Club. It is so essential.”

On its website, “Beyond Coal” says it wants to “replace dirty coal with clean energy by mobilizing grassroots activists in local communities to advocate for the retirement of old and outdated coal plants and to prevent new coal plants from being built.” Among its objectives is to shutter a third of the nation’s coal plants by 2020.

In a New Yorker interview, Bloomberg said coal’s day is done no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

“Coal will go away in any place where there’s a free market, for sure, because the market just forces that, the economics force it,” he said, “It does not help that our federal government is opposed to some rational things and is putting out some of the drivel that they do.”

Pelosi’s most recent criticism of the coal industry was not the first time in recent weeks Pelosi attacked coal.

In an August speech at the Public Policy Institute of California she praised herself for her efforts against a small coal plant that operated in Washington, D.C., The Daily Caller reported.

“And it really is a moral issue if you believe as I do that this is God’s creation we have to be good stewards of it,” Pelosi said. “We have evangelicals and others with us — er, some, those who believe in God’s creation. So, in any case, this was a big thing for us. I had to fight some Democrats. Senator Byrd had a coal-powered plan fueling the Capitol, you know … and that’s gonna go, with all due respect to West Virginia we’re not gonna have a coal-powered plant floating around.”

Pelosi’s view is contrasted with that of President Donald Trump, who has strongly supported the coal industry, and at a recent rally had a coal miner join him on stage, according to The Daily Caller. Trump was telling the story of a miner who spoke to him about the revitalization of the coal industry.

“He said, ‘Sir, what you’ve done for the coal industry is incredible. Because we were dead, and now we’re vibrant again,’” Trump recalled.

The man then came on stage and talked about how under former President Barack Obama “the coal industry absolutely had the boot of government on its throat.”

“Many, many jobs were lost,” said the miner, whose name was not announced. “And many towns were destroyed by this. It was just a horrible thing. Horrible suffering happened in this country. Really for made-up reasons, I think. And what your administration does — has done — is bringing us back to life.”

In 2016, as part of his effort to change America’s energy sources, Obama pushed for a reduction in coal and other fossil fuels, The Washington Post reported. He said his administration would “push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”

That tone was emulated in the 2016 presidential campaign by Democrat Hillary Clinton who in March 2016 said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” according to Politico.


California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups

Hugely expensive green mandates will hit poor Californians the hardest.

In April, civil-rights groups sued to stop some of California’s policies designed to address climate change. Then on Monday, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 100, which requires the state’s utilities to obtain all their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045. Before signing the bill, Brown said the legislation was “sending a message to California and to the world that we’re going to meet the Paris agreement.” In fact, it will only increase the hardships that California’s climate policy imposes on the poor, as detailed in the lawsuit.

High electricity prices should be a concern for California policymakers, since electric rates in the state are already 60 percent higher than those in the rest of the country. According to a recent study by the Berkeley-based think tank Environmental Progress, between 2011 and 2017 California’s electricity rates rose more than five times as fast as those in the rest of the U.S. SB 100 will mean even higher electricity prices for Californians.

In addition to cost, the all-renewable push set forth in SB 100 faces huge challenges with regard to energy storage. Relying solely on renewables will require a battery system large enough to handle massive seasonal fluctuations in wind and solar output. (Wind-energy and solar-energy production in California is roughly three times as great during the summer months as it is in the winter.) According to the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy-policy think tank, for California to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables would require about 9.6 terawatt-hours of storage. This would require about 500 million Tesla Powerwalls, or roughly 15 Powerwalls for every resident. A full 100 percent–renewable electricity mandate would require some 36.3 terawatt-hours of storage, or about 60 Powerwalls for every resident of California.

Increasing reliance on renewable energy also means increasing land-use conflicts. Since 2015, more than 200 government entities from Maine to California have voted to reject or restrict the encroachment of wind-energy projects. In 2015 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance banning large wind turbines in the county’s unincorporated areas. Three other California counties — San Diego, Solano, and Inyo — have also passed restrictions on Big Wind. Last year, the head of the California Wind Energy Association lamented that “we’re facing restrictions like that all around the state,” adding that “it’s pretty bleak in terms of the potential for new development.” The result of the anti-wind restrictions can be seen in the numbers. Last year, California had about 5,600 megawatts of installed wind capacity. That’s roughly 150 megawatts less than what the state had back in 2013.

The land-use problem facing Big Wind in California is the same throughout the rest of the U.S. and Europe: People in cities like the idea of wind turbines. People in rural areas increasingly don’t want anything to do with them. Those rural landowners don’t want to see the red blinking lights atop those massive turbines, all night, every night, for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the harmful noise — both audible and inaudible — that they produce.

Even before SB 100 passed, though, California’s leaders were already facing a legal backlash from minority leaders over the high cost of the state’s climate policies. On April 27, The Two Hundred, a coalition of civil-rights leaders, filed a lawsuit in state court against the California Air Resources Board, seeking an injunction against some of the state’s carbon dioxide–reduction rules. The 102-page lawsuit declares that California’s “reputation as a global climate leader is built on the state’s dual claims of substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously enjoying a thriving economy. Neither claim is true.”

The gist of the lawsuit is this: California’s high housing, transportation, and energy costs are discriminatory because they are a regressive tax on the poor. The suit claims that the state’s climate laws violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act because CARB’s new greenhouse-gas-emissions rules on housing units in the state “have a disparate negative impact on minority communities and are discriminatory against minority communities and their members.” The suit also claims the state’s climate laws are illegal under the Federal Housing Act, again because their effect is felt predominantly by minority communities. It also makes a constitutional claim that minorities are being denied equal protection under the law because California’s climate regulations are making affordable housing unavailable to them.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Wednesday, September 19, 2018

USA Today op-ed ignores evidence to claim climate change had no role in Hurricane Florence

Under the above heading an article appeared which challenged an article by climate skeptic Roy Spencer.  Spencer dismissed on various grounds any connection between storm Florence and global warming. The article is a rather complex piece of formatting so I am not going to reproduce it here but it is readily accessible here.  I imagine Spencer will do his own reply to it in due course but, as a critique, it ranges from weak to hilarious so I thought I might make a few brief comments on it.

For a start two of the "4 scientists" are well known Warmists -- Kerry Emmanuel and Andrew Dessler -- so any judgments they make cannot be regarded as unbiased. Knowing that what they say will be under expert scrutiny, however, they are unusually cautious in their utterances, which enables us to see how weak their case is.

They draw on two types of "evidence" to support their conclusions: The first is "scientific studies" which are simply modelling exercises.  And, given the stellar record of failure that attends Warmist predictions based on modelling, such "studies" must be regarded as just a game played among friends.  Beyond that the studies must be regarded as equivalent to an advertisement for the sale of the Brooklyn bridge.  The studies concerned are in fact worse than the usual Warmist modelling in that they generate no testable predictions so are not science at all. They are just games.

The second type of evidence used in criticism of Spencer does at least use empirical observations.  They point to various weak trends over a limited time period.  And it is that line of argument that amuses me most.  Regardless of  how accurate their accounts of trends are, they have no way of tying those trends to global warming.  I am prepared to accept all the trends they quote as gospel but I see nothing in them that can be shown as due to global warming.  There is no way we can show that those trends are non-natural. 

You can pick out runs in any body of data but showing that they are non random requires access to the whole body of the data concerned, or at least a representative sample of it -- and the whole body of climate data spans millions of years so that is quite impossible. So the only way they can tie their quoted trends to anthropogenic global warming takes them back to their modelling again -- so it is all faith, not science.

I first put up this critique on Facebook and received the folowing spot-on comment from Roy Spencer:  "Why 4? If they were correct, it would only take 1"

Fair's fair!

Al Gore's claim about Hurricane Florence doused by scientists

Meteorologist Ryan Maue says Gore's assertion made 'without any evidence'

Another climate-change claim by former Vice President Al Gore is coming under fire, this one involving Hurricane Florence.

Mr. Gore said Friday that two major storms from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans had never made landfall at the same time, referring to Hurricane Florence, the Category 1 hurricane that struck North Carolina on Friday, and Super Typhoon Mangkhut, which hit the Philippines early Saturday.

“This is the first time in history that two major storms are making landfall from the Atlantic and the Pacific simultaneously,” Mr. Gore told the crowd at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, which wrapped up Friday.

He cited the storm activity on opposite sides of the globe as an example of climate change driving unusual and extreme weather, but meteorologist Ryan Maue was quick to dump cold water on Mr. Gore’s assertion.

“Al Gore just (fraudulently) claimed without any evidence that we’ve never had hurricanes in both the Atlantic and Pacific making landfall at the same time,” tweeted Mr. Maue, an adjunct scholar at the free-market Cato Institute.

University of Colorado Boulder meteorologist Roger A. Pielke Sr. also took issue with the claim by Mr. Gore, known for his 2006 climate-change film, An Inconvenient Truth, and the 2017 follow-up, An Inconvenient Sequel.

“Such statements show that he is not familiar with the history of tropical cyclone landfalls,” said Mr. Pielke in an email.

Numerous articles and even books have been written fact-checking and challenging Mr. Gore’s climate predictions and pronouncements, including meteorologist Roy Spencer’s An Inconvenient Deception, and “Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to an Inconvenient Truth,” a 154-page paper by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis Jr.

In his Friday remarks, Mr. Gore also blamed climate change for driving wildfires, drought, floods, mudslides, “rain bombs,” the May water shortage in Cape Town, South Africa, and record dead trees in California.

Mr. Maue said the “first time in history” claim appeared to originate with an NBC News report last week headlined, “In rare event, Atlantic, Pacific storms churn at the same time.”

The article cited Colorado State University meteorologist Phil Klotzbach, who described the busy storm season in the Pacific and Atlantic as uncommon but said nothing about simultaneous landings being unprecedented.

“The thing that’s interesting now is the Pacific is still active, but the Atlantic is very active, which isn’t normal,” Mr. Klotzbach told NBC. “I’m surprised to see the Pacific and Atlantic active at the same time.”

Mr. Maue, whose comments were first reported in the Daily Caller, said the NBC article “completely missed the mark on ongoing hurricanes and their rarity.”


Climate Science Versus The FangZhi

The Fang Zhi is kind of a government gazette that has been issued by Chinese governments for thousands of years. Data on extreme weather events and famines are included in this gazette. The data show that floods and droughts are common in China and that they are periodically particularly severe.

A cyclical pattern of famines caused by severe drought followed by devastating floods may be traced back through all of recorded history in China. The period of this cycle has been estimated to be about fifty years. A peculiarity of this weather cycle is that floods and droughts can occur at the same time in China because weather in Southern China is about 180 degrees out of phase with that in Northern China. History has recorded many cases when the south is flooding from torrential rainfall while the north is in drought or conversely when the north is flooding and the south is dry.

Much of the sociology, philosophy, literature, and politics of China have been shaped by the flood and drought cycle. Some scholars go so far as to claim that all of Chinese history is a story of the people’s fight against famine caused by this calamitous cycle of weather. One of the largest infrastructure projects in history is the failed attempt to link southern Chinese rainfall with northern Chinese rainfall using a very ambitious canal network. The construction and maintenance of granaries on an immense scale has consumed a succession of Chinese dynasties while famines have been the downfall of others. The 2005 drought in Hainan and Guangdong along with torrential rains and floods in Northern China fits the known pattern of extreme weather in China.

If you truncate history at 1961, however, these weather events will appear to be unusual and unnatural. An equally unnatural cause for this kind of weather may then be assessed. In particular, those with a predisposition to the global warming/climate change hypothesis contained in the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC will find in these events the kind of evidence they need to support their predisposed position (See for example, Waiting in vain for rain that’s two years late has Hainan’s farmers fretting about their future, The Nation, Bangkok, June 3, 2005).

Fossil fuel consumption has risen dramatically since 1961. The data also show what appears to be an irregular increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere in parallel with rising fuel consumption. At the same time we find the average temperature of the earth has been rising since 1979. It is tempting to draw a causal link from fossil fuels to CO2 and from CO2 to temperature and from there to extreme weather events. These relationships appear so convincing that no further scientific evidence is sought to support the subsumed causalities.

Yet statistical analysis of the observational data do not show the correlations that would exist if this chain of causation to be true were true. The correlation argument is presented in more detail in two related posts. HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE, SPURIOUS CORRELATIONS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE.

In the Chinese weather data, the global warming enthusiasts have been undone by the Fang Zhi. Their claim that fossil fuel consumption is to be blamed for this year’s drought in southern China and floods in northern China appears grossly childish and specious in light of history.


Australia: Greens MP cops onslaught of online abuse after supporting proposed fishing ban

It seems to me that authoritarians who try to interfere with other people's lives should expect retribution for that.  Trying to stop people from going fishing is incredibly authoritarian

A Greens MP is currently being bullied online after he showed support for the governments controversial 'lock outs'.

Justin Field's Facebook page has been flooded with cruel abuse, memes and even death threats since the New South Wales MP backed the proposal.

'You're a f***ing germ piece of s***…we will destroy you at the next election you f***ing germ…die you bastard,' one user said on Facebook. 'Prepare to get your legs broken Justin,' wrote another.

Mr Field, a Greens MP in the NSW upper house, has also been called a 'grub' and a 'maggot', with one user going as far as saying they hoped he was 'taken out of the equation'.

Mr Field's wife has also been targeted, with users demanding she make him respond to their vile comments.

The backlash began after Mr Field's vocally supported the governments plan to ban recreational fishing in 25 cities along the coast in a bid to help fish stocks recover.

Mr Field responded to the online hate in interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, acknowledging that although he expected debate and a 'certain rough and tumble in politics', people have gone too far.

He claimed that the raised platform of key figures in talk-back radio and print media have deliberately misinformed the public about the proposal.

'I think some politicians, fishing personalities and the media have been spreading deliberate misinformation to drum up fear and anger over the proposal and that has played a role in the level of hate being expressed about the plan,' Mr Field wrote.

Since the onslaught of comments, the NSW government has back flipped on the plan, just weeks after announcing the proposal.

Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair said on Monday they will be not going ahead with the fishing bans, calling the original proposal 'absolutely unacceptable'.

'The Government has now rewarded this appalling behaviour by effectively walking away from a Sydney Marine Park proposal,' Mr Field said on Facebook following the announcement.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Yes, You Can Blame Bad Storms on Climate Change. The question is no longer an unanswerable hypothetical (?)

Fickling and Flam below are echoing yet again the claim that you CAN tie individual storms to global warming.  They don't mention that such claims are all the results of modelling, which is intrinsically unreliable, particularly in biased hands. And, unlike some modelling, the claims cannot be checked against reality so are not science.  They are all just Fickling and Flam.

Fickling makes an interesting claim: "The science behind these studies is relatively new, but draws on long-established methods. “These are techniques that climate scientists stole from epidemiologists and public health researchers,” says Sophie Lewis, a research fellow at the University of New South Wales"

That is an unfortunate admission indeed.  Fickling and Lewis are obviously unaware of the replication crisis in medical and psychological research -- a crisis which stems from the fact that such research CAN be tested for realism.  And it has been found in up to 70% of cases to be unreplicable. Doing the same experiment twice, the second experiment gives quite different results from the first experiment. With true claims you would get the same result on both occasions

And if that is true of the more rigorous research in those fields, what does it say about the credibility of the more speculative, epidemiological research? Anybody who is inclined to think that epidemiological conclusions are reliable should read John Brignell's hefty book, "The epidemiologists: Have they got scares for you!".  Brignell goes through hundreds of epidemiological studies and shows they are rubbish.

And you don't actually need Brignell to show you that.  Epidemiological studies in medicine produce such different conclusions about the same question that from time to time you have meta-analytic studies, such as the Cochrane studies, which endeavour to separate the wheat from the chaff.  And the studies on any given topic are often so weak that the Cochrane researchers don't even consider most of them.  They usually find only a small number -- as few as four out of a hundred or more -- studies that offer useful evidence.  And even there the final conclusions are often tentative

And the now debunked but but sometimes still heard claim that red meat and fat are particularly bad for you came out of epidemiological research by Ancel Keys and others.

So if you think climate studies are better than that I've got this great bridge I want to sell you

There’s a familiar refrain that goes up when extreme weather events bear down on population centers, as Hurricane Florence and Typhoon Mangkhut are now doing in the western Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: While carbon emissions from human activity may be causing a general warming, it’s impossible to draw a direct link between any one event and climate change.

That’s a comforting thought. Droughts, hurricanes, floods and heatwaves have been a feature of the global climate since long before humans walked the earth. Who’s to say whether this latest round of disasters is a result of our industrial and agricultural practices, or simply the normal weather variations of a chaotic atmosphere?

As my colleague Faye Flam wrote this week, there’s a natural tendency to assign blame in the wake of terrible events, and the answer to the question is often more complicated than a simple yes or no. At the same time, it’s no longer right to suggest that attribution is an unanswerable hypothetical, like pondering how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. We know a great deal about it — and the answers are troubling.

Studies of the European heatwaves that have become an almost annual occurrence in recent years have shown that they were several times more likely to happen as a result of climate change, for instance. The odds of the coral bleaching suffered by the Great Barrier Reef in 2016 were 175 times greater than they’d have been without human-induced emissions. And three anomalous warm spells in 2016 would have been impossible in a preindustrial climate, according to papers published this year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The science behind these studies is relatively new, but draws on long-established methods. “These are techniques that climate scientists stole from epidemiologists and public health researchers,” says Sophie Lewis, a research fellow at the University of New South Wales.

Researchers use computer models of the climate and run thousands of simulations to establish the odds of events happening at current and preindustrial concentrations of atmospheric carbon. The level of accuracy has risen drastically in recent years as computing power has increased, the number of people working in the field has gone up, and an expanding volume of weather data, climate modelling and extreme events has produced more information to work with.

Importantly for a scientific field, where falsifiability is essential, it’s often the case that no link can be proved. In 35 percent of the 131 peer-reviewed studies published in the American Meteorological Society’s annual reviews of extreme event attribution since 2011, no connection to climate change could be demonstrated.

Floods in Chennai in 2015 and an Indian heatwave the following year had no clear tie to climate change, according to studies published by the World Weather Attribution Project, a scientists’ group. Cold snaps in North America and Europe in 2017 were probably less likely than they’d otherwise have been thanks to human emissions — because the atmosphere is getting warmer, after all. Droughts in the horn of Africa between 2015 and 2017 also showed no clear link to climate change and may in some cases have been less likely, although the water shortage in Cape Town last year was about 3.3 times more probable.

There are still widely varying degrees of accuracy that can be achieved. Large, long-lasting events like heatwaves and cold snaps have become so well understood that researchers are increasingly not focusing their attention on them. “That’s established science now, so it would be like a public health journal publishing on the risks of smoking,” says Lewis.

More complex, short-term events like storms and high winds can be harder to analyze — though even there, the rains that inundated Houston during Hurricane Harvey in 2017 are reckoned to have been three times as likely thanks to climate change.

“For extreme short-timescale rainfall it is very easy to show a link,” said David Karoly, leader of the earth systems and climate change hub at Australia’s National Environmental Science Program. “As the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds more moisture, which is likely to lead to changes in the amount of rainfall.”

While analyses of events in the early 2000s could take more than a year, they’re increasingly now being done in real time, too. One study published last week attempted to isolate the climate-change impact of Hurricane Florence in advance, estimating that it would be stronger and drop 50 percent more rainfall than if it had hit in a preindustrial climate.

The results of this don’t just matter to scientists and climate campaigners. Insurers have a natural interest in the odds of disastrous events, and have been collecting data on extreme weather for decades. The Actuaries Climate Index, a study of anomalous weather events in the U.S. and Canada dating back to the early 1960s, has shown a marked rising trend in recent years that ought to give insurers and reinsurers pause in considering how to protect against future risks.

We’d think it bizarre to state that there’s no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, even though causation in individual cases is impossible to prove. In the same way, we should drop the comforting belief that the origins of individual weather disasters are mysterious and unknowable. Over the coming years, more and more extreme events will happen — and scientists will grow increasingly sure of our role in causing them.


Bill Nye Gets Dealt Blistering Fact-Check by an Actual Scientist

We are all probably watching the weather developments in the Carolinas — big storms tend to make us sit up and pay attention, no matter where we are.

But something else I hope you have also paid attention to are the left’s psychotic claims that President Donald Trump is to blame for the climate change that supposedly caused Hurricane Florence.

Well, facts are funny things: They have a pesky way of collapsing the liberal narrative. On Friday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, who blew the liberal climate change theories out of the water.

In the interview, Dr. Spencer threw cold water all over Bill Nye the Science Guy’s statements that Hurricane Florence is caused by climate change.

Dr Spencer acknowledges the earth has gotten warmer, but he doesn’t think the change in temperature is due to climate change. He believes it’s part of the earth’s natural weather cycles. And Bill Nye isn’t going to like Spencer’s scientific data that supports his findings.

Dr Spencer explains to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson: “Well, it has gotten warmer as you said, since the 1950s there has been a warming trend, but what we haven’t seen in terns of any long term weather measurements is whether there’s been any change in severe weather. There hasn’t been any increase in hurricanes. That’s on a global basis in the United States.”

“The frequency of hits of the United States by major hurricanes has gone down by 50 percent since the 1930s and 1940s. There’s been no increase in droughts, no increase in floods. Tornados are down but still weather varies a lot especially hurricanes, year to year, decade to decade.”

“So there is a huge amount of variability, OK, some stall, produce a bunch of rain. Certainly North Carolina is going to have a major flooding disaster, but this is what Mother Nature does naturally, and if there’s a human influence there you wouldn’t know it because there’s so much natural variability,” said Dr. Spencer.

Enter common sense as Carlson asks the obvious question as to why people are claiming global warming is to blame for hurricanes if the data doesn’t support it?

Dr. Spencer’s refreshingly candid remarks might just floor the global warming fanatics. It appears he believes as I do, that they are just saying “stupid things.”

“I don’t know, why do people like The Washington Post say such stupid things? It’s because the people who are informing us in the media about global warming are people like Al Gore, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, people that don’t know anything about atmospheric science,” he said.

Dr. Spencer also responded to Carlson’s challenge of Nye’s qualifications as a scientist. “He’s not a trained scientist. I believe he’s an engineer of some sort.” “Plus he has a widely viewed YouTube video called ‘Climate 101’ where he faked an experiment,” Spencer added.

Liberals would do well to pay attention when choosing to follow the lead of their so-called experts.

On Tuesday, an article by The Washington Post accused President Trump of being “complicit” in facilitating global warming.

“Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.”

On Wednesday, Bill Nye the Science Guy told MSNBC that Florence was the direct result of climate change: “Now I look forward of course to all the hate tweets. It’s going to be great, about a guy who took a lot of physics can’t possibly read a graph. I got all that. But everybody, this is not in anybody’s best interests to continue to deny climate change.”

Hurricane season is just beginning and from the looks of things it’s going to be a long one. And I have no doubt there will be more “stupid” discourse from liberals about climate change and why the president is responsible for it.

Maybe the bright side in this discussion is that more real scientific experts are coming forward with hard facts that will continue to weaken the liberal global warming narrative.


Keep carbon taxes in the ground

Permanently bury these job-killing proposals, after pounding wooded stakes through their hearts

Paul Driessen

The House of Representatives recently passed a sense of Congress resolution that a carbon tax would kill jobs, damage the revitalized U.S. economy, and disproportionately impact poor, minority and working class families. The vote also reflects the fact that America is still over 80% dependent on fossil fuels – and helps explain why a misguided Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) was able to convince only one colleague (Brian Fitzpatrick, R-PA) to cosponsor his carbon tax bill back in July. In the meantime:

Doug Ford became Ontario’s new premier by vigorously opposing the carbon taxes and pricy wind and solar electricity that Canadians have come to despise. He quickly eliminated $2 billion in taxes a year by canceling 200 heavily subsidized renewable energy projects implemented by his predecessor. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government is facing increased resistance to its plans for a steadily escalating carbon tax.

In Australia, Angus Taylor’s appointment as Energy Minister means wind and solar subsidies will soon be terminated. This will undoubtedly delight residents of South Australia, home of a 50% renewable energy program, the world’s highest electricity prices, two weeks of zero wind/zero electricity in two years (September 2016 and 2018), and some 200,000 families no longer able to afford electricity.

Germany’s solar industry is collapsing as its subsidies plummet; its wind turbine subsidies are scheduled to end in 2020; ancient villages and forests have been bulldozed to allow coal mining to fuel its new generating plants; and the country’s Green Party has admitted that “de-carbonizing” the German and world economies can be accomplished only by limiting or eliminating democracy worldwide.

And yet, like Dracula monsters, carbon tax proposals keep rising from the dead.

Several big corporations, Republican officials Jim Baker, Hank Paulson and George Schultz, and their Climate Leadership Council now claim that 56% of American voters support taxing carbon, while only 26% oppose the idea. So says their recent survey. You ask, How is that possible?!?

To begin with, they didn’t call it a tax. They cleverly labeled their scheme a “carbon dividend” (who doesn’t like dividends?) and claimed “the vast majority of American families” would somehow come out ahead if it is implemented. The survey didn’t mention that their program would be administered by our ever-friendly Internal Revenue Service or that the tax would begin at $43 per metric ton of “carbon” emitted. (Trudeau’s hated tax begins at “a mere” US$7.68 per ton and rises to “only” US$38.47 by 2022.)

They didn’t mention that the tax would be imposed on foundries, factories, refineries, coal- and gas-fired power plants, other industrial facilities, and even (at a lower rate) on products imported from other countries. Nor did they intimate how much these advisors, companies and thousands of members of the $2-trillion-per-year Global Climate Industrial Complex would benefit financially from the arrangements.

Equally important, constant assurances that “market-based” carbon tax schemes like this $43-per-ton version would be “revenue neutral,” receipts would be returned to taxpayers in the form of tax reductions elsewhere, and revenues would be used to reduce federal budget deficits are illusory. Can the Council somehow guarantee that the next Congress will not (promptly) reverse these “net-gain” provisions?

But let’s get to the nuts and bolts of “carbon taxes” and “clean, green, renewable” energy.

As MIT emeritus professor of atmospheric physics Richard Lindzen points out, those who control carbon control life. And make no mistake, these are taxes on carbon-based fuels: on 83% of the energy we use. They are taxes on everything we make, ship, eat and do – on our lives, livelihoods, living standards, transportation, heating, cooling, refrigeration, healthcare, clothing and everything else we touch.

By using the word “carbon,” tax proponents deceptively suggest they want to tax soot, pollution, toxic emissions. But with modern scrubbers and other pollution controls, what comes out of U.S. power plant and factory “smoke stacks” today is almost entirely water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Fossil fuels are what made our health and economic progress over the past 150 years possible – and continue to do so. Carbon (coal, oil and natural gas) is what we burn to generate electricity, power factories and operate vehicles. Carbon dioxide is what is created and emitted by that combustion process.

So these Climate Leadership members want to tax carbon dioxide: the gas of life, the miracle molecule that we exhale and that makes life on Earth possible. In fact, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster and better food crop, forest and grassland plants grow; the better they survive droughts, diseases and viruses. Rising atmospheric CO2 levels are actually “greening the Earth,” including forests worldwide.

The Council’s goal is to “keep fossil fuels in the ground,” and force a transition to wind, solar, ethanol and other “renewable” energy. In the process, the activists, politicians, lobbyists and crony corporatists expect to get incredibly wealthy and gain increasing control over global economies and living standards.

How would $43 per metric ton of carbon dioxide affect you? It would raise your electricity and gasoline costs to the exorbitant rates families and businesses already pay in California, Denmark and Germany. Every aspect of your lives would be impacted. Millions of jobs would be lost. In just one example, at California’s or Germany’s business rate (18¢ per kWh), a hospital that now pays 8¢ per kWh and $1.6 million a year would see its electricity costs rise by an unsustainable $2 million annually!

To top it off, all this incredible pain and lost liberty would bring no climate benefits. Even assuming for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide has replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that do control Earth’s climate – poor nations are burning more carbon fuels every year, emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and building or planning to build some 1,600 new coal-fired power plants.

It is sheer nonsense to claim that 400 ppm CO2 and another 1 degree C (1.4 F) of global warming will bring “unprecedented cataclysms” and “existential threats” to people and planet. Carbon dioxide has some effect, but saying it controls the climate ignores five Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, the Little Ice Age, the Dust Bowl and Anasazi drought, the record 12 years of no major hurricanes making U.S. landfall, and other natural weather and climate changes.

Scientists simply do not yet know enough about Earth’s climate or what caused past climate fluctuations even to separate current human influences from natural influences – much less predict future changes.

Poor countries signed onto Paris climate treaty because they expected to get $100 billion every year in “climate adaptation and mitigation” money from (currently) wealthy countries that the treaty says must slash their fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions, economic growth and living standards – while now poor nations dramatically increase theirs. With rich countries unable and refusing to pay up, the treaty is likely to implode like the house of cards it is, before or during the [Katowice,%20Poland]COP24 summit in Katowice, Poland.

Last but not least, renewable energy is not renewable, clean, green or sustainable. Manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries and ultra-long transmission lines requires removing billions of tons of rock and earth to extract and process millions of tons of exotic ores, limestone, iron, manganese, copper, petroleum-based fiberglass and composites, and other materials – all using fossil fuels.

The vital exotics come from Mongolia, China and Congo, under minimal to nonexistent environmental, health and safety standards. But that’s somebody else’s backyard, so virtue preening climate activists can just ignore the emissions, habitat destruction, water pollution, health effects and premature deaths.

No wonder alarmists are ranting nonstop at their Global Climate Action Circus, devoting $1 billion a year to climate activism and “education,” and working with and for Democrat governors and state attorneys general to advance their radical agenda, draft laws and regulations, and attack and even prosecute climate chaos skeptics. This abuse of government law enforcement powers and taxpayer dollars must end.

What needs to be kept in the ground is not the fossil fuels that make modern health and living standards possible, while spurring plant growth. It is carbon tax proposals, preferably with large wooden stakes driven through their hearts. May sanity and reality yet prevail.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.

FAKE NEWS: Weather Channel Reporter Caught Exaggerating During Storm Coverage

Have the lies in the mainstream media become so prevalent that there is no longer any escape from the fake news?

The answer seems to be no after a reporter for The Weather Channel who was covering Hurricane Florence was busted after a video of him clearly exaggerating the effects of the winds and rain hit Twitter and has now gone completely viral.

Mike Seidel was in Wilmington, NC on Friday and appeared to be holding on for dear life as the storm barreled down on the area but questions – and much scorn – quickly arose when two people casually strolled by in the background and it was all caught by the camera.

The video shows longtime Weather Channel meteorologist and reporter Mike Seidel as he tried to gain his footing as the storm’s winds bore down on him.

“This is about as nasty as its been,” Seidel, who was reporting from Wilmington, N.C., says in the clip while bracing against the wind.

The camera then pans over to a pair of figures casually walking on a road behind the reporter.

“So dramatic!” one Twitter user wrote with the video clip. “Dude from the weather channel bracing for his life, as 2 dudes just stroll past.”

After seeing this, how could you ever watch hurricane coverage without being suspicious again?

If Seidel ends up being sacked by TWC due to public relations fallout over this stunt, he is a cinch to land a similar gig at CNN. In fact, he’s already passed the audition with flying colors.


Ruling Australian conservative party has been taken over by climate denialists, says Labor party leader

If only it were true.  There is a great deal of skepticism among Federal conservatives but it has not yet become formal policy

Bill Shorten has confirmed Labor is prepared to adopt the government’s junked national energy guarantee if it wins power, as he declared the Liberal Party had been taken over by “climate denialists”.

The Opposition Leader said the framework of the NEG could be used by a future Labor government to create a policy that would lower carbon emissions.

“The government did some work on this national energy guarantee and we are prepared to use that as part of our framework going forward. That’s not our final position, I hasten to add, and we’ll have consultation and discussion with my colleagues,” Mr Shorten told the ABC.

“I think that people are sick and tired of the climate change wars. The climate denialists for all intents and purposes, like Tony Abbott, have taken over the Liberal Party. They didn’t want the clean energy target. They didn’t want an emissions trading scheme.

“The real issue here is that we’ve now got a climate denialist party in power, and the only policy they can do now they’ve rejected the national energy guarantee is one that will drive up power prices and do nothing to encourage more renewables.

“So I’m hoping to work with the sensible part of the Liberal Party, with industry, with environmentalists, and we’ll come up with a framework which will look a lot like, I hope, parts of the national energy guarantee and, of course, we want to see lower prices and more renewables.”

“It just led to a loss of jobs, higher prices and greater unreliability and a lack of investment,” he said.

Mr Shorten failed to endorse his energy spokesman, Mark Butler, who said he did not support the Adani coal mine.

“I think that that is essentially Mark’s judgment, that he doesn’t think it is going to happen and he doesn’t support it. I think that a lot of people feel that way. Our policy is that we won’t put a single taxpayer dollar into the project. There’s a lot of scepticism if the project is ever going to happen,” he said.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Monday, September 17, 2018

Coastal wetlands not endangered by sea-level rise

The academic article below endeavours to look at all the factors that might be at work if the sea level rises.  The simplistic Greenie claims that X amount of sea level rise will cause X amount of land loss is dismissed in favour of real science.  And the conclusion is surprising.  Sediment buildup is likely to keep the land level where it is.  The area flooded ("accommodation space") will have all sorts of complex structures and features which will tend to catch sediment  -- and active  measures could also be taken to increase the sediment trapping  ability of the area, further insuring no wetland loss

Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise

Mark Schuerch et al.


The response of coastal wetlands to sea-level rise during the twenty-first century remains uncertain. Global-scale projections suggest that between 20 and 90 per cent (for low and high sea-level rise scenarios, respectively) of the present-day coastal wetland area will be lost, which will in turn result in the loss of biodiversity and highly valued ecosystem services1,2,3.

These projections do not necessarily take into account all essential geomorphological4,5,6,7 and socio-economic system feedbacks8. Here we present an integrated global modelling approach that considers both the ability of coastal wetlands to build up vertically by sediment accretion, and the accommodation space, namely, the vertical and lateral space available for fine sediments to accumulate and be colonized by wetland vegetation.

We use this approach to assess global-scale changes in coastal wetland area in response to global sea-level rise and anthropogenic coastal occupation during the twenty-first century. On the basis of our simulations, we find that, globally, rather than losses, wetland gains of up to 60 per cent of the current area are possible, if more than 37 per cent (our upper estimate for current accommodation space) of coastal wetlands have sufficient accommodation space, and sediment supply remains at present levels.

In contrast to previous studies1,2,3, we project that until 2100, the loss of global coastal wetland area will range between 0 and 30 per cent, assuming no further accommodation space in addition to current levels. Our simulations suggest that the resilience of global wetlands is primarily driven by the availability of accommodation space, which is strongly influenced by the building of anthropogenic infrastructure in the coastal zone and such infrastructure is expected to change over the twenty-first century.

Rather than being an inevitable consequence of global sea-level rise, our findings indicate that large-scale loss of coastal wetlands might be avoidable, if sufficient additional accommodation space can be created through careful nature-based adaptation solutions to coastal management.

Nature volume 561, pages231–234 (2018)

Bloom Energy: A Bloomdoggle

The public vaguely remembers and little understands even the spectacular green project failures that cost investors and taxpayers tens of billions, largely because they are rarely presented in everyday terms.

But that is changing as the public becomes more aware of Bloom’s involvement in the D.C. swamp, crony deals and pollution problems. That could ordain Bloom as an example of deep-rooted green energy corruption — and launch resistance against these programs.

Bloom customers include America’s most prestigious corporate brands. AT&T, Google, eBay, Apple, Amazon, Staples and others have helped Bloom cultivate a well-polished image, enhanced by ads extolling the companies as virtuous early adopters of climate-protecting green energy technologies. Contradictions to this narrative are obscured but abundant.

Bloom survives on federal and state subsidies. Its S-1 Registration Statement states: “Our business currently depends on the availability of rebates, tax credits and other financial incentives.”

Ideally, subsidies enable new technologies. But government entities decide which technologies deserve largesse, at what levels and under what terms. This makes subsidies highly political, and subject to shifting political circumstances.

For example, after years of dependence, Bloom lost its 30 percent federal investment tax credit (ITC) in late 2016. Sales plummeted.

But with Kleiner Perkins, other lobbyists and senators like Tom Carper, Delaware Democrat, and Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, promoting Bloom’s virtues, Congress reinstated Bloom’s ITC in the 2017 tax bill and even made it retroactive. Bloom rebounded and the IPO was feasible. The swamp delivered.

Bloom makes solid oxide fuel cells that use an electrochemical reaction to convert natural gas into electricity at the customer’s site. On-site generation is called “distributed” or “behind-the-meter” energy. It eliminates costs, complexities and inefficiencies associated with long-distance transmission and distribution from large power plants, which lose about 7% of their generated electricity over power lines.

Distributed energy users avoid that power loss and, proportionally, the costs of maintaining utility transmissions lines. But the fixed maintenance costs are divided among smaller groups of users, causing electric rates to rise proportionally.

Solar panels on the rich family’s roof (distributed energy) are proportionally paid for by the worker who installed the subsidized panels. By installing Bloom technology, Apple benefits, but its employees and customers’ communities experience rising electric bills. These households cannot afford to play the fuel cell game. They just pay for it.

These and other factors were exposed in Delaware, where Bloom cut a sweet deal in 2012. For $12 million, a $1/year land lease for a factory and a 21-year arrangement for selling Bloom-generated electricity — all courtesy of state ratepayers and taxpayers — Bloom agreed to build a factory and bring 900 high-paying, allegedly clean-energy manufacturing jobs to Delaware.

To date, Bloom has created only 277 Delaware jobs; the rest are in India. Bloom was penalized $1.5 million for missing its jobs target. This was peanuts considering that Bloom has received $190 million under the electricity sales agreement, which has 16 more years to go.

Billions of taxpayer dollars subsidize wind, solar and other green projects like Bloom. These projects are complex and never explained or displayed in a homeowner’s electric bill. However, in Delaware Bloom’s costs are prominently displayed on every monthly electric bill, along with solar and wind costs.

Consumers (and voters) are increasingly upset, as they realize that Bloom’s original forecast of $0.70 per household has ballooned to $5.00 a month, and still rising. Bloom under-delivered on jobs by 70 percent and underestimated costs by 700 percent.

Bloom electricity is sold to the grid via Delmarva Power, acting as Bloom’s agent. Since Delmarva is a utility, regulated by the Public Service Commission, Bloom’s monthly PSC performance reports are also public.

Performance transparency became a problem when a Delaware think tank hired chemical engineer Lindsay Leveen to analyze Bloom’s monthly reports. Six years of data confirm significant efficiency decreases as units degrade. Maintenance and operational costs increase and are passed along to consumers.

Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that Bloom’s units generate hazardous wastes and fined Bloom $1million. The dispute is currently in the courts, creating another awkward situation for the “green tech” company.

Then North Carolina’s environmental regulators fined Bloom customer Apple Computer for multiple violations regarding hazardous wastes at Apple’s server farm near Charlotte, N.C. Apple claimed Bloom was responsible; Bloom said it was Apple’s problem.

Bloom won the dispute, and Apple paid the state a $40,000 fine, without admitting wrongdoing. It’s reasonable that every Bloom customer has a similar inconvenient problem.

Bloom’s bigger difficulty may be that Mr. Leveen is outraged by the deceptions he’s uncovered. It was Mr. Leveen who alerted Tar Heel environmental regulators about Bloom and Apple. He’s also approached state and federal regulators, media and others with his data and findings in Bloom’s IPO documents.


Finding ‘clean power’ is the least of New York’s energy worries

A key Team de Blasio aide is fretting that the closure of the Indian Point nuclear-power plant will lead to more electricity coming from “dirty” fossil fuels. Yet the truth may be far worse.

If Indian Point closes as planned by 2021, “we will see localized impacts” before any clean-energy sources are up and running. That, The Post reported this week, is what top de Blasio energy aide Susanne Des-Roches told a forum earlier this year.

She feared the plant’s replacement power would be “heavy” on greenhouse gases. She also cited “cost impacts” from IP’s closure — i.e., higher electric bills. She’s right: Wind and solar “clean energy” is unlikely to be sufficient to replace IP’s 2,000 MW of juice — not by 2021, and quite possibly never.

Which leaves fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. So why does climate-change warrior Mayor de Blasio, DesRoches’ boss, support IP’s shutdown?

The plant is closing after spending years (and up to $200 million) fighting legal harassment by Gov. Cuomo, who (in a suck-up to anti-nuke radicals) claims IP puts the metro area at risk of nuclear contamination — which tons of evidence show is fear-mongering nonsense.

But fracking has made natural gas cheap and nuclear power less economical, so IP’s owners threw in the towel.

Thing is, high costs, unreliable juice and greenhouse-gas emissions are the least of New York’s post-Indian-Point concerns. The big question: Will there be enough power from any source, dirty or clean?

Cuomo has nixed pipelines for natural gas. Last month, he denied a key permit to a new Orange County natural-gas power plant. Con Ed is so worried about shortages, it’s spending $100 million a year on workarounds.

As we’ve warned before: Stock up on candles while you still can.


Does Russia Deploy American Green Groups as Pawns?

The Trump administration, despite being accused of facilitating Russian collusion in the 2016 Presidential election, is, with the rest of America, actually a victim of Russian sabotage.

American environmental groups’ threats to halt energy projects and defence operations, long a problem, have grown recently, thanks in part to Russian support. They are now more dangerous to energy security than ever.

While the media remain obsessed with “Russia collusion” in the 2016 elections, they ignore a more serious problem: Russian efforts to shrink American energy production.

Russian-backed cyberattacks on the U.S. energy sector amount to what U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry calls “an act of war.” But while worrisome, those probably are less effective in the long run than another strategy.

It’s not mere collusion but open and direct cooperation between Russia and American environmental organizations to thwart the growth of the U.S. energy industry.

That industry is on the rise, thanks to the discovery and, by applying the combined technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, use of huge natural gas reserves across large basins covering multiple states.

Shale gas production more than doubled between 2011 and 2016, and proven reserves (shale gas that can be extracted and used for energy) continue to rise as exploration continues.

The International Energy Agency predicts that U.S. shale production will reach 1.3 million barrels a day in 2018, and there is a huge organic cash flow into the industry, eliminating the need to borrow from banks. This points to an energy-independent U.S.

And that is why other big natural gas exporters, particularly Russia, are determined to make countries like the UK and U.S. curtail oil and gas exploration.

To halt natural gas extraction and other pipeline projects, anonymous donors pump millions of dollars into environmental advocacy groups. Then they use those groups as proxies to serve their vested interest in impeding the growth of American energy infrastructure projects, to rein in American competition for energy markets, to bolster their own revenues.

Of the many American environmental advocacy groups complicit in this war-by-other-means strategy, two are particularly guilty of colluding with Russia to quell American production.

The Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club Foundation (SCF) have been advocating for the restriction of energy exploration and such advocacy could be harming the operation of defence forces.

Both NRDC and SCF get large amounts of money from the Sea Change Foundation, which receives funds from Russia and other sources and disseminates them to NRDC, SCF, and other Green advocacy groups.

The Daily Signal reported that NRDC and SCF alone received more than $10 million in grants from Sea Change.

When approached by journalists about the ultimate sources of funding through Sea Change, both NRDC and SCF gave ambiguous responses.

How did Sea Change’s gifts pay off?

NRDC and SCF filed an unusually large number of lawsuits against shale gas exploration. They organized a large network of advocacy groups, lobbyists, and lawyers in strategic places, including Washington, D.C., and state capitals.

Recent successes include blocking fracking projects in New York, where energy bills are soaring because of the state’s stubbornness in rejecting affordable, clean natural gas.

Intelligence reports indicate that this is not the first time Russia has blocked fracking through environmental groups. It tried the same trick in Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Romania. A potential shale boom in Europe like the one in the U.S. would hurt Russia’s economy by reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

But Russia is not finished interfering with U.S. production. It will continue using environmental advocacy groups as platforms for economic and political sabotage.

It is ironic that two of America’s biggest environmental advocacy groups act as enemy agents in the same country that guarantees their right to pursue their dreams and flourish as they do.

Democrats should set aside party politics and join Republicans in the battle against Russia’s breach of national energy security and the home-grown threats from environmental groups.

While Trump and Putin may shake hands and smile at each other before the world, tensions are sure to rise behind the scene in Washington and Moscow.


Australian wind farm report a blow to future of the industry

A class-action lawsuit is being planned against a local council, the Victorian government and a wind farm operator after an independent review accepted resident complaints that noise from a Gippsland wind farm was causing them harm.

A council-ordered report on the Bald Hills wind farm found there was a nuisance under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.

This was despite the wind farm being compliant with state planning laws. Investigators said they could hear wind turbines in some residents’ homes and accepted they could sometimes be heard over the television and that residents were suffering sleep deprivation and other symptoms.

The report is a milestone on a years-long journey for residents at Bald Hills involving botched investigations, doctored reports, court interventions and heavy-handed planning decisions.

The finding could have dramatic implications for the ongoing development of the wind industry, which claims its turbines do not disturb residents.

Affected resident Don Fairbrother said the situation should never have got to this point. “There was a lot of concern about the suitability of the site and the height of the turbines was increased without community consultation,” he said. “The project has had a troubled history and we are finally being listened to.

“Our concerns about sleep dep­ri­vation have finally been recognised as a health and welfare issue.”

Noise logs by Mr Fairbrother document “whining, roaring noise” causing sleep deprivation and headaches.

The independent monitor, James C. Smith and Associates, was engaged in March by the South Gippsland Shire Council lawyers to investigate. The report said Mr Fairbrother appeared to have “frequent sleep interruptions from a noise described as ‘grumbling noise and a sensation’ and frequent associated headaches”.

In conclusion, the report said there had been a consistency in complaints. “Without exception, there are allegations that the wind farm noise is audible inside their individual homes and, as a result, there is sleep disruption during the nightly and early morning hours,” the report said.

One first-hand experience where wind farm noise intruded on conversation during a site visit was seen as “detrimental to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the residential environment”.

“After consideration of the completed noise logs by individual complainants and subsequent discussions with some of these individuals, it appears there is nuisance caused by wind farm noise, in that the noise is audible frequently within individual residences and this noise is adversely impacting on the personal comfort and wellbeing of individuals,” the report said.

The report is significant because the wind farm had been approved as compliant under state noise regulations and was being operated in a low-noise mode when investi­gations were under way.

The residents’ lawyer, Demenika Tannock, said she was meeting affected residents to consider their options. “A QC has been briefed and a junior counsel briefed with a possible class action against the shire, the operator, the minister and the state Environment Department,” Ms Tannock said.

A case is currently before the Supreme Court.

The Bald Hills wind farm was developed by Mitsui and Co and sold to Australian-based Infrastructure Capital Group in February last year. South Gippsland Council said it would be seeking comments on the report from both the wind farm operator and the complainants over the next few weeks.

Council chief executive Tim Tamlin said: “Without in any way suggesting that council is avoiding its responsibility, I would like to point out that this finding demonstrates the apparent disconnect between the Planning and Environment Act and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act,” he said. “I would suggest this is something the Victorian government needs to resolve.”




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


Sunday, September 16, 2018

Trump says Florence is just ‘Mother Nature.’ A stunning new climate study says he’s wrong (?)

By Joe Romm

Professional Warmist Joe Romm is easily stunned. I would have said "rubbishy' instead of "stunning". All these attribution studies are  just speculation and assumption.  There is no way you can prove anything either way by them.  It's just modelling and we know how often modelling gets it wrong when it models the future.  The type of modelling below is worse than that.  It does not concern the future so there is nothing to check its conclusions against.  It is unfalsifiable, which shows it is game-play or faith, not science

 Tony Heller comments drily:  "We had more rainfall in Boulder five years ago this week (18 inches) than most of North Carolina is forecast to have from Florence. It must have been due to the high sea surface temperatures in eastern Colorado"

In his tweeted warning about Hurricane Florence Wednesday, President Trump said, “bad things can happen when you’re talking about a storm this size. It’s called Mother Nature.”

The authors of a bombshell new analysis, “The human influence on Hurricane Florence,” disagree. They find that human-caused global warming has supercharged the atmosphere so much that it is boosting the very worst of the projected rainfall totals by more than 50 percent.

ThinkProgress asked coauthor Dr. Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) whether “your analysis allows us to say the storm is more than just Mother Nature.” He replied in an email:

Indeed. The most important message from this (and previous) analyses is that “Dangerous climate change is here now!” It is not a distant threat in the future but today’s reality. Event attribution has shown this for heat waves, floods, certain kind of droughts and tropical cyclones.

Scientists have been warning for decades that global warming means more intense deluges since there’s more water vapor in the atmosphere and because warmer ocean temperatures are the engine that drives stronger hurricanes. And scientists have now observed that the most extreme rainfall events have been rising rapidly, especially on the East Coast.

In response, scientists have started doing “after-the-fact” analyses of how much climate change has contributed to worsening the rainfall of major storms.

For instance, a December 2017 study (coauthored by Wehner) found that climate change boosted Harvey’s rainfall in the worst hit area by 38 percent. A 2018 study found that “post-1980 warming” boosted Harvey’s total precipitation by 20 percent.

The new study on Florence published Thursday is the first to look at the impact of human-caused climate change on a hurricane before it makes landfall.

Lead by Dr. Kevin Reed of the Climate Extremes Modeling (CEM) Group at Stony Brook University, the researchers found that because of human-caused climate change, “rainfall will be significantly increased by over 50% in the heaviest precipitating parts of the storm.”

Because the analysis was done in real time, before Florence hit, it was not formally peer-reviewed. The state of the art of attribution analysis has been improving rapidly, allowing this kind of quick analysis. But as Dr. Wehner pointed out to ThinkProgress, the main finding of a 50 percent rain increase for Florence in the hardest hit region isn’t that dissimilar to his peer-reviewed paper on Harvey, which found a 38% increase in the hardest hit region.

The chart below compares two forecasts by the scientists. The Standard Forecast (left) uses an ensemble of existing climate models to create an actual forecast of Florence’s rainfall on September 11. The “Modified Forecast” (right) uses a model that has been “modified to remove the estimated climate change signal from the temperature, moisture, and SST fields to represent a world without climate change.”

In the real world, where humans have dramatically changed the climate through emissions of heat trapping carbon pollution, large parts of North Carolina will be hit by 18 or more inches of rain — a devastating deluge.

In a world without climate change, Florence is still a very destructive storm, but the worst hit region is much smaller and these areas would have much less rain.

Note that this study does not attempt to look at how some of the larger scale impacts of climate change on the jet stream are impacting the storm — and are potentially responsible for the storm hitting the coast in the first place.


Exploiting Mother Nature
There was some good news yesterday: Hurricane Florence weakened. The National Weather Service downgraded Florence to a Category 2 storm. Hopefully it will continue to weaken and “underperform” as it hits the Carolina coast. We are praying for all those in the storm’s path.

Sadly, the Left is politicizing everything. It politicized the Boy Scouts. Fast food. The NFL. Even pronouns.

And, as we know, it has been politicizing the weather for years. Florence is no exception. It is already blaming the hurricane on Trump!

But you sense that the Left is hoping for the worst when it comes to Florence. The Washington Post editorial board declared: “Another Hurricane Is About To Batter Our Coast. Trump Is Complicit.”

A note to the “scientists” on the Post’s editorial board: Trump can’t be complicit because climate change is a long process and he’s been in office less than two years.

I checked and only three Category 4 hurricanes have hit the Carolina coasts since the 1950s, well before climate change was on anyone’s radar. The last was Hugo in 1989. If climate change has gotten so much worse, why haven’t there been more?

Here’s the simple truth: There were terrible hurricanes before Donald Trump and there will be terrible hurricanes after Donald Trump.

The Left’s real issue, of course, is that Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accords, which even if fully implemented would have done very little.

But the exploitation doesn’t end there. Left-wing politicians are accusing the administration of not being prepared. That is absurd. President Trump has repeatedly warned people to evacuate. He has signed disaster declarations to speed up the response.

Unfortunately, Florence will likely cause horrendous damage. The Carolina coast has been massively developed in recent decades. And even with thousands of utility workers already headed to the region, there will be places with no power for days.

That does not mean there was a lack of preparation. That is simply the reality of Mother Nature in spite of man’s best efforts. But that won’t stop the Left from trying to turn Florence into “Trump’s Katrina,” just like it did with Hurricane Maria.


Hurricane Florence Is Not an Omen About Climate Change

In today’s hyper-politicized world of climate science, hardly a thunderstorm passes without somebody invoking the “scientists say” trope to blame it on carbon emissions.

The logic seems to be: If it’s bad, it was caused by carbon emissions, and we are only going to see more and worse. More and worse floods, droughts, tornadoes, and of course, hurricanes.

The problem with this argument is that overall, we are not seeing more floods, droughts, tornadoes, or hurricanes in spite of the steady rise in the small amount of carbon dioxide, and in spite of the mild warming of the planet. The data show that there is no significant upward trend in any of these weather events.

These are not the conclusions of climate skeptics. They are conclusions drawn by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This week, the Carolina coast and some yet-to-be-determined inland counties will endure the heavy and destructive rains of Hurricane Florence. Without a doubt, some places will see records broken.

As the hurricane arrives, talking heads will hit the airwaves claiming that “scientists say” it was caused by carbon emissions. Some may spin it more subtly, saying that while we cannot identify which storms are caused by increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the storms today are getting stronger and more frequent.

But this simply is not true. We are not seeing more frequent hurricanes, nor are we seeing a greater number of major hurricanes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said as much in its latest science report:

Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

Be on the alert for those who quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as saying there has been an upward trend in hurricanes since the 1970s. That is a misleading claim. Hurricane landfalls actually fell for the decades before the 1970s.

Cherry-picking endpoints can produce “trends” that are either up or down. The fact is that for the past century, there is no trend.

Furthermore, there was never a time when the climate was stable (as some would claim), when weather events happened with smooth regularity. There have always been cycles—years and decades that included large numbers of hurricanes, and others with few.

Whether carbon dioxide levels rise, fall, or stay the same, we will continue to see hurricanes. Some of these hurricanes will be immensely destructive of both property and human life. Some will break records for wind and/or rain. And they will be tragic.

The fact that tragic weather events have not stopped is not evidence that carbon emissions are leading us to a climate catastrophe. Perhaps we will see a decades-long increase in one category or another, it has happened before—but that will not prove the predictions of catastrophic climate change one way or the other.

Even if all of the mild (though uneven) warming that seems to have occurred over the past century were due to man-made carbon emissions, that would still not be a reason to fear for the future. The overall story does not point to climate catastrophe.

But weather catastrophes will continue to strike, and we will still face the danger wrought by nature’s wrath. Hurricane Florence is shaping up to be exactly such a storm.


The Stealth Agenda of Climate Cronyism

The issue of climate change is more about influence, money, and power than about science.

Hurricane Florence is currently ravaging the Carolina coast, causing widespread flooding, beach erosion, and destruction due to strong winds. While a storm of this magnitude should certainly receive national media attention, it’s no surprise that this one is being used by climate alarmists as a political weapon. Some are even blaming President Donald Trump for it.

The editorial board of The Washington Post opines, “When it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks.”

But there’s no need to worry about climate change any longer. California Gov. Jerry Brown and a host of politicians and entertainers are firing up their private jets and gathering for a global climate conference to reduce greenhouse gases and reach “carbon neutrality” by the middle of the 21st century.

Joining the conference will be musician Dave Matthews, actor Alec Baldwin, and Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson. Former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore, who predicted the earth would turn into a “total frying pan” by 2016, will round out the climate cabal.

You may notice that none of the people listed above hold any degrees or certifications in meteorology or climatology. In fact, a typical backyard weather watcher is likely more in tune with the climate than Matthews or Baldwin. Those who do study weather and climate know better, and the facts speak for themselves.

Hurricanes have been significantly less frequent in the past 50 years than they were in the first half of the 20th century. Florence is a formidable storm, but it’s not as strong as Gloria in 1985, despite the fact that Florence is over warmer water, according to WeatherBELL Analytics meteorologist Joe Bastardi who predicted back in July that this hurricane season might feature more intense hurricanes.

And here are some questions that certainly won’t be asked at Gov. Brown’s climate conference: Why were there such powerful hurricanes long before man was supposedly dumping carbon into the atmosphere? Why are storms generally less extreme than they were decades ago? What about the recent decade without a single hurricane making landfall in the U.S.? And what are the real driving forces behind storms that climate change activists knowingly fail to discuss?

The reality, of course, is that the climate change industry is heavy on politics and light on science. Strongly critical of Big Oil and its influence on Capitol Hill, the climate lobby is just as influential.

Fortunately, climate alarmists have been largely unsuccessful in getting major climate change legislation passed at the national level. For this, we can thank the Trump administration, which doesn’t buy into their exaggerations of rising sea levels and monster storms fueled by industry. So, unable to convince the public to support their radical legislation, those who warn of anthropogenic climate change have resorted to subverting our democratic system.

A paper written by Christopher C. Horner and published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute “details an extensive and elaborate campaign using elective law enforcement offices, in coordination with major donors and activist pressure groups, to attain a policy agenda that failed through the democratic process.”

Horner adds that the scheme, funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, “uses nonprofit organizations as pass-through entities by which donors can support elected officials to, in turn, use their offices to advance a specific set of policies favored by said donors.”

Thus, having failed to make their case in the marketplace of ideas, the alarmists are embracing climate cronyism at its worst.

Clearly, the more one looks at the issue of climate change, the more one sees that it’s really all about influence, money, and power. Silencing those with opposing views on climate science, brainwashing the public on the dangers of global warming, and characterizing recurring weather events as never-before-seen examples of man’s impact on the environment, the climate change lobby will do anything to force the U.S. and the world to adopt an agenda that threatens our sovereignty, prosperity, and Liberty.

In a few days, Hurricane Florence will have passed. We pray that the Carolinas are spared the worst. Yet no matter what happens, climate change extremists will use Florence (and every other useful weather event) to push their lies instead of advancing our understanding of science for the greater good. And they’re resorting to any means necessary to make sure you’re left out of the discussion.


Blaming bad weather/hurricanes on Trump and/or ‘global warming’ is a throwback to medieval witchcraft

Book Excerpt from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change"

As climate activists and the news media exploit Hurricane Florence in their attempts to scare the public and blame President Trump, a new book details the long history of using superstition to blame bad weather events on witchcraft and other unscientific factors.

Once, long before the modern SUV was the culprit, witches were blamed for causing bad weather and crop failures. Sallie Baliunas, formerly of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has explained how the severe conditions of the medieval Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages created a perfect atmosphere for witchcraft trials. “Those severe conditions in climate brought about crop failure, starvation, disease, death and social unrest,” Baliunas noted.

“They said, for a hundred years such a storm has not been seen. The storm was deemed so unusual in this period of superstition that it had to be unnatural, it had to be supernatural.” Baliunas continued with the parallel. “Legal philosopher John Boden in 1580 noted that witchcraft was the most terrible problem facing humankind. Again a very, a very modern note.”

Baliunas drew other links between witchcraft hysteria and today’s climate debate as well. “Now, there were skeptics who stood up but they were often accused of, or threatened to be accused of, sorcery as to squash any debate,” she noted. “Any feeble notes of humane skeptics had to be wrenched out of society.”

Something very similar is happening today, as Canadian physicist Denis Rancourt testifies from his experience. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming itself is not something to be concerned about—environmental activists attack me,” Rancourt explains. “They shun me, and they do not allow me to have my materials published in their various magazines and so on.”

The belief that witches could alter the weather was so pervasive in the Middle Ages that even religious leaders believed it. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII wrote, “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they [witches] raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”

In our modern era, the Associated Press echoes the medieval pope’s warning about witches and bad weather, but this time blames man-made global warming. “From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It’s not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way,” the AP intoned ominously in an August 12, 2010 article.

Scholarly studies confirm that witch trials were on the upswing during the Little Ice Age. According to a 2012 Live Science article, “Historical records indicate that, worldwide, witch hunts occur more often during cold periods, possibly because people look for scapegoats to blame for crop failures and general economic hardship.

Fitting the pattern, scholars argue that cold weather may have spurred the infamous Salem witch trials in 1692.” Emily Oster studied witchcraft and temperatures for her senior thesis at Harvard University and found that the Little Ice Age coincided with the most active era of witchcraft trials in Europe. Lower temperatures correlated with higher numbers of witchcraft accusations. She published her witchcraft research in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2004. Oster explained that “popes and scholars alike clearly believed witches were capable of controlling the weather, and therefore, crippling food production.”

Salem State University historian Emerson Baker’s research agrees with Oster’s findings. “A harsh New England winter really may have set the stage for accusations of witchcraft,” noted a Live Science analysis of Baker’s research. The bad weather may have helped stir up the population’s psychological state into a full blown mass hysteria. “The young girls who accused their fellow townsfolk of witchcraft are believed to have been suffering from a strange psychological condition known as mass hysteria, Live Science noted.”

Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in 2017 drew parallels to today’s man-made climate change claims. “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed,” Happer quipped.

A 2014 Scientific American analysis found “in Medieval Europe the idea of a sort of demonic conspiracy, perpetrated by sorcerers and witches against society, became common lore.” “These difficult times also see the emergence of a new kind of superstition, that witches could ‘make weather’ and steal the milk from the (starving) cows,” the analysis added.

According to Scientific American, Bavarian and Swiss accounts of the era reported: “1445, in this year was a very strong hail and wind, as never seen before, and it did great damage, […] and so many women, which it’s said to have made the hail and the wind, were burned according to the law.”

“Anno 1626 the 27th of May, all the vineyards were totally destroyed by frost […], the same with the precious grain which had already flourished.[…] Everything froze, [something] which had not happened as long as one could remember, causing a big rise in price.[…] As a result, pleading and begging began among the peasants, [who] questioned why the authorities continued to tolerate the witches and sorcerers destruction of the crops. Thus the prince-bishop punished these crimes, and the persecution began in this year…”

Literal witch hunts are not a thing of the past. “Weather patterns continue to trigger witchcraft accusations in many parts of Africa, where witch killings persist. According to a 2003 analysis by the Berkeley economist Edward Miguel, extreme rainfall—either too much or too little—coincides with a significant increase in the number of witch killings in Tanzania,” reported a 2012 analysis in Live Science.

Climate skeptic Tony Heller of Real Climate Science has pointed out parallels between Aztec sacrifices to stop bad weather and the modern global warming movement’s efforts to appease the CO2 gods. In 1450, Aztec priests encouraged people to sacrifice blood to the gods to end the severe drought that was decimating corn crops. They ended up sacrificing thousands of people in a few weeks.

Heller quipped, “Like the Aztecs, many scientists believe that sacrificial offerings are necessary to stabilize climate. But there are some key differences.  1. Aztecs correctly believed that the climate was controlled by the moods of the Sun. Modern climate scientists have not progressed that far yet. 2. Aztec priests believed that only a small percentage of the population needed to be sacrificed, whereas the modern priests believe that everyone (except for themselves) needs to sacrifice.”

Aborigines in nineteenth-century Australia blamed the bad climate on the arrival of the White man. A March 11, 1846 article in the Maitland Mercury explained that “great changes have taken place in the climate of Australia,” citing “heavy rains” and “deluging floods” and noted, “The aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since the white-man came in country.”

In 2013, the White man was once again being blamed for climate change. Climate activist Bill McKibben lamented, “White America has fallen short”—by voting for “climate deniers.” In a March 14, 2013 Los Angeles Times op-ed, McKibben complained, “Election after election, native-born and long-standing citizens pull the lever for climate deniers.”

The history of mankind is one of superstition and fear of the weather gods. It is a history of ritualistic appeasements in attempts to prevent bad weather. “Naked Girls Plow Fields for Rain,” blared the headline of a July 24, 2009, Reuters report. “Farmers in an eastern Indian state have asked their unmarried daughters to plow parched fields naked in a bid to embarrass the weather gods to bring some badly needed monsoon rain, officials said on Thursday.”

A 2009 article in reported, “The Karimojong [in Uganda] blame the spell of calamities like drought and disease to the “angry gods.” As the report explained, “Little do they know that their area is suffering the consequences of a larger problem, climate change.”

As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott pointed out, “From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.” Stott explained, “Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. . . . Global warming represents the latest doom-laden ‘crisis,’ one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways. But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.”

Extreme weather expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote of the mystical qualities of the climate change claims in an analysis titled “It has been foretold.” “Because various unsupportable and just wrong claims are being advanced by leading scientists and scientific organizations, it would be easy to get the impression that on the issues of extreme events and climate change, IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calenders.”

Scientist Doug Hoffman mocked the climate change establishment. “The whole enterprise is reminiscent of Medieval mystics claiming to predict the future while spouting gibberish,” Hoffman, a mathematician and engineer who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations, Hoffman wrote on October 13, 2009. “Palm readers and fortune tellers stand as good a chance as any in this game.”

Today’s global warming narrative blames every bad weather event on man-caused global warming. As we have seen, there is no way to falsify these “climate change” claims because bad weather events are always going to happen—and every bad weather event “proves” their case. Have we really advanced since the days of the medieval witch hunt?




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here