The climate strikes aren’t about climate, they are about anti-capitalism

Most of the deluded kids on the climate “strikes” last week didn’t have a clue why they were there.

Enthusiastically cheered on by the mainstream media, it was a cheeky bludge off school and all they were doing was trying to “save the planet” right?

No of course not. These gullible kids are being exploited by all kinds of extreme-Left and anti-capitalist groups in order to bring about a wholesale societal change, using our children as their innocent pawns.

The website for the strikes refers to the need for “climate justice” which we all know is code for wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor, and an excuse for the usurping of normal democratic processes.

And as we no longer educate children to think for themselves, you can bet this brainwashing will last decades – possibly their entire lives.

Shameful.

SOURCE  H/T Climate Lessons




NY Judges advise wind developer to comply with WHO turbine noise standards

Judges in the state Article 10 approval process for large energy projects made recommendations that would require Invenergy's Number Three Wind Farm to do better in a number of project areas to secure the coveted Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need before construction can begin.

"The recommended Certificate Conditions... are designed to ensure that the Project's impacts are minimized and avoided to the maximum extent practicable, that the Project will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable State and local environmental and public health and safety laws and regulations," the document states.

While back-and-forth negotiations throughout the past year resulted in a number of changes and conditions agreed upon by the wind farm and various parties to the process, if the state Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment accepts the recommendations made by Presiding Examiner Maureen F. Leary, administrative law judge for state Public Service, and Associate Examiner Molly T. McBride, administrative law judge of the DEC, Number Three still has significant work to do, especially relating to noise control.

Noise from turbines can be made by mechanical components, a "whooshing" sound in certain weather conditions from acoustic pulsations and the controversial "infrasound," which is less "heard" and more sensed as a constant due to vibrations and pulses, the document said.

Number Three had disputed the negative impact of the noise on health and referred to it instead as an "annoyance," setting a 45-decibel limit.

"WHO 2009 and WHO 2018 along with the positions of Department of Public Service staff and Department of Health provide the Siting Board with a sufficient basis in the record to reject Number Three Wind's position that wind turbine noise at levels below 46 dBA is not associated with health impacts."

Based on the World Health Organization's findings, the judges recommend a 40-decibel long term limit outdoors, 30 decibels indoors and a short term, eight-hour, outdoor limit of 42 decibels for residents that do not participate in the project and 50 decibels for those that do.

Number Three had not set an indoor limit.

The judges also noted that the wind company arrived at its plan based on faulty information gathering.

In order to verify the results of Number Three's modeling assumptions, the Public Service Department did some modeling of its own.

"The Public Service staff modeling results showed that 34 non-participating receptors [residents] exceed the short-term design goal of 45 dBA with levels as high as 48 dBA... combined with the Maple Ridge and Copenhagen facilities, 68 receptors [residents] exceed that design goal with levels as high as 51 dBA."

As a result, they recommended the Siting Board require Number Three to re-model the noise impact of its project, taking measures at both about 5 feet (1.5 meters) and 13 feet (4 meters) above ground and calculate the cumulative impact of existing turbines from the Copenhagen and Maple Ridge wind farms on residents.

Citing a lack of key details in the Number Three proposed sound monitoring process, the judges advised adding a condition requiring Number Three follow post-construction noise monitoring and complaint procedures recommended by Public Safety based on the precedence of Cassadaga and Baron Winds wind farms that have passed through the Article 10 process.

Judgments were also made on the potential harm the wind project could cause to protected species of protected grassland birds and bats.

Number Three could be expected to file a final Endangered or Threatened Species mitigation plan within two months, including methods to "fully avoid impacts" on the threatened Upland Sandpiper and Northern Harrier grassland bird species, or, if it can prove avoiding impact isn't possible, steps it will take to minimize impact and provide value to the species.

The DEC had suggested to avoid impacting the birds, the company should move nine turbines and all infrastructure from the birds' habitat area, create an 820-foot buffer around the occupied habitat during breeding season with no construction from April 23 to Aug. 15.

Recommendations require the company to monitor its impact on any endangered or protected species over the life of the project and make changes to decrease it as necessary, including the number of animals, especially the birds and bats, killed because of the turbines throughout its 30-year duration.

Referencing DEC staff testimony given earlier in the summer, the judges wrote "wind turbines are currently the single greatest known source of mortality for several bat species in North America," and that "post-construction fatality studies in New York State revealed that most turbine-caused fatalities are to migratory tree bats."

The judges recommended the siting board accept the agreement the DEC and Number Three reached in June to institute a "curtailment" program to guard Northern Long Eared Bats, a protected species in the project area.

Under the program, turbines use will be limited when wind speeds are below a certain point between July 1 and Oct. 1, beginning 30 minutes before sunset and continuing until 30 minutes after sunrise when temperatures are greater than 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

Although flicker, or the shadows, cast by the turning turbine blades in the right conditions, has been often cited by the grassroots Tug Hill Alliance for Rural Preservation and other county residents as an issue, the judges did not recommend the 30-minutes per day limit on operations causing flicker.

Instead, they followed the precedent set by the Baron Winds project requiring Number Three to either temporarily "curtail" wind turbine operation in response to complaints to keep flicker under the 30-hour annual limit or "to provide physical mitigation measures."

Among previously agreed upon certificate conditions minimizing the project's visual impact, Number Three had disputed being required to use or consider installing the Aircraft Lighting Detection System, subject to FAA approval, which would turn the red lights on based on radar detection of aircraft.

The judges, however, agreed that it would be an important tool to decrease the visual impact of the project at night and should be examined.

With regard to removing the wind farm, or "decommissioning" it, after it has run its course, the judges found Number Three's plan to be insufficient and recommended a number of conditions before certificate approval.

In the revised plan, Number Three would estimate the cost to remove all wind farm components and restore access roads without including income from salvaging or re-selling the materials and provide an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the total costs.

Every five years, those amounts will be reconsidered and the letter updated, if the recommendations are followed.

Turbines that have not been working for over a year should be removed by the company automatically, the judges said.

Issues including invasive species, plants and forests, wildlife excepting birds and bats, ice throw, turbine collapse, electric and magnetic fields and compliance with state energy policies were among those that were judged to have been sufficiently addressed by Number Three and various experts via documentation or testimony already provided.

Certificate conditions, in some of these cases, were already agreed upon after previous proceedings.

The 254-page document was filed online Aug. 22, on the state Department of Public Service's site dedicated to the project.

Recommendations for 138 certificate conditions and 32 additional documentation packages verifying the completion of those conditions clarify steps the wind company must take if the siting board follows the judges' advice.

In July, the siting board chairman informed Number Three that the extensive changes to the project amounted to a revision. A 45-day extension to the pre-set 12 month timeframe to the Article 10 process that would have ended in September was put in place and the company was required to submit $75,000 in additional intervenor funding.

SOURCE 




The Cynical Myth of a Global Warming "Consensus"

An article of faith of the modern environmental movement is the scientific "consensus" behind man-made global warming. Global warming activists and even some serious scientific organizations claim that 97% of the world's scientists unreservedly accept this theory. It is often the first and most common argument used by climate activists, from Al Gore to the Greenpeace climate warriors protesting in front of the White House.

Pope Francis incorporated this belief into his 2015 "green" encyclical, Laudato si': "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system."1 He repeated it during an airplane interview on September 6, 2017, on the return flight from a trip to Colombia. A reporter asked the Pope if, in light of the recent devastation in the United States caused by Hurricane Harvey, he thought there was a "moral responsibility" for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

He agreed entirely, appealing to a "consensus" of scientists: ".Whoever denies this should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The scientists are precise. you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. [So] if one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then let them decide, and history will judge their decisions."

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Pope's right-hand man for climate activism, stated: "From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!"

Is there a "scientific consensus" about man-made global warming? Can there be any such thing as a scientific "consensus" in the first place? Do 97% of scientists believe in global warming?

The answer to all three questions is an unequivocal NO, and we will analyze each one in depth.

What Is a "Scientific Consensus" Anyway?

The word "consensus" is confusing at best and deceptive at worst. There is no infallible "pope" of science who declares one or another scientific theory to be fact and all others to be heretical. Science has relatively few absolute, unchangeable truths and many theories of varying degrees of certitude. A scientific theory is not infallible simply because a democratic majority of scientists say so.

And what is the definition of "scientific consensus?" Different scientific theories are accepted by various numbers of scientists to varying degrees, all of which are labeled "consensus." If 50% + 1 of scientists accept a theory, does that make a "consensus?" Or does it have to be 75% or more? If so, why?

What about the degree of adherence to a scientific theory? If 90% of scientists believe a theory is "probably correct," but only 10% affirm that is "certainly correct" (which is the case in many scientific debates) does that make a "consensus?" If so, why?

Most importantly, why is it wrong to question a "scientific consensus" (however one defines it) in the first place? As any honest scientists will admit, in every scientific field, disagreement is common, and widespread "consensus" is the exception. Scientific knowledge is constantly undergoing challenges, upheavals, and paradigm shifts thanks to new discoveries. Indeed, the history of science is littered with the wrecks of refuted theories.

The Media's Comical but Worrisome Eco-Catastrophe Obsession
In biology, for example, our knowledge and theories about the cell have changed more from Charles Darwin's death in 1882 to today than in the previous 10,000 years of human history combined. Astronomy has learned more about the planets, galaxies, and the universe in the twentieth century than in the 1,800 years since Ptolemy.

Scientists continually propose scientific theories that buck mainstream "consensuses." Even today, we do not have certainty about basic scientific questions such as the size of the universe, the nature or existence of "black holes," the age of the Earth, or even whether light is a particle or a wave. Our understanding of the atom has undergone numerous transformations over the last 200 years and continues to do so.

Climate science is extremely complex. Every year, we learn more and more about the many factors that influence the Earth's climate. Scientists can and do make incorrect assumptions or conclusions based on faulty theories or incomplete data. In the seventies and eighties, many scientists, scientific organizations, and most of the media declared a scientific "consensus" that a global cooling trend was underway that would lead to a new Ice Age. Now, some of the very same scientists tell us that anyone who questions global warming is a "denier." Either the "consensus" was wrong then, or it is wrong now.

Appealing to authority rather than evidence-as proponents of the man-made global warming theory are doing when they claim a "scientific consensus"-is anything but scientific. It is nothing less than an attempt to silence opposition, shut down all debate and scare the general public into submission.

Do 97% of Scientists Endorse the UN's Position on Global Warming?
To this end, the most common argument used by climate activists such as Al Gore is that 97% of scientists worldwide explicitly endorse the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position that man-made global warming is happening, that it is caused mostly by man's activities, and that it is a grave threat to humanity and the Earth.

It is quite an intimidating figure. Anyone who dissents from man-made global warming, therefore, must be a member of a tiny, dangerous, isolated fringe. Perhaps they chose the 97% figure because 90% still leaves too large of a minority in opposition, but 99% or 100% is not very believable. At any rate, it is a very well chosen number for psychological effect.

The average observer might think that such a solid number as 97% has equally solid evidence to back it up. In reality, the most commonly cited studies presented to support the "97%" figure are misleading at best, and fraudulent at worst.

We will cite one of the most respected government scientific organizations in the world, NASA. On its web site dedicated to man-made global warming, NASA lists four studies to support its claim that "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."3

One study cited is "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" by historian Naomi Oreskes. In 2004, Oreskes took 928 papers published in scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 and searched them for evidence of support for global warming. She did not search the whole paper, but rather those papers "abstracts," which is the summary written at the very beginning of the paper that summarizes its main points. She claimed that 75% of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported the IPCC's view that humanity is responsible for most of the global increase in temperature for the past fifty years.

Oreskes's conclusions are flawed for several reasons. First, many of the articles she cites mention global warming only in passing, or assume some human impact on climate. A much smaller number explicitly endorses the IPCC view. Oreskes did not make any distinction and lumped them all together as supporting the IPCC. She also did not make any distinction between authors who believe global warming is dangerous and those who believe it is benign.

Second, she reviewed only the abstracts of the 928 scientific papers for evidence of support for global warming, and not the papers themselves. Abstracts routinely misrepresent the content and conclusions of the papers and are often chock full of keywords for search engine purposes. This is no different than reading the blurb on the back cover of a book and drawing conclusions about the author's positions on topics other than what he wrote about.

Third, most of the scientific papers are not about climate change, and most of their authors are not specialists in any of the climate sciences. Oreskes also ignores the many hundreds of articles published by prominent climate skeptics that raise serious doubts about man-made global warming.

Fourth, in 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte published a scientific study of the Oreskes report and found that only 7 percent explicitly endorsed the IPCC view on global warming

Another scientific paper cited by NASA and widely used to push the 97% myth is by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook. In 2013, he published a paper in Environmental Research Letters in which he analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 published scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011 that include the words "climate change" or "global warming." According to his very broad criteria, of all the papers that express an opinion about man-made global warming, 97.1% endorsed the IPCC position that humans are the main cause.

This paper was immediately debunked by a scientific paper published in Science & Education by David Legates, Wei-Hock Soon, William Briggs, and Christopher Monckton, in which they found that, in reality, of all the scientific papers that express an opinion on global warming, only 1% were found to explicitly endorse the IPCC's position.

Richard Tol, a lead author of the UN's IPCC reports, flatly rejected Cook's findings:

"Cook's sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about `the literature' but rather about the papers they happened to find. Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming-but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook's claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and Co. mistook for evidence."5

Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law
Also cited by NASA is a 2009 study by then-University of Illinois student Maggie Zimmerman and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. But just like the previous two, it also contains serious flaws.

Zimmerman's "study" consisted of a two-minute online survey sent to 10,257 scientists working at universities and government agencies asking for their opinion about man-made global warming. A total of 3,146 responded. Of these, she eliminated the scientists whose area of expertise-cosmology, physics, meteorology, solar science, etc.-would lead them to think that the Sun might have a major influence on the Earth's climate. Only about 5% self-identified as climate scientists.

The survey asked two questions: "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" and "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Those questions are ambiguous, since "significant" could mean many different things, and is certainly not the same as the IPCC report which affirms man as the primary factor. The questions also do not ask if such warming is harmful or benign for the planet, an important distinction.

To get the 97% figure, Zimmerman restricted her criteria only to self-identified "climate scientists" who must have published at least 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the last five years on the subject of climate change. This is a serious flaw in methodology since she would include a person who published three papers in the past five years if two of them were on climate change, but not another who published 40 papers of which only 19 were on climate change.

In short, the Zimmerman paper is a seriously flawed study that was widely promoted by the media to push a political agenda, not science. It was designed to produce one and only one result (the 97% myth) which happens to be the party line pushed by climate activist organizations.

Other studies cities by NASA, such as that done by William R. L. Anderegg in 2010, then a student at Stanford University, are just as flawed. Like the others, he scanned the abstracts of hundreds of scientific papers looking for clues of the authors' positions on global warming. To achieve the "97%" figure, he restricted his definition of "climate scientists" to those who are the "most published," which happens to be disproportionally populated by a small group of dedicated activist scientists. He removed those scientists who explicitly signed statements against the IPCC position on climate but included those who had not. In his view, silence on the issue meant that those authors accept the extreme position of the IPCC on man-made global warming.

Conclusion

It is disgraceful that a heretofore respected organization such as NASA would cite such weak and easily refuted studies to sustain its shaky hypothesis on man-made global warming. It is not a fact, but an unproven assertion that 97% of scientists accept unequivocally the IPCC's position.

There is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming. The only consensus among scientists is that there is no consensus. Rank and file climate scientists simply disagree on how much warming is occurring (if any), the causes of this warming, the role of man's activities in this warming, whether or not such warming is benign or dangerous to civilization, and what measures mankind should take to address it (if any).

Although the jury is still out on the danger of global warming, a far worse threat to the common good is the cynical promotion of global warming as a fact by people and organizations such as NASA who know better. Much worse is the Vatican, led by Pope Francis, using the full weight and moral authority of the Catholic Church to give such a fraudulent claim legitimacy.

SOURCE 





More buckets of icy cold energy reality

Democrats, Green New Dealers and UN gabfest attendees need to get `woke' on eco-energy

Paul Driessen

The full-court press is on for climate chaos disaster and renewable energy salvation. CNN recently hosted a seven-hour climate event for Democrat presidential aspirants. Every day brings more gloom-and-doom stories about absurd, often taxpayer-funded pseudo-scientific reports on yet another natural event or supposed calamity that alarmists insist is due to fossil fuels that provide 80% of US and global energy.

MSNBC just hosted another two-day Democrat presidential candidates climate forum at Georgetown University - where I spoke at a contrarian program. Meanwhile, a big Climate March took place in New York City, while protesters tried to block Washington, DC streets. They were all kicking off the UN's "Global Climate Week" in NYC, featuring a Youth Climate Summit and UN General Assembly event where world leaders will demand "global action" to supposedly stop the supposed climate crisis.

Their standard solution is biofuel, solar, wind and battery power. My recent article dumped buckets of icy cold reality on several of those claims. They obviously need to be doused with a few more icy buckets.

To reiterate: Wind and sunshine are free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. However, the lands and raw materials required for technologies to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not. In fact, their environmental impacts are monumental.

The Democrat candidates and their supporters want to replace coal and gas backup power plants with batteries, to ensure we have (much more expensive) electricity even when intermittent, weather-dependent wind and sunshine refuse to cooperate with our need for 24/7/365 power for our electricity-based homes, schools, hospitals, factories, businesses, computers, social media and civilization.

So let's suppose we blanket the United States with enough industrial-scale wind and solar facilities to replace the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours Americans used in 2018 - and we manufacture and install enough king-sized batteries to store sufficient electricity for seven straight windless or sunless days.

We would need something on the order of one billion 100-kilowatt-hour, 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based battery packs - similar to what Tesla uses in its electric vehicles. (This does not include the extra battery storage required to charge up the cars, trucks and buses we are supposed to replace with EVs.)

All these batteries would support the millions and millions of Green New Deal solar panels and wind turbines we would have to build and install. They would require prodigious amounts of iron, copper, rare earth metals, concrete and other raw materials. And every one of these batteries, turbines and panels would have to be replaced far more often than coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.

Indeed, what are we going do with all those worn-out and broken-down turbines, panels and batteries? The International Renewable Energy Agency has said disposing of just the worn out solar panels that the UN wants erected around the world by 2050, under the Paris Climate Treaty's solar energy goals, could result in two times the tonnage of the United States' total plastic waste in 2017!

So another icy cold reality is this: All this "free, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly, ethical" energy would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has ever seen. But when was the last time any environmentalist or Democrat supported opening a single US mine? They detest mining.

Which brings us to the dirtiest pseudo-renewable, pseudo-sustainable energy secret of all - the one these folks absolutely do not want to talk about: slave and child labor.

Because of rabid environmentalist opposition, the United States and Europe no longer permit much mining within their borders. They just import minerals - many of them from China and Russia. And the same groups that extol the virtues of wind, solar and battery power are equally opposed to Western mining companies extracting rare earth, lithium, cadmium, cobalt and other minerals almost anywhere on Planet Earth - even under rigorous Western labor, safety, environmental and reclamation rules.

That means those materials are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control. They are dug out and processed by fathers, mothers and children - under horrific, unsafe, inhuman conditions that few of us can even imagine ... under almost nonexistent labor, wage, health, safety and pollution standards.

Those renewable energy, high-tech slaves get a few pennies or dollars a day - while risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air. The mining and industrial areas become vast toxic wastelands, where nothing grows, and no people or wildlife can live.

For cobalt alone - say UNICEF and Amnesty International - over 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four years old, slave away in mines, from sunrise to sundown, six or even seven days a week. That's today. Imagine how many will be needed to serve the "ethical green energy utopia."

Green New Dealers demand sustainable, ethical, human rights-based coffee, sneakers, T-shirts, handbags and diamonds. Absolutely no child labor, sweat shop, or toxic, polluted workplace conditions allowed. But they have little or nothing to say about the Chinese, Russian and other companies that run the horrid operations that provide their wind turbines, solar panels, smart grids - and batteries for their cell phones, Teslas, laptops and backup electrical power.

I've never seen them make ethical wind turbines, solar panels and batteries an issue. They've never protested outside a Chinese, Russian or Congolese embassy, or corporate headquarters in Beijing, Moscow or Kinshasa. They probably don't want to get shot or sent to gulags.

And just a few weeks ago, California legislators voted down Assembly Bill 735. The bill simply said California would certify that "zero emission" electric vehicles sold in the state must be free of any materials or components that involve child labor. The issue is complicated, the legislators said. It would be too hard to enforce. It would imperil state climate goals. And besides, lots of other industries also use child labor ... they "explained."

As Milton Friedman said, there is no free lunch. Wind, solar, biofuel and battery power are not free, clean, green, renewable or sustainable. America must not let delusion, dishonesty and ideology drive public policies that will determine our future jobs, prosperity, living standards, freedoms and civilization.

What Green New Dealers are talking about has nothing to do with stopping dangerous manmade climate change - or with real sustainability, resource conservation or environmental protection. It has everything to do with increasingly socialist, largely taxpayer-financed activists, politicians, regulators and crony capitalists controlling people's lives; dictating our energy use, economic growth, job opportunities and living standards; and [getting%20richer,%20more%20powerful]getting richer, more powerful and more privileged in the process.

Meanwhile poor, minority and working class families - pay the price. And destitute families in hungry, impoverished, electricity-deprived nations pay the highest price. China, India, Indonesia and Africa are not about to give up their determined efforts to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth's healthy and prosperous people. They are not going to stop using fossil fuels to reach their goals.

They are not going to let anyone - including the UN, EU, US Democrats and other eco-imperialists - tell them they can never enjoy those blessings. Or they will be "allowed" to improve their health and living standards only at the margins, only to levels achievable with wind, solar and cow dung power.

That's why, even as the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 12% between 2000 and 2017 - India's plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions soared by 140% and China's skyrocketed 194% - further greening Planet Earth. In 2019 alone, China alone will add more coal-fired generating capacity than what all existing US coal-fired power plants generate.

While all these countries continue using more and more fossil fuels to improve their economies, health and living standards - why in heaven's name would the United States want to join Green New Dealers and other crazies in an environment-destroying ban-fossil-fuels economic suicide pact?

Via email





Australian scientist lets the drought cat out of the bag

A transcript from a talk he gave Wednesday 19 June, 2019, at he Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.  He is Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes:

“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.

That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.

If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend.  There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.

There are in some regions but not in other regions.

So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.

Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

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

*****************************************