Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective

Just one little word sinks the boat. Rubric below.  As Luther said long ago in a famous hymn: ein Wörtlein kann ihn fällen. And note that Luther was talking about the Devil.

These galoots know that what they are attempting to do is impossible.  They have not nearly got the data they need to arrive at firm conclusions

This BAMS special report presents assessments of how human-caused climate change MAY have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.

The desiccating Four Corners drought, intense heat waves on the Iberian peninsula and in northeast Asia, exceptional precipitation in the Mid-Atlantic states, and record-low sea ice in the Bering Sea were 2018 extreme weather events made more likely by human-caused climate change, according to new research published today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The eighth edition of the report, Explaining Extreme Events in 2018 from a Climate Perspective, presents 21 new peer-reviewed analyses of extreme weather across five continents and one sea during 2018. It features the research of 121 scientists from 13 countries looking at both historical observations and model simulations to determine whether and by how much climate change may have influenced particular extreme events.


COP 25: Climate Alarmists wage a war of words, but where’s the beef?

Looking back, the climate alarmist’s movement started with Al Gore’s 2007 movie when he proclaimed the eminent extinction of the polar bears due to global warming. Since the population of polar bears has blossomed over the last decade, we’ve yet to hear another word from Al Gore on that subject.

The doomsday forecasters are now grasping at new names to rebrand the movement. What was once global warming, is now climate change, climate disaster, global meltdown, climate collapse, scorched earth, climate emergency, and the latest movement, “we don’t have time”. Like Gore’s initial predictions, all the tweets lack the basis for their dismal projections.

The parents of millennials may remember from the late 1950’s this best-known quote “Just the facts, ma’am.” from Sgt. Joe Friday with the TV series Dragnet. A few decades later there was Clara Peller who was a manicurist and American character actress who, at the age of 81, starred in the 1984 “Where’s the beef?”  advertising campaign for the Wendy’s fast food restaurant chain.

The short emotional tweets from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) with 5.9 million followers, Greta Thunberg with 3 million followers, Al Gore’s 3.1 million followers, Tom Steyer’s 250 thousand followers, and Jane Fonda’s 500 thousand followers, all bumble about the doomsday that’s coming.

The tweets are void of any “beef or facts” as to what’s going to cause this forthcoming demise. They tweet rhetorical questions and emotional statements, and the millions of followers being brainwashed with scaremongering dogma slurp it up, as environmentalism has become the new religion.

The alarmism over global warming, climate change, etc., is at the forefront of these tweeted fear tactics, but when such alarmist conclusions are openly rebutted, the rebutters are being besieged with oratory that 97 percent of “all” scientists, and even the non-scientific community of 175+ organizations active on climate change believe mankind has played a role in changing the earth’s climate.

I have two problems with that 97 percent claim, 1) common sense tells us that no large group of people on our planet could ever reach 97 percent agreement on anything, even the world being round, and 2) shockingly, none of the scientists of the 97 seem to have a name, it’s just a holistic group of no-names!

It seems that none of these “97” are able to “talk” specifically about selective microscopic sound bites from vast data that are the supposedly the basis of these dire warnings about time running out and the idea of a 12-year deadline for the annihilation of life as we currently know it.

Of the almost 8 billion people living on this planet, we know that 80% of them, or more than 6 billion, are living on less than $10 a day. Obviously, those poor in underdeveloped countries cannot afford to subsidize themselves out of a paper bag and continue to use what’s readily available – coal.

It must be the other 20 percent of the population, or about 1.6 billion, in developed countries that are the targets of these climate alarmists rebranding efforts. The tweeters are promoting a global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Yet, it’s that same 20% that have come out of poverty in the last one hundred years as a result of what those deep earth mineral and fuels have provided society, enhancing their lives and improving their standard of living. Basically, the same fossil fuels that are being deprived from the other 80 percent that now live in abject poverty with no hope of reaping the benefits of what prosperous societies are enjoying.

The folks in prosperous societies that have embraced and increased their production of fossil energy have been amply rewarded with greater economic development and growth, and a healthier society. Virtually all diseases are now under control with medications and medical equipment that was not available in the 1800’s, before fossil fuels starting to run everyone’s lives. Today, we can live in any weather condition and we’ve got military equipment, airlines, merchant ships, cruise ships, truck and cars all over the world that dominate the lifestyles of prosperous societies.

The fossil fuel industry would not be needed except to meet the demands of the current users in those prosperous societies. My belief is that those users are less inclined to go back to living in medieval times without all the amenities that the thousands of products and the various fuels that the fossil fuel industry have been able to fulfill in their daily lives.

I presume the alarmists that constantly refuse to surface from behind their tweet machines to debate is because they have no case to debate the facts that they are using to justify their growing alarmist vocabulary. Unless there’s a face to face debate with the supposedly deniers, that have more data than words, we’ll never hear both sides of the climate discussions.

It’s definitely time for the alarmists to show us “where’s the beef” behind their tweets and marches, so the public can decide for themselves to consider the data from each side or just continue to accept the barrage of tweeted words of impending climate disasters that will end life as we know it.

From the extensive data available on temperatures, weather, sea levels, emissions, etc. that several scientists have shared, I don’t see the cause for such a dismal outlook for the earth and its civilization. I suspect that classifies me as a “denier”. I’m willing to join the doomsday parade, but only if the tweeters would come out from behind their tweet machines and “show their cards”. Looking forward to face-to-face discussions.


Britain’s Political Class Has Surrendered to the Green Blob

The entirety of Britain’s political class, left and right, has surrendered to the Green Blob. Here is how the various parties responded to a question from the Guardian: ‘Is the climate crisis the biggest issue the UK faces as a nation?’

Conservatives: Yes, it is one of the biggest issues facing the world. Thanks to the efforts of successive governments, the UK has cut carbon emissions by more than any similar developed country. We have also already doubled our support for developing nations to tackle climate change.

Greens: Absolutely. The science is clear: it is the biggest threat facing the UK and the world.

Labour: Yes and this election is our last chance to tackle it. We’re already off course to meet our targets and radical and urgent action over the next five years is essential.

Liberal Democrats: Yes, a Liberal Democrat government would solve Brexit on day one, so climate change would be the biggest issue.

SNP: Scotland – like the rest of the world – faces a climate emergency. We have a moral responsibility to tackle climate change and will lead the way in showing how our society can transition to net zero.

As you see, there is not a single mainstream party left in Britain that is prepared to stand up to eco-fascism.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the world is facing a ‘climate crisis’, still less that it is ‘the biggest issue the UK faces as a nation?’ (What? Not Brexit? Immigration? Healthcare? Knife Crime? The Economy?)

Yet all the main parties, even the Conservatives, have bought into the false narrative written by the kind of people who hate them and always will.

I analysed the green phenomenon in my book Watermelons and concluded that the primary purpose of environmentalism is to advance leftist causes – wealth redistribution, bigger government, identity politics, the destruction of Western industrial civilisation, the promotion of commissar-style ‘experts’ and technocrats, state-mandated restrictions on freedom – behind a cloak of green righteousness. Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

The only choice British voters are being offered is one of degrees: do you support unaffordable, uncosted, economically debilitating green lunacy or do you support head-banging, window-licking, away-with-the-fairies green lunacy or some shade of green lunacy in between?

Not even the Brexit Party has been prepared to talk sense on this issue. Yes, Nigel Farage has been robust. But not his party, as I reported with some disappointment, here.

This cowardice in the face of perhaps the world’s most dangerous ideological movement is something we shall all come to rue.

Already, we inhabit such a bonkers climate of environmental righteousness, that the Guardian feels able to ask questions like this of Britain’s political parties:

Will your government implement a policy to reduce red meat consumption in the UK?

And instead of getting a two-word response from the Conservatives, the second which is ‘off!’, the actual response from the Conservatives is, as follows:

"Conservatives: The meat that British farmers produce is already significantly less carbon-intensive than meat produced elsewhere in the world. We will back our farmers to match their own net zero by 2040 ambition with funding to develop new agri-tech to reduce emissions and farm in an even more environmentally friendly way."

Why do the Conservatives pander to the enemy in this way? It ought to be a straightforward Conservative position that it is not the business of government to interfere with people’s diets. Since when did the Conservatives so lose touch with their ideological first principles that they are now prepared to treat insinuating, loaded questions like this from the Guardian with anything other than total contempt?

I hear nasty rumours that once the Conservatives have won this election, as I believe they will with a decent working majority, they plan to put Michael Gove in charge of implementing their Zero Carbon by 2050 policy.

Britain’s contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions is about one percent. What is the point of putting one of the ablest ministers in government in charge of an economically destructive, environmentally pointless crusade to decarbonise the UK economy when, within a year, any notional benefits will have been more than offset by China’s new coal-fired power stations?

Even if we decarbonised completely, (at our enormous expense) nobody would ever notice.

Especially as big countries like China and India are totally unfazed about CO2 and burning coal and gas as fast as they can get it.

Is it any wonder so many natural Conservative voters are so unenthused about their party’s direction of travel?


Tighter Climate Policies Could Erase $2.3 Trillion in Companies Value

 Tighter government climate regulations by 2025 could wipe up to $2.3 trillion off the value of companies in industries ranging from fossil fuel producers to agriculture and car makers, an investor group warned in a report.

Rules aimed at lowering carbon emissions are expected to accelerate in the coming years as countries scramble to meet obligations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement limiting global warming.

Any abrupt policy shifts risk severely disrupting current investment strategies, U.N.-backed Principles of Responsible Investing (PRI), a group representing investors with $86 trillion of assets under management, said in a report.

"As the realities of climate change catch up, social pressure mounts, and low carbon solutions get cheaper, it's highly improbable that governments will be allowed to let the world sleep-walk into greater rises in temperature without being compelled into forceful action sooner," PRI Chief Executive Fiona Reynolds said.

"This poses huge threats for assets and for the wider system."

Most exposed is the fossil fuel sector which could lose one third of its current value, the report said. Fossil fuels account for around two thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal firms could lose as much as 44% in value, while the world's top oil and gas companies risk losing up to 31% of their current market share, according the report which forecasts oil demand peaking around 2027.

The analysis showed that broad index-based funds such as the iShares MSCI ACWI ETF could lose up to 4.5% or $2.3 trillion in its value under the most extreme scenario.

The shift would nevertheless also lead to winners. Auto makers heavily invested in electric vehicles and electric utility firms using low-carbon power could more than double their values, the report said.

The report came out as world leaders meet in Madrid for the 2019 United Nations climate change conference, known as COP25.


The miserable ghost is a pot calling the kettle black

If Warmism is not a religion, nothing is

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has launched a scathing attack on Scott Morrison's government for making religion a central issue of the climate change debate.

After being largely absent from the political scene since being ousted from the nation's top job, Mr Turnbull appeared on Monday night's Q&A program.

When asked about the bushfire crises, Mr Turnbull said a better plan was necessary as we will see 'more fires and hotter fires' due to global warming.

He then steered the topic to the collapse of his prime ministership over the controversial National Energy Guarantee plan.

'There is a group within the Liberal Party and the National Party who deny the reality of climate change,' Mr Turnbull said. 'And will oppose to the point of essentially blowing up a government, my government in this case, if there is action taken to reduce emissions - and we saw that.'

Mr Turnbull said that while Mr Morrison and current treasurer Josh Frydenberg were supportive of the energy policy, the government was being 'held to ransom by a group of deniers within the party'. 

'The problem is that people… on the right, they are treating what should be a question of physics and science and economics and engineering as though it were an issue of religion and belief... and it's nuts,' Mr Turnbull said.


Note: Turnbull once said that defeated politicians who fail to shut up are "miserable ghosts"


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


No comments: