climatechangedispatch--2020-09-14--How To Make Poverty Expensive: Embrace Net-Zero

Written by John O'Sullivan on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos “ Do you not know .
my son , with how little wisdom the world is governed ?
” That ’ s a famous remark by a Swedish statesman , Axel Oxenstierna ( 1583-1654 ) , one of the most celebrated men of his time who is now largely forgotten except by historians .
He gave that advice in a letter to reassure his nervous son that he need not worry about the diplomatic negotiations in which the young man was about to engage because he wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Don ’ t be too impressed by important people , son .
They may have no idea what they ’ re doing .
Most people recognize the wisdom of this remark on hearing it but they ’ re not always able to explain why .
My own view is that many of us get it wrong .
We think Oxenstierna is deploring the low vices—greed , ambition , jealous rivalry , etc.—that lead people in positions of power into corruption and disaster .
Such things happen and they produce bad results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption are fairly minor compared to those produced by great schemes of idealism so virtuous that no one opposed them on grounds of cost for fear of seeming petty .
They ’ re the really big-ticket items .
That was brought home to me this week when I came across a televised debate in the U.K. House of Lords in June 2019 in which Viscount Ridley ( in private life , Matt Ridley , author of The Rational Optimist and Innovation , and on climate change a “ lukewarmer ” ) was complaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have conducted a cost/benefit analysis of its decision that the U.K. would eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050 .
In fact , when Prime Minister Theresa May announced the decision the previous week , she had said proudly : “ This means the U.K. will be the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero emissions.
” ( Tory cheers ! )
Ridley was less proud because he thought that spending a vast but unknown sum to reduce U.K. carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050 without first discovering what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver suggested a spirit of light-hearted financial abandon .
“ We ’ re faced with a measure , ” he declared , “ that is likely to cost at least a trillion pounds on top of the 15 billion pounds a year that we ’ re now spending on subsidies to renewable energy .
Let ’ s remind ourselves for a second just how big a sum a trillion pounds is .
If you spent a pound a second , it would take you thirty thousand years to get through one trillion pounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the peak of the last Ice Age where woolly mammoths and Neanderthals roamed across a tundra where we now sit.
” Ridley went on to point out that when you added in the costs of other measures to reduce emissions—converting gas-heated homes to electricity , switching to hydrogen-based fuels , etc.—the total costs of U.K. policy came to something like £2.8 trillion .
Similarly , writing in the monograph Greenhouse Emissions : the Global Picture , Martin Livermore estimates the various costs of government measures to mitigate climate change as likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill for 100,000 pounds .
These are massive expenditures—so massive that we have no real sense of what the statistics mean until someone like Ridley takes the trouble to express them in an arresting way .
That explains why two of the earlier speakers in the Lords debate had dismissed them implausibly as “ nickles and dimes ” and “ manageable.
” These Brits had already swallowed Everett Dirksen ’ s Kool-Aid : “ A billion here , a billion there , and pretty soon you ’ re talking real money ” —except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real money .
And , finally , they are being spent at a time when other vast sums are being allocated both to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 and to sustain the living standards of workers made unemployed by the lockdown even though the expected recession will greatly reduce revenues going to the Treasury .
A certain giddiness has seized the minds of hitherto sober politicians and officials .
If you ask the question : “ Is the U.K. taxpayer getting decent value for the expenditures being made on his behalf , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not the point .
What is the point then ?
It ’ s to save the world by setting a moral example of a mature developed nation making sacrifices for the common good of the world by moving to a net-zero carbon economy .
That argument falls at more fences than there are in the Grand National .
We exaggerate our sacrifice .
Much of the fall in Western CO2 levels comes from moving our industries overseas to Asia and then importing the goods they produce back home .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels .
Even if we went without those goods , that would persuade Asians not to cut back on CO2 emissions but to look for new markets .
They want higher production and higher standards of living which , in the absence of major technological breakthroughs , will require greater use of fossil fuels and higher CO2 emissions .
And for Western countries to make the deeper emission cuts promised by their leaders , that would mean much higher electricity and other fuel prices and a much-reduced standard of living , inflicted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even then , in the case of Britain , it would have no impact on global emission levels because the U.K. ’ s share of them is so small .
As the Brits were making these painful but pointless sacrifices for the common good , China , India , and the former developing countries would be surging ahead and pushing up carbon emission levels ahead of themselves .
Indeed , that ’ s exactly what they are doing and why carbon emissions are not falling but rising .
Among other consequences , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ultimately of military power too , as we ’ re starting to realize ) from the West to Asia would be greatly accelerated by our own energy policy !
And what makes the position of Western governments still more uncomfortable , as Livermore points out , is ( 1 ) that their long-term strategy for getting to net-zero is neither economically nor politically plausible without carbon capture and storage technologies that don ’ t yet exist , and ( 2 ) that they will have to modify it by adopting energy solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their peoples have rejected until now .
Livermore ’ s picture of Western policy is like a maze with exits that close as soon as you approach them .
No sensible analyst thinks that the plans for net-zero carbon economies by 2050 ( let alone 2030 ) can possibly succeed .
They have no justification unless it ’ s an exercise in multicultural masochism and the politics of sainthood .
The voters won ’ t tolerate them even if small groups of fanatical greens agitate violently to impose them or if the Eurocrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy policy , which Andrew Willshire recently hinted at in his Spectator piece on the EU ’ s new energy targets .
And their enormous cost will become increasingly burdensome as the bills for so many other better causes fall due .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by John O'Sullivan on Sep 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
“Do you not know. my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” That’s a famous remark by a Swedish statesman, Axel Oxenstierna (1583-1654), one of the most celebrated men of his time who is now largely forgotten except by historians.
He gave that advice in a letter to reassure his nervous son that he need not worry about the diplomatic negotiations in which the young man was about to engage because he wouldn’t find them that difficult. Message: Don’t be too impressed by important people, son. They may have no idea what they’re doing.
Most people recognize the wisdom of this remark on hearing it but they’re not always able to explain why. My own view is that many of us get it wrong.
We think Oxenstierna is deploring the low vices—greed, ambition, jealous rivalry, etc.—that lead people in positions of power into corruption and disaster. Such things happen and they produce bad results.
But the disaster arising from greed and corruption are fairly minor compared to those produced by great schemes of idealism so virtuous that no one opposed them on grounds of cost for fear of seeming petty. They’re the really big-ticket items.
That was brought home to me this week when I came across a televised debate in the U.K. House of Lords in June 2019 in which Viscount Ridley (in private life, Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist and Innovation, and on climate change a “lukewarmer”) was complaining the British government didn’t seem to have conducted a cost/benefit analysis of its decision that the U.K. would eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050.
In fact, when Prime Minister Theresa May announced the decision the previous week, she had said proudly: “This means the U.K. will be the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero emissions.” (Tory cheers!)
Ridley was less proud because he thought that spending a vast but unknown sum to reduce U.K. carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050 without first discovering what it would cost or what benefits it would deliver suggested a spirit of light-hearted financial abandon.
“We’re faced with a measure,” he declared, “that is likely to cost at least a trillion pounds on top of the 15 billion pounds a year that we’re now spending on subsidies to renewable energy. Let’s remind ourselves for a second just how big a sum a trillion pounds is. If you spent a pound a second, it would take you thirty thousand years to get through one trillion pounds. You’d have to start before the peak of the last Ice Age where woolly mammoths and Neanderthals roamed across a tundra where we now sit.”
Ridley went on to point out that when you added in the costs of other measures to reduce emissions—converting gas-heated homes to electricity, switching to hydrogen-based fuels, etc.—the total costs of U.K. policy came to something like £2.8 trillion.
Similarly, writing in the monograph Greenhouse Emissions: the Global Picture, Martin Livermore estimates the various costs of government measures to mitigate climate change as likely to present every family in Britain with a bill for 100,000 pounds.
These are massive expenditures—so massive that we have no real sense of what the statistics mean until someone like Ridley takes the trouble to express them in an arresting way.
That explains why two of the earlier speakers in the Lords debate had dismissed them implausibly as “nickles and dimes” and “manageable.”
These Brits had already swallowed Everett Dirksen’s Kool-Aid: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”—except that a billion’s no longer real money.
And, finally, they are being spent at a time when other vast sums are being allocated both to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 and to sustain the living standards of workers made unemployed by the lockdown even though the expected recession will greatly reduce revenues going to the Treasury.
A certain giddiness has seized the minds of hitherto sober politicians and officials. If you ask the question: “Is the U.K. taxpayer getting decent value for the expenditures being made on his behalf,” you’re likely to be told that’s not the point.
What is the point then? It’s to save the world by setting a moral example of a mature developed nation making sacrifices for the common good of the world by moving to a net-zero carbon economy.
That argument falls at more fences than there are in the Grand National. We exaggerate our sacrifice. Much of the fall in Western CO2 levels comes from moving our industries overseas to Asia and then importing the goods they produce back home.
Our consumption levels still push up carbon dioxide levels. Even if we went without those goods, that would persuade Asians not to cut back on CO2 emissions but to look for new markets.
They want higher production and higher standards of living which, in the absence of major technological breakthroughs, will require greater use of fossil fuels and higher CO2 emissions.
And for Western countries to make the deeper emission cuts promised by their leaders, that would mean much higher electricity and other fuel prices and a much-reduced standard of living, inflicted on Western voters by their own governments.
Even then, in the case of Britain, it would have no impact on global emission levels because the U.K.’s share of them is so small.
As the Brits were making these painful but pointless sacrifices for the common good, China, India, and the former developing countries would be surging ahead and pushing up carbon emission levels ahead of themselves.
Indeed, that’s exactly what they are doing and why carbon emissions are not falling but rising. Among other consequences, the shift of economic and financial power (and ultimately of military power too, as we’re starting to realize) from the West to Asia would be greatly accelerated by our own energy policy!
And what makes the position of Western governments still more uncomfortable, as Livermore points out, is (1) that their long-term strategy for getting to net-zero is neither economically nor politically plausible without carbon capture and storage technologies that don’t yet exist, and (2) that they will have to modify it by adopting energy solutions such as nuclear power that they and their peoples have rejected until now.
Livermore’s picture of Western policy is like a maze with exits that close as soon as you approach them.
No sensible analyst thinks that the plans for net-zero carbon economies by 2050 (let alone 2030) can possibly succeed. They have no justification unless it’s an exercise in multicultural masochism and the politics of sainthood.
The voters won’t tolerate them even if small groups of fanatical greens agitate violently to impose them or if the Eurocrats try to close down democratic access to energy policy, which Andrew Willshire recently hinted at in his Spectator piece on the EU’s new energy targets.
And their enormous cost will become increasingly burdensome as the bills for so many other better causes fall due.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-14--The ‘Party Of Science’ On Wildfires: ‘Mother Earth Is Angry’

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) , who has claimed Democrats are the ‘ party of science ’ while frequently blasting Republicans for being ‘ anti-science , ’ yesterday claimed the reason California is experiencing wildfires is that “ Mother Earth is angry.
” However , the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) makes no mention of a “ Mother Earth , ” nor does it attribute any increase in the frequency or severity of wildfires to Mother Earth or to global warming .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global drought conditions , which are the climate precursor to more frequent and severe wildfires .
Asked on MSNBC Thursday evening about this year ’ s especially active wildfire season in the western United States , Pelosi explained , “ Mother Earth is angry .
She ’ s telling us , whether she ’ s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast , fires in the west , whatever it is , that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.
” Not only does the IPCC make no mention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no increase in drought , which would be the climate factor influencing wildfires .
Moreover , the IPCC reports “ low confidence ” in any asserted link between climate change and hurricanes .
Drought is the climate factor that can make wildfires more frequent and deadly .
However , as documented in Climate at a Glance : Drought , the IPCC reports with “ high confidence ” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) during the past 70 years , while IPCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative trends globally .
Moreover , the United States is benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms .
For example , in 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
Also , the United States is currently undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
Also , as documented in Climate at a Glance : U.S. Wildfires , wildfires have always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ western United States .
Occasional upticks in wildfire activity , like what is occurring this year , still result in far less land burnt than was the case throughout most of the 20th century .
Even the worst recent wildfire years burned only 1/5th to 1/4th as much land as typical wildfire years during the early 20th century .
Regarding hurricanes , Climate at a Glance : Hurricanesdocuments there has been no increase in hurricanes globally as the planet has modestly warmed .
Even the IPCC agrees , finding no increase in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same is true for the United States .
Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes documents the United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike .
Also , the United States recently experienced its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period .
Moreover , Florida , America ’ s most hurricane-prone state , recently underwent its longest period in recorded history without any hurricanes .
As opposed to all this scientific evidence , perhaps Pelosi theorizes that Mother Earth , in her anger at people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commit arson and start many of the current wildfires , like these people arrested this week .
That might be more a scientifically likely explanation than laying the blame on climate change .
When it comes to science vs. anti-science in the global warming debate , climate realists point to objective data and factual evidence .
Nancy Pelosi , by contrast , invokes the wrath of an angry Mother Earth .

Written by James Taylor on Sep 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has claimed Democrats are the ‘party of science’ while frequently blasting Republicans for being ‘anti-science,’ yesterday claimed the reason California is experiencing wildfires is that “Mother Earth is angry.”
However, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes no mention of a “Mother Earth,” nor does it attribute any increase in the frequency or severity of wildfires to Mother Earth or to global warming.
Instead, the IPCC reports no increase in global drought conditions, which are the climate precursor to more frequent and severe wildfires.
Asked on MSNBC Thursday evening about this year’s especially active wildfire season in the western United States, Pelosi explained, “Mother Earth is angry. She’s telling us, whether she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the west, whatever it is, that the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”
Not only does the IPCC make no mention of Mother Earth, but it also finds no increase in drought, which would be the climate factor influencing wildfires.
Moreover, the IPCC reports “low confidence” in any asserted link between climate change and hurricanes.
Drought is the climate factor that can make wildfires more frequent and deadly. However, as documented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, the IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Moreover, the United States is benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms.
For example, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
Also, the United States is currently undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Also, as documented in Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires, wildfires have always been a component of California and the western United States.
Occasional upticks in wildfire activity, like what is occurring this year, still result in far less land burnt than was the case throughout most of the 20th century.
Even the worst recent wildfire years burned only 1/5th to 1/4th as much land as typical wildfire years during the early 20th century.
Regarding hurricanes, Climate at a Glance: Hurricanesdocuments there has been no increase in hurricanes globally as the planet has modestly warmed. Even the IPCC agrees, finding no increase in the frequency or severity of hurricanes.
The same is true for the United States. Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes documents the United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike.
Also, the United States recently experienced its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. Moreover, Florida, America’s most hurricane-prone state, recently underwent its longest period in recorded history without any hurricanes.
As opposed to all this scientific evidence, perhaps Pelosi theorizes that Mother Earth, in her anger at people, is possessing people and forcing them to commit arson and start many of the current wildfires, like these people arrested this week. That might be more a scientifically likely explanation than laying the blame on climate change.
When it comes to science vs. anti-science in the global warming debate, climate realists point to objective data and factual evidence. Nancy Pelosi, by contrast, invokes the wrath of an angry Mother Earth.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-14--Attenborough Scaring People About Polar Bear Extinction, Walrus Deaths. Again

Written by Susan J. Crockford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news In a new book and Netflix film , Sir David Attenborough again presents false information about future polar bear survival and walrus deaths .
An excerpt from Attenborough ’ s forthcoming book ( A Life On Our Planet ) has been published in the Daily Mail ( 12 September ) , called “ End of the polar bear by the 2030s , another major pandemic in the 2080s… and sixth mass extinction by 2100 : SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH reveals how those born today could witness these scenarios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his upcoming documentary has the same title as the book , this excerpt forewarns of what ’ s in the film .
Attenborough falsely claims that by 2030 – a short 10 years from now – polar bears will be on their way to extinction and again flogs the lie , exposed last year , that walrus falling to their deaths in Russia a few years ago was due to lack of sea ice .
From an article authored by Attenborough ( 12 September 2020 , Daily Mail ) about what to expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ callouts to my rebuttal comments in square brackets [ ] : Those born today could witness the following scenarios:2030s Floods , drought… and polar bears die out …In 2011 , when we filmed Frozen Planet , the world was already 0.8C warmer on average than it was when I was born in 1926 .
That is a speed of change that exceeds any that has happened in the past 10,000 years .
As the ice-free period lengthened [ in 2011 ] , scientists detected a worrying trend .
Pregnant females , drained of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to smaller cubs .
It is quite possible that one year , the summer would be just that little bit longer , and the cubs born that year will be so small that they can not survive their first polar winter .
That whole population of polar bears would then crash .
[ 1 ] 2040s Lands turn to mud and a CO₂ calamity There are only a few suitable places .
So two-thirds of the population of Pacific walrus , tens of thousands of them , now assemble on one single beach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slopes and find themselves at the tops of cliffs .
Out of water , their eyesight is very poor but the smell of the sea at the foot of the cliff is unmistakable .
So they try to reach it by the shortest route .
The vision of a three-ton walrus tumbling to its death is not easily forgotten .
You don ’ t have to be a naturalist to know that something has gone catastrophically wrong .
[ 2 ] 1 .
False .
The paper describing the newest model does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would crash or ‘ die out ’ by 2030 ( Molnar et al .
2020 ) , only that one or two might begin to be affected by that date .
The model suggests Southern Hudson Bay bears are the most vulnerable and could see poor cub survival as early as 2030 .
However , the total collapse of the population would take decades .
I have already written about this new model , which is scientifically implausible and based on bad assumptions and out-of-date information ; an earlier model has been shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
2 .
Nonsense .
This walrus-falling-to-their-death due to the lack of sea ice lie was exposed last year – why is Attenborough still peddling this twaddle ?
Walruses falling to their deaths is a natural phenomenon , see the video below .
From the brink of extinction in the 1960s , global polar bear numbers have grown roughly three to four times what they were then .
None of the 19 subpopulations have gone extinct despite unexpectedly low summer sea ice levels for the last 14 years ( Crockford 2019 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is as broad as it was 200 years ago .
The claim that reduced summer sea ice , in general , leads to poor health of females and poor cub survival does not hold up to scrutiny : while it appears to have been true for Western Hudson Bay using old data , it is strongly contracted by recent data from studies in the Barents and Chukchi Seas ( Crockford 2019 , 2020 ) .
Apparently , Sir David Attenborough accepted without question the newest implausible prediction of future polar bear survival but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story without exaggeration .
And despite being called out on the lie that Pacific walrus in Russia were falling to their deaths due to lack of sea ice , he is flogging this false narrative again because it fits his agenda .
This latest film is simply more in a long line of others which Attenborough has used to frighten children and adults alike about polar bears and the Arctic .
Since it is already clear that virtually everything Attenborough is peddling about polar bears and walrus is false , why would anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – or more importantly , allow impressionable children to watch this new film ?
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist ( former adjunct professor , University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .

Written by Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. on Sep 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a new book and Netflix film, Sir David Attenborough again presents false information about future polar bear survival and walrus deaths.
An excerpt from Attenborough’s forthcoming book (A Life On Our Planet) has been published in the Daily Mail (12 September), called “End of the polar bear by the 2030s, another major pandemic in the 2080s… and sixth mass extinction by 2100: SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH reveals how those born today could witness these scenarios unless we save the planet.”
As his upcoming documentary has the same title as the book, this excerpt forewarns of what’s in the film.
Attenborough falsely claims that by 2030 – a short 10 years from now – polar bears will be on their way to extinction and again flogs the lie, exposed last year, that walrus falling to their deaths in Russia a few years ago was due to lack of sea ice.
WHAT ATTENBOROUGH SAYS
From an article authored by Attenborough (12 September 2020, Daily Mail) about what to expect for polar bears by 2030, with callouts to my rebuttal comments in square brackets []:
Those born today could witness the following scenarios:2030s Floods, drought… and polar bears die out …In 2011, when we filmed Frozen Planet, the world was already 0.8C warmer on average than it was when I was born in 1926. That is a speed of change that exceeds any that has happened in the past 10,000 years. As the ice-free period lengthened [in 2011], scientists detected a worrying trend. Pregnant females, drained of their reserves, were now giving birth to smaller cubs. It is quite possible that one year, the summer would be just that little bit longer, and the cubs born that year will be so small that they cannot survive their first polar winter. That whole population of polar bears would then crash. [1] 2040s Lands turn to mud and a CO₂ calamity
… The warning signs of such a catastrophe [in the Arctic] can already be seen.
Walruses live largely on clams that grow on a few particular patches of the sea floor in the Arctic. In between fishing sessions, they haul themselves out on to the sea ice to rest. But those resting places have now melted away. Instead, they have to swim to the beaches on distant coasts.
There are only a few suitable places. So two-thirds of the population of Pacific walrus, tens of thousands of them, now assemble on one single beach. Crushingly overcrowded, some clamber up slopes and find themselves at the tops of cliffs. Out of water, their eyesight is very poor but the smell of the sea at the foot of the cliff is unmistakable. So they try to reach it by the shortest route. The vision of a three-ton walrus tumbling to its death is not easily forgotten. You don’t have to be a naturalist to know that something has gone catastrophically wrong.[2]
NOTES
1. False. The paper describing the newest model does not say that any population of polar bears would crash or ‘die out’ by 2030 (Molnar et al. 2020), only that one or two might begin to be affected by that date. The model suggests Southern Hudson Bay bears are the most vulnerable and could see poor cub survival as early as 2030.
However, the total collapse of the population would take decades. I have already written about this new model, which is scientifically implausible and based on bad assumptions and out-of-date information; an earlier model has been shown to have failed spectacularly (Crockford 2019).
2. Nonsense. This walrus-falling-to-their-death due to the lack of sea ice lie was exposed last year – why is Attenborough still peddling this twaddle? Walruses falling to their deaths is a natural phenomenon, see the video below.
CONCLUSION
From the brink of extinction in the 1960s, global polar bear numbers have grown roughly three to four times what they were then.
None of the 19 subpopulations have gone extinct despite unexpectedly low summer sea ice levels for the last 14 years (Crockford 2019) and their official range across the Arctic is as broad as it was 200 years ago.
The claim that reduced summer sea ice, in general, leads to poor health of females and poor cub survival does not hold up to scrutiny: while it appears to have been true for Western Hudson Bay using old data, it is strongly contracted by recent data from studies in the Barents and Chukchi Seas (Crockford 2019, 2020).
Apparently, Sir David Attenborough accepted without question the newest implausible prediction of future polar bear survival but couldn’t manage to tell the story without exaggeration.
And despite being called out on the lie that Pacific walrus in Russia were falling to their deaths due to lack of sea ice, he is flogging this false narrative again because it fits his agenda.
This latest film is simply more in a long line of others which Attenborough has used to frighten children and adults alike about polar bears and the Arctic.
Since it is already clear that virtually everything Attenborough is peddling about polar bears and walrus is false, why would anyone believe his claims of irreparable environmental destruction – or more importantly, allow impressionable children to watch this new film?
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-14--Scientific American Goes Full-On Anti-Science

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news Back at the beginning of the Trump administration in January 2017 , it was all the rage for media on the left to accuse Trump and his people of being “ anti-science.
” I compiled a collection of such accusations in a post on January 27 of that year , using the title “ Who Again Is ‘ Anti-Science ’ ?
” Among those I cited as making the accusation was the venerable magazine Scientific American , which had published a piece on January 18 , 2017 , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anti-Science Moves.
” If you look at that 2017 Scientific American piece or the other articles that I cited in my post , you will see that those commenters are conceiving of “ science ” not as a special methodology , but rather as something more like : “ Science is what people who call themselves scientists do.
” The basic complaint of the commenters was that Trump was “ anti-science ” because he was listening to or appointing people who disagreed with — or worse , sought to de-fund — functionaries in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have a different definition of the term “ science.
” Here ’ s my definition : “ Science is a process for understanding reality through using experiment or data to attempt to falsify falsifiable hypotheses.
” Those are my words , but I have tried there to capture the gist of the classic conception of the scientific method articulated by philosopher Karl Popper .
For a somewhat longer articulation of the same thing , here is an excerpt discussing Popper ’ s principles from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Astute readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s political environment is full of theories that claim the mantle of science — indeed , claim to be scientifically-established truth — but at the same time are “ permanently immunized from falsification.
” Exhibit A is the religion going under the name of “ climate science.
” Or consider Exhibit B , in the field of social science , the hypothesis that “ systemic racism ” is the cause of all economic underperformance by African Americans .
There are plenty more such examples .
In recent years , Scientific American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defending the truth of many such non-falsifiable claims , but most notably in its strenuous advocacy of climate change alarmism .
How to reconcile such advocacy with the use of the term “ Scientific ” in its title ?
If you are wondering how that could even be attempted , check out the piece in the current issue by a guy named Mano Singham , with the title and sub-title , “ The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘ Falsified ’ Is a Myth ; It ’ s time we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a member of the American Physical Society and is apparently a retired professor from Case Western Reserve University .
Singham begins by acknowledging that “ [ E ] ver since the seminal work of philosopher of science Karl Popper , for a scientific theory to be worthy of its name , it has to be falsifiable by experiments or observations.
” However , Singham now understands that that whole approach has become passé .
Apparently , there is a new field , going by the name “ science studies , ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , philosophy and sociology of science.
” People in this new field have now demonstrated that “ falsification can not work even in principle.
” Here ’ s the explanation : Got that ?
And now that we ’ ve deep-sixed falsifiability as having anything to do with science , what ’ s the replacement ?
Well , Mano , let ’ s consider my hypothesis that the thing that causes the sun to come up every morning is my going to sleep the night before .
I formulated this hypothesis a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nights where I had gone to sleep and the sun , therefore , arose the next morning .
I then tested the hypothesis for a full year of going to sleep every night and observing that sure enough , the sun arose every succeeding morning , 365 consecutive times .
Surely my hypothesis has been established as true .
A friend points out that one time back in college I pulled an all-nighter , and the sun still came up .
So what ?
Under Singham ’ s “ science studies ” principles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one result ” up against “ the preponderance of the evidence.
” That one conflicting observation does not tell us that my hypothesis has been falsified , but rather only that “ there is a disagreement between two sets of theories.
” ( Another thing that it might be telling us is that Singham is not very bright . )
Anyway , there is an obvious purpose for Singham ’ s piece appearing at this time in Scientific American , which is to attempt to defend the climate “ science ” scam against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it lacks falsifiable hypotheses .
Singham : I don ’ t know how Singham chose his examples of arguments used by what he calls “ anti-science forces , ” but a look at those examples demonstrates what his exercise is really about , which is exempting climate “ science ” from the requirement of falsifiable hypotheses .
The hypothesis that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in causing lung cancer could definitely be falsified by a study of thousands of randomly-selected non-smokers who developed lung cancer at the same rates as smokers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over time through a process of evolution could be falsified by the discovery of “ fossil rabbits in the Precambrian , ” in a famous formulation of J.B.S .
Haldane that is actually quoted by Singham in his piece .
And vaccinations are subjected to double-blind clinical trials , which are explicit attempts to falsify the hypothesis that they are effective .
So the only one of the four examples selected by Singham that actually lacks falsifiable hypotheses , and that seeks to be “ permanently immunized from falsification , ” is climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoroughly embarrassing performance , not just by Dr. Singham , but by Scientific American .
It is beyond explanation how the editors of this once-prestigious publication , with the term “ Scientific ” in its name , could have so completely lost track of what makes science .
And then to top it off , they call the people who actually understand what science is “ anti-science.
” My message to the editors is this : The proponents of climate change alarmism , if they want to make any kind of legitimate claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” need to specify the falsifiable hypothesis that they claim has been established , and also the evidence which , if it emerged , they would agree had falsified the hypothesis .
Until they do that , their assertions have no more claim to the label of “ established science ” than does my hypothesis that my going to bed is what causes the sun to come up the next morning .
Those of us who understand what the scientific method is are onto the climate scammers .
As for Scientific American , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rehabilitation .

Written by Francis Menton on Sep 14, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Back at the beginning of the Trump administration in January 2017, it was all the rage for media on the left to accuse Trump and his people of being “anti-science.” I compiled a collection of such accusations in a post on January 27 of that year, using the title “Who Again Is ‘Anti-Science’?”
Among those I cited as making the accusation was the venerable magazine Scientific American, which had published a piece on January 18, 2017, with the title “Trump’s 5 Most Anti-Science Moves.”
If you look at that 2017 Scientific American piece or the other articles that I cited in my post, you will see that those commenters are conceiving of “science” not as a special methodology, but rather as something more like: “Science is what people who call themselves scientists do.”
The basic complaint of the commenters was that Trump was “anti-science” because he was listening to or appointing people who disagreed with — or worse, sought to de-fund — functionaries in the government who called themselves scientists.
I have a different definition of the term “science.” Here’s my definition: “Science is a process for understanding reality through using experiment or data to attempt to falsify falsifiable hypotheses.”
Those are my words, but I have tried there to capture the gist of the classic conception of the scientific method articulated by philosopher Karl Popper.
For a somewhat longer articulation of the same thing, here is an excerpt discussing Popper’s principles from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival . . . In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. . . . [Popper] holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific.
Astute readers of this passage will immediately recognize that today’s political environment is full of theories that claim the mantle of science — indeed, claim to be scientifically-established truth — but at the same time are “permanently immunized from falsification.”
Exhibit A is the religion going under the name of “climate science.” Or consider Exhibit B, in the field of social science, the hypothesis that “systemic racism” is the cause of all economic underperformance by African Americans. There are plenty more such examples.
In recent years, Scientific American has somehow gotten itself into the position of defending the truth of many such non-falsifiable claims, but most notably in its strenuous advocacy of climate change alarmism.
How to reconcile such advocacy with the use of the term “Scientific” in its title?
If you are wondering how that could even be attempted, check out the piece in the current issue by a guy named Mano Singham, with the title and sub-title, “The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth; It’s time we abandoned the notion.”
Singham is identified as a member of the American Physical Society and is apparently a retired professor from Case Western Reserve University.
Singham begins by acknowledging that “[E]ver since the seminal work of philosopher of science Karl Popper, for a scientific theory to be worthy of its name, it has to be falsifiable by experiments or observations.”
However, Singham now understands that that whole approach has become passé. Apparently, there is a new field, going by the name “science studies,” that “compris[es] the history, philosophy and sociology of science.”
People in this new field have now demonstrated that “falsification cannot work even in principle.” Here’s the explanation:
[A] theoretical prediction is never the product of a single theory but also requires using many other theories. When a “theoretical” prediction disagrees with “experimental” data, what this tells us is that that there is a disagreement between two sets of theories, so we cannot say that any particular theory is falsified.
Got that? And now that we’ve deep-sixed falsifiability as having anything to do with science, what’s the replacement?
Science studies . . . show[] that the strength of scientific conclusions arises because credible experts use comprehensive bodies of evidence to arrive at consensus judgments about whether a theory should be retained or rejected in favor of a new one. . . . It is the preponderance of evidence that is relevant in making such judgments, not one or even a few results.
Well, Mano, let’s consider my hypothesis that the thing that causes the sun to come up every morning is my going to sleep the night before.
I formulated this hypothesis a year ago based on some ten thousand consecutive nights where I had gone to sleep and the sun, therefore, arose the next morning.
I then tested the hypothesis for a full year of going to sleep every night and observing that sure enough, the sun arose every succeeding morning, 365 consecutive times. Surely my hypothesis has been established as true.
A friend points out that one time back in college I pulled an all-nighter, and the sun still came up. So what? Under Singham’s “science studies” principles, that’s just putting “one result” up against “the preponderance of the evidence.”
That one conflicting observation does not tell us that my hypothesis has been falsified, but rather only that “there is a disagreement between two sets of theories.” (Another thing that it might be telling us is that Singham is not very bright.)
Anyway, there is an obvious purpose for Singham’s piece appearing at this time in Scientific American, which is to attempt to defend the climate “science” scam against attacks that it is not real science because it lacks falsifiable hypotheses. Singham:
[The] knowledge [of science studies] equips people to better argue against anti-science forces that use the same strategy over and over again, whether it is about the dangers of tobacco, climate change, vaccinations, or evolution. Their goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts.
I don’t know how Singham chose his examples of arguments used by what he calls “anti-science forces,” but a look at those examples demonstrates what his exercise is really about, which is exempting climate “science” from the requirement of falsifiable hypotheses.
The hypothesis that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in causing lung cancer could definitely be falsified by a study of thousands of randomly-selected non-smokers who developed lung cancer at the same rates as smokers.
The hypothesis that life forms change over time through a process of evolution could be falsified by the discovery of “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” in a famous formulation of J.B.S. Haldane that is actually quoted by Singham in his piece.
And vaccinations are subjected to double-blind clinical trials, which are explicit attempts to falsify the hypothesis that they are effective.
So the only one of the four examples selected by Singham that actually lacks falsifiable hypotheses, and that seeks to be “permanently immunized from falsification,” is climate change.
Overall, this is a thoroughly embarrassing performance, not just by Dr. Singham, but by Scientific American.
It is beyond explanation how the editors of this once-prestigious publication, with the term “Scientific” in its name, could have so completely lost track of what makes science.
And then to top it off, they call the people who actually understand what science is “anti-science.”
My message to the editors is this: The proponents of climate change alarmism, if they want to make any kind of legitimate claim to the mantle of “science,” need to specify the falsifiable hypothesis that they claim has been established, and also the evidence which, if it emerged, they would agree had falsified the hypothesis.
Until they do that, their assertions have no more claim to the label of “established science” than does my hypothesis that my going to bed is what causes the sun to come up the next morning.
Those of us who understand what the scientific method is are onto the climate scammers. As for Scientific American, your reputation at this point is beyond rehabilitation.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-17--Gov. Newsom Tweets Misleading Graph To Inflate Calif. Warming

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) tweeted misleading and unverified information yesterday while attempting to score political points on climate change .
Newsom claimed , “ The evidence of climate change is all around us.
” Instead , the evidence of Newsom ’ s attempts at spreading climate misinformation is all around us .
Newsom tweeted an image of a California temperature graph claiming three degrees of warming since 1980 , along with the assertion , “ There are no Democratic thermometers or Republican thermometers .
The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last 40 years .
We ’ re experiencing record temperatures across CA .
The hottest August on record .
The evidence of climate change is all around us.
” It may be true that there are no Democratic thermometers or Republican thermometers , but Newsom proved there are politicians willing to misrepresent the thermometers .
If you examine below the graph that Newsom tweeted ( see Figure 1 below ) , you will notice : • Newsom does not provide a source for the graph , • The “ trend line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it probably should , • The “ trend line ” reflects a higher ending temperature than it probably should , • The graph is not an annual temperature graph , but a “ June – September ” graph .
Because Newsom provided no source for the graph , we at Climate Realism pulled up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) State Climate Summary for California .
Figure 2 below is a NOAA graph showing no recent increase in the frequency of hot summer days .
Figure 3 , below , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in annual precipitation .
If we assume , for the sake of argument , that Newsom ’ s unsourced graph is accurate , the underlying data do not appear very alarming .
As seen in Figure 4 below , NOAA documents that any increase in summer California temperatures is primarily due to temperatures not getting quite as cool at night , rather than any increase in daytime temperatures .
Of course , if climate change is the reason for any asserted increase in California temperatures , we should see a similar temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2005 , NOAA brought online the world ’ s most accurate network of temperature stations , with stations spread relatively evenly throughout the contiguous United States .
As seen in Figure 5 below , the NOAA temperature network reports that there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005 .
Any California warming during recent years is not reflected in the nationwide data and would appear to be an aberration , rather than signs of wider warming .
In summary , Gavin Newsom tweeted an unsourced temperature graph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – captures just a small and misleading snapshot of California climate .
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that if “ the evidence for climate change is all around us , ” it is evidence of a molehill , not a mountain .

Written by James Taylor on Sep 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) tweeted misleading and unverified information yesterday while attempting to score political points on climate change.
Newsom claimed, “The evidence of climate change is all around us.” Instead, the evidence of Newsom’s attempts at spreading climate misinformation is all around us.
Newsom tweeted an image of a California temperature graph claiming three degrees of warming since 1980, along with the assertion, “There are no Democratic thermometers or Republican thermometers. The fact is — our average temperature has increased over the last 40 years. We’re experiencing record temperatures across CA. The hottest August on record. The evidence of climate change is all around us.”
It may be true that there are no Democratic thermometers or Republican thermometers, but Newsom proved there are politicians willing to misrepresent the thermometers.
If you examine below the graph that Newsom tweeted (see Figure 1 below), you will notice:
Newsom does not provide a source for the graph,
The “trend line” reflects a lower beginning temperature than it probably should,
The “trend line” reflects a higher ending temperature than it probably should,
The graph is not an annual temperature graph, but a “June – September” graph.
Because Newsom provided no source for the graph, we at Climate Realism pulled up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State Climate Summary for California.
Figure 2 below is a NOAA graph showing no recent increase in the frequency of hot summer days.
Figure 3, below, is a NOAA graph showing no recent decline in annual precipitation.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Newsom’s unsourced graph is accurate, the underlying data do not appear very alarming.
As seen in Figure 4 below, NOAA documents that any increase in summer California temperatures is primarily due to temperatures not getting quite as cool at night, rather than any increase in daytime temperatures.
Of course, if climate change is the reason for any asserted increase in California temperatures, we should see a similar temperature increase beyond the state of California.
In 2005, NOAA brought online the world’s most accurate network of temperature stations, with stations spread relatively evenly throughout the contiguous United States.
As seen in Figure 5 below, the NOAA temperature network reports that there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005.
Any California warming during recent years is not reflected in the nationwide data and would appear to be an aberration, rather than signs of wider warming.
In summary, Gavin Newsom tweeted an unsourced temperature graph that – even if it is accurate – captures just a small and misleading snapshot of California climate.
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that if “the evidence for climate change is all around us,” it is evidence of a molehill, not a mountain.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-17--Facebook Climate Center Admits It Hasn’t Warmed Enough To Affect Weather

Written by Craig Rucker on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden , Gavin Newsom , Nancy Pelosi , and a host of politicians and media celebrities have been blaming devastating hurricanes and fires on climate change .
Scientists at places like NASA , NOAA , the U.K. Met Office , and the UN IPCC agree that any meaningful weather impacts from global warming are warnings for the future , not driving the present .
Team warming pressured Facebook to push their message on its platform and Mark Zuckerberg relented .
Zuckerberg just launched a new Facebook “ Climate Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate narrative directly into subscriber ’ s news feeds .
You ’ ve probably already seen the first installment .
It reads , “ did you know that droughts , storms , and extreme weather are increasingly likely with a temperature rise above 1.5°C ?
” Just how “ likely ” is a subject for scientific debate , but the fact that the world ’ s scientific organizations charged with keeping temperature records all agree that the Earth has not warmed “ above 1.5°C ” is not .
Thanks , Facebook , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA ’ s Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ) , the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius ( 2° Fahrenheit ) since 1880.
” 1880 !
Half a century before atmospheric CO2 concentrations had even risen significantly !
That ’ s from NASA ’ s GISS which is led by the other Gavin , Gavin Schmidt , who is a dyed in the wool warmist himself .
Schmidt has pushed GISS so deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large group of NASA ’ s space pioneers , including Apollo Astronauts , felt compelled to write NASA and demand America ’ s space agency knock off the propaganda and get back to exploring space .
Read the letter and see who signed it .
It ’ s a “ who ’ s who ” of heroes in space .
As Facebook revealed , the Earth has not warmed enough to be what causes today ’ s hurricane ’ s in the Gulf , or fires in the West .
Biden , Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientifically flat out wrong .

Written by Craig Rucker on Sep 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Facebook let it slip.
Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and a host of politicians and media celebrities have been blaming devastating hurricanes and fires on climate change.
It’s just not true.
Scientists at places like NASA, NOAA, the U.K. Met Office, and the UN IPCC agree that any meaningful weather impacts from global warming are warnings for the future, not driving the present.
Team warming pressured Facebook to push their message on its platform and Mark Zuckerberg relented.
Zuckerberg just launched a new Facebook “Climate Science Information Center” that is pushing the climate narrative directly into subscriber’s news feeds.
You’ve probably already seen the first installment.
It reads, “did you know that droughts, storms, and extreme weather are increasingly likely with a temperature rise above 1.5°C?”
Just how “likely” is a subject for scientific debate, but the fact that the world’s scientific organizations charged with keeping temperature records all agree that the Earth has not warmed “above 1.5°C” is not.
Thanks, Facebook, for the reveal!
NASA reports that “according to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880.”
1880! Half a century before atmospheric CO2 concentrations had even risen significantly!
That’s from NASA’s GISS which is led by the other Gavin, Gavin Schmidt, who is a dyed in the wool warmist himself.
Schmidt has pushed GISS so deeply into the warming campaign that a dramatically large group of NASA’s space pioneers, including Apollo Astronauts, felt compelled to write NASA and demand America’s space agency knock off the propaganda and get back to exploring space. Read the letter and see who signed it. It’s a “who’s who” of heroes in space.
As Facebook revealed, the Earth has not warmed enough to be what causes today’s hurricane’s in the Gulf, or fires in the West.
Biden, Newsom, Pelosi, and the rest are scientifically flat out wrong.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-17--Biden’s Green-Energy Plan Could Wipe Out 5M Blue-Collar Jobs

Written by Stephen Moore on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden just can ’ t get his story straight on his green energy promises .
In Pittsburgh , in front of union workers last month , he declared : “ I am not banning fracking .
Let me say that again .
I am not banning fracking .
No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.
” But that is far from what he was saying earlier this year .
During a March Democratic primary debate exchange between Sen. Bernie Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by saying : “ I ’ m talking about stopping fracking as soon as we possibly can .
I ’ m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet — no ifs , buts , and maybes about it.
” After that famous Biden-Sanders debate , the Biden campaign issued a retraction , meaning this isn ’ t really what the former vice president meant to say .
And , admittedly , he ’ s older ; he loses his train of thought ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his latest official position on fracking every week .
His latest flip and flop is no drilling permits on federal lands .
But what is unambiguous and in big , bold writing in the Biden “ buy America ” plan is his signature pledge to the climate change crusaders to end fossil fuel use in America by 2035 .
This , of course , is a de facto ban on fracking , because if we aren ’ t going to use the energy , why would anyone drill for it ?
That Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to no fossil fuel production and consumption 15 years from now .
Given that we currently get about 80 % of our energy from oil , gas , and coal , according to Daniel Yergin , a world expert on energy , getting down to zero is going to be a gut-wrenching experience for blue-collar workers .
There are a lot of them .
The oil , gas , and coal industry accounts for somewhere between 5 and 10 million jobs , depending on how you count them .
These are almost all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden laughingly says he wants to bring back home to America — and hundreds of thousands of them are in battleground states such as Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Colorado .
How the left ever thinks it will turn Texas blue by promising to ban oil is one of life ’ s great mysteries .
Liberals must really believe Texans are stupid people .
The Wall Street Journal reports that , in 2019 , the U.S. led the world in oil and gas production .
Because of fracking , we passed Saudi Arabia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas ARE made in America now , thanks , in no small part , to President Donald Trump ’ s all-in strategy of making the USA energy dominant .
So , Biden is telling us we are going to bring jobs back home by decapitation our energy industry .
Wind and solar account for about 5 % of our energy consumption today , so even if we double their output , we still need to have access to other energy .
Under the Biden plan , it sure looks like we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Saudi Arabia , and even China , which is planning to build hundreds of coal plants over the next decade .
The leaders of Beijing could care less about climate change .
What they do care about is global economic domination by knocking America off our pedestal .
Biden ’ s energy plan would give President Xi Jinping and his fellow communists a big assist .

Written by Stephen Moore on Sep 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden just can’t get his story straight on his green energy promises.
In Pittsburgh, in front of union workers last month, he declared: “I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again. I am not banning fracking. No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.”
But that is far from what he was saying earlier this year.
During a March Democratic primary debate exchange between Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Biden, Sanders started by saying: “I’m talking about stopping fracking as soon as we possibly can. I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet — no ifs, buts, and maybes about it.”
“So am I,” Biden replied.
After that famous Biden-Sanders debate, the Biden campaign issued a retraction, meaning this isn’t really what the former vice president meant to say.
And, admittedly, he’s older; he loses his train of thought; he can’t be expected to remember his latest official position on fracking every week. His latest flip and flop is no drilling permits on federal lands.
But what is unambiguous and in big, bold writing in the Biden “buy America” plan is his signature pledge to the climate change crusaders to end fossil fuel use in America by 2035.
This, of course, is a de facto ban on fracking, because if we aren’t going to use the energy, why would anyone drill for it?
That Biden zero-carbon emissions target requires a glide path to no fossil fuel production and consumption 15 years from now.
Given that we currently get about 80% of our energy from oil, gas, and coal, according to Daniel Yergin, a world expert on energy, getting down to zero is going to be a gut-wrenching experience for blue-collar workers.
There are a lot of them. The oil, gas, and coal industry accounts for somewhere between 5 and 10 million jobs, depending on how you count them.
These are almost all high-paying blue-collar jobs — the kind that Biden laughingly says he wants to bring back home to America — and hundreds of thousands of them are in battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.
How the left ever thinks it will turn Texas blue by promising to ban oil is one of life’s great mysteries. Liberals must really believe Texans are stupid people.
The Wall Street Journal reports that, in 2019, the U.S. led the world in oil and gas production. Because of fracking, we passed Saudi Arabia in output.
In other words, oil and gas ARE made in America now, thanks, in no small part, to President Donald Trump’s all-in strategy of making the USA energy dominant.
So, Biden is telling us we are going to bring jobs back home by decapitation our energy industry. Wind and solar account for about 5% of our energy consumption today, so even if we double their output, we still need to have access to other energy.
Under the Biden plan, it sure looks like we will have to get it from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and even China, which is planning to build hundreds of coal plants over the next decade.
The leaders of Beijing could care less about climate change. What they do care about is global economic domination by knocking America off our pedestal.
Biden’s energy plan would give President Xi Jinping and his fellow communists a big assist.
Read more at Fox News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-17--Ontario’s Green-Energy Disaster Doubled Power Prices, Fueled Backlash

Written by Babatunde Williams on .
Posted in Latest news A transition to renewables sent energy prices soaring , pushed thousands into poverty , and fueled a populist backlash .
In February 2009 , Ontario passed its Green Energy Act ( GEA ) .
It was signed a week after Obama ’ s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the US , following several months of slow and arduous negotiations .
It also had grand plans to start a ‘ green ’ recovery following the financial crash – although on a more modest scale .
This was the plan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Ontario ’ s electricity grid would shut down coal plants and create 50,000 green jobs in the first three years alone .
Additionally , First Nations communities would manage their own electricity supply and distribution – what observers would later call the ‘ decolonization ’ of energy – empowering Canada ’ s indigenous communities who had been disenfranchised by historical trauma .
Lawmakers promised that clean and sustainable energy provided by renewables would also reduce costs for poorer citizens .
This won an endorsement from Ontario ’ s Low Income Energy Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to affordable energy .
George Smitherman , Ontario ’ s energy minister in 2009 , when contacted for comment , remarked that ‘ drafting and passing the GEA were not the greatest challenges ’ compared to its implementation .
He was ‘ proud ’ that the ‘ GEA passed on economic benefits to First Nations populations ’ .
It ’ s hardly surprising that Smitherman passed the GEA relatively easily .
Who wouldn ’ t support a program promising to kickstart the economy after a financial crisis , with social and environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 2019 , Ontario repealed the GEA , one month before its 10th anniversary .
The 50,000 guaranteed jobs never materialized .
The ‘ decolonization ’ of energy didn ’ t work out , either .
A third of indigenous Ontarians now live in energy poverty .
Ontarians watched in dismay as their electricity bills more than doubled during the life of the GEA .
Their electricity costs are now among the highest in North America .
Energy officials I spoke to cited one apparent success of the GEA : the 2014 shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commendable .
But in actual fact , the regulation to phase out the coal plants came into effect in 2007 – two years before the GEA .
Between 2007 and 2009 , Ontario ’ s greenhouse-gas emissions from coal had already dropped by 55 percent .
In truth , the GEA had a devastatingly negative impact .
And the need to disentangle it will burden Ontarians – especially poorer ones – for at least a decade to come .
To understand how the GEA went irreparably wrong , we must look at Ontario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , Ontario ’ s contracts guarantee to electricity suppliers that they ‘ will be paid for each kWh of electricity generated from the renewable energy project ’ , regardless of whether this electricity is consumed .
As preposterous as this may seem , it ’ s actually an improvement on many of the original contracts the Ontario government locked itself into .
Earlier contracts guaranteed payments that benchmarked close to 100 percent of the supplier ’ s capacity , rather than the electricity generated .
So if a participating producer supplied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a given year , the state would still pay it as if it had produced 100 percent .
This was especially alarming in context , as 97 percent of the applicants to the GEA program were using wind or solar energy .
These are both intermittent forms of energy .
In an hour , day , or month with little wind or sun , wind , and solar farms can ’ t supply the grid with electricity , and other sources are needed for back-up .
As a result , wind and solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but can not replace consistently reliable power plants like gas or nuclear .
Many governments , including other Canadian provinces , have used subsidies of all hues to incentivize renewables .
But Ontario put this strategy on steroids .
For example , the Council for Clean and Reliable Energy found that ‘ in 2015 , Ontario ’ s wind farms operated at less than one-third capacity more than half ( 58 percent ) the time ’ .
Regardless , Ontarians paid multiple contracts as if wind farms had operated at full capacity all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury , Ontario ’ s GEA contracts guaranteed exorbitant prices for renewable energy – often at up to 40 times the cost of conventional power for 20 years .
By 2015 , Ontario ’ s auditor general , Bonnie Lysyk , concluded that citizens had paid ‘ a total of $ 37 billion ’ above the market rate for energy .
They were even ‘ expected to pay another $ 133 billion from 2015 to 2032 ’ , again , ‘ on top of market valuations ’ .
( One steelmaker has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exorbitant energy costs . )
In April this year , the market value for all wind-generated electricity in Ontario was only $ 4.3 million .
Yet Ontario paid out $ 184.5million in wind contracts .
Extraordinarily , if this trend were to continue throughout the whole of 2020 , it would still result in a lower payout than under the former contracting system .
Ontario corralled taxpayers into long-term electricity contracts at eye-watering prices for electricity that suppliers did not even produce .
Furthermore , electricity demand from ratepayers declined between 2011 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ontarians were forced to pay higher prices for new electricity capacity , even as their consumption was going down .
Despite the mounting costs , the GEA still has its defenders .
But even if we were to attribute declining emissions to GEA-backed renewables , was it worth the cost ?
Ontario ’ s auditor general in 2015 stated that : ‘ The implied cost of using non-hydro renewables to reduce carbon emissions in the electricity sector was quite high : approximately $ 257 million [ £150million ] for each megatonne of emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Ontario scheme has cost 48 percent more than Sweden ’ s carbon tax – the most expensive carbon tax in the world .
Clearly , bad policy has led to exorbitant waste .
This wasn ’ t the result of corruption or conspiracy – it was sheer incompetence .
It ’ s a meandering story of confusion and gross policy blunders that will fuel energy poverty in Ontario for at least another decade .
As democracies across the West respond to the coronavirus crisis with hastily prepared financial packages for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider the cautionary tale of Ontario .
The disaster of the GEA has had political consequences , too .
Unsurprisingly , in the 2018 elections , the Liberal Party , which had drafted the GEA when in power , suffered the worst election results in its 161-year history , falling from first to third place – a defeat so terrible it lost is status as an official party .
Disdain for renewable energy is now a key indicator of voting intention .
Ontario is now governed by a populist leader who has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancel renewable-energy contracts .
But this is understandably well-supported by the public .
The GEA ’ s stubborn defenders refuse to recognize that poor policy , even with the best intentions , discredits future efforts at cutting emissions .
‘ Green New Deals ’ for the post-pandemic recovery in the US and Europe should learn from the GEA .
Clean energy at any cost will be rightfully short-lived and repealed , and its supporters will be unceremoniously booted out of power .

Written by Babatunde Williams on Sep 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A transition to renewables sent energy prices soaring, pushed thousands into poverty, and fueled a populist backlash.
In February 2009, Ontario passed its Green Energy Act (GEA). It was signed a week after Obama’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the US, following several months of slow and arduous negotiations.
It also had grand plans to start a ‘green’ recovery following the financial crash – although on a more modest scale.
This was the plan: increased integration of wind and solar energy into Ontario’s electricity grid would shut down coal plants and create 50,000 green jobs in the first three years alone.
Additionally, First Nations communities would manage their own electricity supply and distribution – what observers would later call the ‘decolonization’ of energy – empowering Canada’s indigenous communities who had been disenfranchised by historical trauma.
Lawmakers promised that clean and sustainable energy provided by renewables would also reduce costs for poorer citizens.
This won an endorsement from Ontario’s Low Income Energy Network – a group that campaigns for universal access to affordable energy.
George Smitherman, Ontario’s energy minister in 2009, when contacted for comment, remarked that ‘drafting and passing the GEA were not the greatest challenges’ compared to its implementation.
He was ‘proud’ that the ‘GEA passed on economic benefits to First Nations populations’. It’s hardly surprising that Smitherman passed the GEA relatively easily.
Who wouldn’t support a program promising to kickstart the economy after a financial crisis, with social and environmental benefits to boot?
But on 1 January 2019, Ontario repealed the GEA, one month before its 10th anniversary. The 50,000 guaranteed jobs never materialized. The ‘decolonization’ of energy didn’t work out, either.
A third of indigenous Ontarians now live in energy poverty. Ontarians watched in dismay as their electricity bills more than doubled during the life of the GEA. Their electricity costs are now among the highest in North America.
Energy officials I spoke to cited one apparent success of the GEA: the 2014 shutdown of coal plants. This may be commendable.
But in actual fact, the regulation to phase out the coal plants came into effect in 2007 – two years before the GEA. Between 2007 and 2009, Ontario’s greenhouse-gas emissions from coal had already dropped by 55 percent.
In truth, the GEA had a devastatingly negative impact. And the need to disentangle it will burden Ontarians – especially poorer ones – for at least a decade to come.
To understand how the GEA went irreparably wrong, we must look at Ontario’s contracts with its green-energy suppliers.
Today, Ontario’s contracts guarantee to electricity suppliers that they ‘will be paid for each kWh of electricity generated from the renewable energy project’, regardless of whether this electricity is consumed.
As preposterous as this may seem, it’s actually an improvement on many of the original contracts the Ontario government locked itself into.
Earlier contracts guaranteed payments that benchmarked close to 100 percent of the supplier’s capacity, rather than the electricity generated.
So if a participating producer supplied only 33 percent of its capacity in a given year, the state would still pay it as if it had produced 100 percent.
This was especially alarming in context, as 97 percent of the applicants to the GEA program were using wind or solar energy. These are both intermittent forms of energy.
In an hour, day, or month with little wind or sun, wind, and solar farms can’t supply the grid with electricity, and other sources are needed for back-up. As a result, wind and solar electricity providers can only supplement the grid but cannot replace consistently reliable power plants like gas or nuclear.
Many governments, including other Canadian provinces, have used subsidies of all hues to incentivize renewables.
But Ontario put this strategy on steroids. For example, the Council for Clean and Reliable Energy found that ‘in 2015, Ontario’s wind farms operated at less than one-third capacity more than half (58 percent) the time’.
Regardless, Ontarians paid multiple contracts as if wind farms had operated at full capacity all year round. To add insult to injury, Ontario’s GEA contracts guaranteed exorbitant prices for renewable energy – often at up to 40 times the cost of conventional power for 20 years.
By 2015, Ontario’s auditor general, Bonnie Lysyk, concluded that citizens had paid ‘a total of $37 billion’ above the market rate for energy.
They were even ‘expected to pay another $133 billion from 2015 to 2032’, again, ‘on top of market valuations’. (One steelmaker has taken the Ontarian government to court for these exorbitant energy costs.)
Today, this problem persists.
In April this year, the market value for all wind-generated electricity in Ontario was only $4.3 million. Yet Ontario paid out $184.5million in wind contracts.
Extraordinarily, if this trend were to continue throughout the whole of 2020, it would still result in a lower payout than under the former contracting system.
Ontario corralled taxpayers into long-term electricity contracts at eye-watering prices for electricity that suppliers did not even produce.
Furthermore, electricity demand from ratepayers declined between 2011 and 2015 and has continued to fall. Ontarians were forced to pay higher prices for new electricity capacity, even as their consumption was going down.
Despite the mounting costs, the GEA still has its defenders. But even if we were to attribute declining emissions to GEA-backed renewables, was it worth the cost?
Ontario’s auditor general in 2015 stated that: ‘The implied cost of using non-hydro renewables to reduce carbon emissions in the electricity sector was quite high: approximately $257 million [£150million] for each megatonne of emissions reduced.’
Per tonne of carbon reduced, the Ontario scheme has cost 48 percent more than Sweden’s carbon tax – the most expensive carbon tax in the world.
Clearly, bad policy has led to exorbitant waste. This wasn’t the result of corruption or conspiracy – it was sheer incompetence. It’s a meandering story of confusion and gross policy blunders that will fuel energy poverty in Ontario for at least another decade.
As democracies across the West respond to the coronavirus crisis with hastily prepared financial packages for a ‘green recovery’, they should consider the cautionary tale of Ontario.
The disaster of the GEA has had political consequences, too. Unsurprisingly, in the 2018 elections, the Liberal Party, which had drafted the GEA when in power, suffered the worst election results in its 161-year history, falling from first to third place – a defeat so terrible it lost is status as an official party.
Disdain for renewable energy is now a key indicator of voting intention.
Ontario is now governed by a populist leader who has since taken a ruthless and costly approach to cancel renewable-energy contracts. But this is understandably well-supported by the public.
The GEA’s stubborn defenders refuse to recognize that poor policy, even with the best intentions, discredits future efforts at cutting emissions.
‘Green New Deals’ for the post-pandemic recovery in the US and Europe should learn from the GEA. Clean energy at any cost will be rightfully short-lived and repealed, and its supporters will be unceremoniously booted out of power.
Read more at Spiked Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--Democrats, Once Again, Exploit The Disasters Their Policies Created

Written by Tammy Bruce on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s amazing how disasters , both natural and unnatural , have the fingerprints of Democrats all over them .
Political riots rage ( euphemistically called “ social justice demonstrations ” ) in Democratic cities during this election year as various headlines and articles not so subtly threaten the American public with warning the rioting will continue if President Trump is reelected .
Nathanael Blake at the Federalist writes , “ The quiet part is becoming very loud .
Threats of left-wing political violence if President Trump is reelected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text .
Writing at The Atlantic , Shadi Hamid warns of ‘ mass unrest and political violence across American cities ’ if Mr. Trump wins .
The Democrats are embracing their inner movie villain : It votes for Biden , or it gets the riots again.
” We have Antifa and the BLM Marxist group setting fire to our urban areas , and now we have the horrors of the wildfires ravaging the American West .
Once again , we can point directly to Democratic policies for the last 30 years contributing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tinderbox because of 30 years of Democratic policies making them that way .
So what do Democratic politicians do ?
Like children who have been caught doing something forbidden , their instinct is to blame everyone else in an effort to cover their tracks .
They blame other people , and the ever-useful and ubiquitous “ climate change.
” Moving along that narrative , because we can ’ t have the Democrats admit their idiotic and deadly policy failures , Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden made a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to blame President Trump for the massive fire destruction , bizarrely labeling Mr. Trump a “ climate arsonist.
” Mr. Biden then went on to claim that Mr. Trump could control the weather .
During the statement in Delaware , not far from his basement , Mr. Biden went on an accusationpalooza : The Biden response isn ’ t the result of his basement team scrambling to find a way to distract from the culpability of Democratic policies regarding forest management .
Instead , it is the national Democratic narrative , as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country that exists only because of their disastrous policies .
Barack Obama chimed in , tweeting : “ The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities , ” he wrote on Twitter .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom , desperate to distract and deflect and is blaming climate change for the conflagration .
Politico reports , “ Trump and others have … suggested the state ’ s environmental protections have deterred tree removal and other steps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with climate experts , instead say that California is suffering from unusual weather cycles caused by global warming.
” And what is the Center for Disaster Philanthropy saying ?
In cases where a cause is determined , they cite human activity such as pyrotechnic devices or arson .
The other major cause is lightning strikes .
The CDP also points to forest management , i.e .
the lack thereof , as a factor in feeding these fires , making them giants .
As an example , for California ’ s raging Creek Fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , “ The fire is exhibiting extreme fire behavior , in part because 80-90 % of the trees in that area have died from the bark beetle making them a high fuel load.
” Strangely , the massive wildfires stop at the Canadian border .
The CDP mentions this by noting , “ North of the border , Canada ’ s wildfire season is below average across the board.
” So , then did climate change stop at a border ?
And who knew that climate change could cause a pyrotechnic device @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party causing the massive El Dorado fire in San Bernardino county ?
And then there ’ s the amazing discovery that Molotov cocktails are caused by climate change .
A man was arrested in Oregon for starting fires with a Molotov cocktail .
Inexplicably , they released him , and , yes , he was arrested again for setting six more fires , reported the New York Post .
On Twitter , California Sen. Melissa Melendez addressed the absurdity of blaming the fires on anything other than the facts of the matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have destroyed our forests with the help of the spineless legislators who refuse to stand up to them , for fear of losing the coveted “ A ” rating … For decades they have blocked legislation to thin forests , allow timber harvesting , brush removal and controlled burns … All the dead undergrowth is left to build up , becoming fuel for fire .
“ Add to that the fact that they even managed to keep ranchers from allowing grazing which helps keep the forest floor clean … So when you hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask those Democrats how much money they ’ ve received from groups like the Sierra Club to let our forests and homes burn to the ground.
” The devastation wrought by Democratic policies is clear , and the only thing Democratic leadership cares about is not getting caught by cravenly attempting to gaslight you into believing another one of their malleable schemes .

Written by Tammy Bruce on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s amazing how disasters, both natural and unnatural, have the fingerprints of Democrats all over them.
Political riots rage (euphemistically called “social justice demonstrations”) in Democratic cities during this election year as various headlines and articles not so subtly threaten the American public with warning the rioting will continue if President Trump is reelected.
Nathanael Blake at the Federalist writes, “The quiet part is becoming very loud. Threats of left-wing political violence if President Trump is reelected have gone from subtext to the plain text.
Writing at The Atlantic, Shadi Hamid warns of ‘mass unrest and political violence across American cities’ if Mr. Trump wins. The Democrats are embracing their inner movie villain: It votes for Biden, or it gets the riots again.”
We have Antifa and the BLM Marxist group setting fire to our urban areas, and now we have the horrors of the wildfires ravaging the American West.
Once again, we can point directly to Democratic policies for the last 30 years contributing to the wholesale destruction. Western states are a tinderbox because of 30 years of Democratic policies making them that way.
So what do Democratic politicians do? Like children who have been caught doing something forbidden, their instinct is to blame everyone else in an effort to cover their tracks. They blame other people, and the ever-useful and ubiquitous “climate change.”
Moving along that narrative, because we can’t have the Democrats admit their idiotic and deadly policy failures, Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden made a statement about the fires and climate change attempting to blame President Trump for the massive fire destruction, bizarrely labeling Mr. Trump a “climate arsonist.”
Mr. Biden then went on to claim that Mr. Trump could control the weather.
During the statement in Delaware, not far from his basement, Mr. Biden went on an accusationpalooza:
“If we have four more years of Trump’s climate denial, how many suburbs will be burned in wildfires? How many suburbs will have been flooded out? How many suburbs will have been blown away in super-storms? If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if more of America is ablaze?”
The Biden response isn’t the result of his basement team scrambling to find a way to distract from the culpability of Democratic policies regarding forest management.
Instead, it is the national Democratic narrative, as they once again face a disastrous situation for the country that exists only because of their disastrous policies.
Barack Obama chimed in, tweeting: “The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” he wrote on Twitter.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, desperate to distract and deflect and is blaming climate change for the conflagration.
Politico reports, “Trump and others have … suggested the state’s environmental protections have deterred tree removal and other steps to prevent forest fires. Newsom, along with climate experts, instead say that California is suffering from unusual weather cycles caused by global warming.”
And what is the Center for Disaster Philanthropy saying? In cases where a cause is determined, they cite human activity such as pyrotechnic devices or arson.
The other major cause is lightning strikes. The CDP also points to forest management, i.e. the lack thereof, as a factor in feeding these fires, making them giants.
As an example, for California’s raging Creek Fire in the Sierra National Forest, they report, “The fire is exhibiting extreme fire behavior, in part because 80-90% of the trees in that area have died from the bark beetle making them a high fuel load.”
Strangely, the massive wildfires stop at the Canadian border. The CDP mentions this by noting, “North of the border, Canada’s wildfire season is below average across the board.” So, then did climate change stop at a border?
And who knew that climate change could cause a pyrotechnic device to be used at a gender reveal party causing the massive El Dorado fire in San Bernardino county?
And then there’s the amazing discovery that Molotov cocktails are caused by climate change. A man was arrested in Oregon for starting fires with a Molotov cocktail. Inexplicably, they released him, and, yes, he was arrested again for setting six more fires, reported the New York Post.
On Twitter, California Sen. Melissa Melendez addressed the absurdity of blaming the fires on anything other than the facts of the matter.
She writes, “Radical environmentalist groups have destroyed our forests with the help of the spineless legislators who refuse to stand up to them, for fear of losing the coveted “A” rating … For decades they have blocked legislation to thin forests, allow timber harvesting, brush removal and controlled burns … All the dead undergrowth is left to build up, becoming fuel for fire.
“Add to that the fact that they even managed to keep ranchers from allowing grazing which helps keep the forest floor clean … So when you hear Democrats criticize comments about forest management, ask those Democrats how much money they’ve received from groups like the Sierra Club to let our forests and homes burn to the ground.”
The devastation wrought by Democratic policies is clear, and the only thing Democratic leadership cares about is not getting caught by cravenly attempting to gaslight you into believing another one of their malleable schemes.
Read more at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-16--Satellite Observations Show Decreasing Trend In Global Wildfires

Written by GWPF on .
Posted in Latest news While wildfires in the Western U.S. continue to rage , satellite observations over the last 20 years have revealed a decreasing trend in global wildfires .
What ’ s going on ?
As strong winds and hot air continue to propel wildfires across the Western U.S. states of California , Oregon , and Washington state , politicians , activists , and researchers quarrel violently about the main causes of these disasters and how to reduce the risk of wildfires in the future .
There can be little doubt that drought conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , over recent decades human activities such as land management and agriculture , increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires , despite the rise in global temperatures .
To understand why some arid and semi-arid regions of the world have managed to reduce wildfires in the face of rising temperatures , such as Mediterranean Europe , while other regions haven ’ t succeeded to do so , will be crucial to risk reduction policies .
Below we have selected recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which reveal the decreasing trend in global wildfires and the most likely reasons for these encouraging developments .
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts : perceptions versus realities in a changing world Abstract : Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth ’ s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence .
Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem , with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence , severity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions aside , the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends .
Instead , global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades , and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago .
Regarding fire severity , limited data are available .
For the western USA , they indicate little change overall , and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement .
Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades .
Trends in indirect impacts , such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning , remain insufficiently quantified to be examined .
Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire .
The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire .
Abstract : Fire is an essential Earth System process that alters ecosystem and atmospheric composition .
Here we assessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We found that global burned area declined by 24.3 ± 8.8 % over the past 18 years .
The estimated decrease in burned area remained robust after adjusting for precipitation variability and was largest in savannas .
Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity .
Fewer and smaller fires reduced aerosol concentrations , modified vegetation structure , and increased the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink .
Fire models were unable to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of observed declines , suggesting they may overestimate fire emissions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variables , we developed a conceptual model for predicting fire in human-dominated landscapes .
For more information & research papers see GWPF coverage of wildfires

Written by GWPF on Sep 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
While wildfires in the Western U.S. continue to rage, satellite observations over the last 20 years have revealed a decreasing trend in global wildfires. What’s going on?
As strong winds and hot air continue to propel wildfires across the Western U.S. states of California, Oregon, and Washington state, politicians, activists, and researchers quarrel violently about the main causes of these disasters and how to reduce the risk of wildfires in the future.
There can be little doubt that drought conditions and high temperatures are exacerbating these wildfires.
However, over recent decades human activities such as land management and agriculture, increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires, despite the rise in global temperatures.
To understand why some arid and semi-arid regions of the world have managed to reduce wildfires in the face of rising temperatures, such as Mediterranean Europe, while other regions haven’t succeeded to do so, will be crucial to risk reduction policies.
Below we have selected recent research papers, based on satellite observations, which reveal the decreasing trend in global wildfires and the most likely reasons for these encouraging developments.
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
Abstract: Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity, and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.
Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.
Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.
Full paper
A human-driven decline in global burned area
Abstract: Fire is an essential Earth System process that alters ecosystem and atmospheric composition. Here we assessed long-term fire trends using multiple satellite datasets. We found that global burned area declined by 24.3 ± 8.8% over the past 18 years.
The estimated decrease in burned area remained robust after adjusting for precipitation variability and was largest in savannas. Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity. Fewer and smaller fires reduced aerosol concentrations, modified vegetation structure, and increased the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink.
Fire models were unable to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of observed declines, suggesting they may overestimate fire emissions in future projections. Using economic and demographic variables, we developed a conceptual model for predicting fire in human-dominated landscapes.
Full paper
For more information & research papers see GWPF coverage of wildfires
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print