climatechangedispatch--2020-06-08--Six New Studies Confirm Clouds Play ‘Central Role’ In Earth’s Climate

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news Polar ice melt , Earth ’ s radiation budget , sea surface temperatures , water circulation , and climate variability are all “ controlled ” or “ crucially regulated ” by clouds .
“ Surface melting on Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves can influence ice shelf mass balance , and consequently sea level rise .
“ We show that summertime cloud phase on the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula strongly influences the amount of radiation received at the surface and can determine whether or not melting occurs.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important factors determining the radiation budget .
In other words , all surface solar irradiances ( SSI ) , atmospheric absorptions ( AA ) , and reflection irradiances ( RI ) at TOA can be different according to the presence of clouds in the atmosphere… .
“ Clouds in all- ( or overcast- ) sky atmosphere diminish surface solar irradiances ( SSI ) from 218.1 Wm−2 to 156.9 Wm−2 ( or 85.8 Wm−2 ) and enhance atmospheric absorptions ( AA ) from 61.5 Wm−2 to 86.3 Wm−2 ( or 128.2 Wm−2 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ RI ) at the TOA from 65.6 Wm−2 to 102.0 Wm−2 ( or 131.2 Wm−2 ) for all- ( or overcast- ) skies .
As a result , the all- ( or overcast- ) sky shortwave ( SW ) cloud forcing ( CF ) is −61.2 Wm−2 ( or −132.3 Wm−2 ) at the surface , AA is 24.8 Wm−2 ( or 66.7 Wm−2 ) in the atmosphere and RI is 36.4 Wm−2 ( or 65.6 Wm−2 ) at the TOA , respectively.
” “ Cloud radiative effects ( CREs ) are known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long-term mean distribution of sea-surface temperatures ( SSTs ) .
Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.
” “ Clouds crucially regulate atmospheric energy balance , water circulation , and Earth ’ s climate system with multiple spatiotemporal scales ( Boucher et al .
2013 ) .
Fundamental conundrums on clouds , the coupling of clouds with atmospheric circulation , and climate interactions have remained unsolved and have been identified as considerable challenges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 ) .
“ One of the largest uncertainties amongst these challenges is the vertical property of clouds and their radiative effects ( Li et al .
2015 ) .
Vertical variation of clouds can affect the vertical distribution of atmospheric radiative heating , surface energy balance , and general circulation by changing the vertical structure of radiative warming and cooling rates ( Johansson et al .
2015 ; Pan et al .
2017 ) .
Quantifying the vertical distribution of cloud radiative forcing and their impacts on atmospheric circulation and regional climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal , here we analyze the radiation at the top of the atmosphere and propose a measure of the DCC [ diurnal cloud cycle ] radiative effect ( DCCRE ) as the difference between the total radiative fluxes with the full cloud cycle and its uniformly distributed cloud counterpart .
“ When applied to the frequency of cloud occurrence , DCCRE is linked to the covariance between DCC and cloud radiative effects .
Satellite observations show that the daily cloud cycle is strongly linked to pacific decadal oscillation ( PDO ) and climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlling climate variability.
” “ Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo , which ultimately determine the SW radiation , are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change , in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example .
An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would , on average , lead to a 7 % increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.
” “ When reaching the Earth , part of the incoming solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surface as shortwave radiation ( SW ) .
Changes in cloud distribution or the surface albedo affect this flux and change the energy balance .
“ In the last four decades , changes in cloud distribution in low-level clouds such as subtropical stratocumulus have been of great importance since they have the ability to reflect large amounts of radiation back to space but do not reduce significantly the outgoing terrestrial radiation .
… [ S ] hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The existence of reflective surfaces such as clouds or the ground determines directly the amount of SW radiation and , thus , the available energy for being absorbed and reemitted as LW .
… A plausible hypothesis to explain the changes in SW radiation is that cloud amount and properties have changed in the last decades.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Polar ice melt, Earth’s radiation budget, sea surface temperatures, water circulation, and climate variability are all “controlled” or “crucially regulated” by clouds.
1. Gilbert et al., 2020
“Surface melting on Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves can influence ice shelf mass balance, and consequently sea level rise.
“We show that summertime cloud phase on the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula strongly influences the amount of radiation received at the surface and can determine whether or not melting occurs.”
2. Lee et al., 2020
“Clouds are one of the most important factors determining the radiation budget. In other words, all surface solar irradiances (SSI), atmospheric absorptions (AA), and reflection irradiances (RI) at TOA can be different according to the presence of clouds in the atmosphere….
“Clouds in all- (or overcast-) sky atmosphere diminish surface solar irradiances (SSI) from 218.1 Wm−2 to 156.9 Wm−2 (or 85.8 Wm−2) and enhance atmospheric absorptions (AA) from 61.5 Wm−2 to 86.3 Wm−2 (or 128.2 Wm−2). Clouds also enhance the reflected irradiances (RI) at the TOA from 65.6 Wm−2 to 102.0 Wm−2 (or 131.2 Wm−2) for all- (or overcast-) skies. As a result, the all- (or overcast-) sky shortwave (SW) cloud forcing (CF) is −61.2 Wm−2 (or −132.3 Wm−2) at the surface, AA is 24.8 Wm−2 (or 66.7 Wm−2) in the atmosphere and RI is 36.4 Wm−2 (or 65.6 Wm−2) at the TOA, respectively.”
3. Li et al., 2020
“Cloud radiative effects (CREs) are known to play a central role in governing the long-term mean distribution of sea-surface temperatures (SSTs). Very recent work suggests that CREs may also play a role in governing the variability of SSTs in the context of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.”
4. Pan et al., 2020
“Clouds crucially regulate atmospheric energy balance, water circulation, and Earth’s climate system with multiple spatiotemporal scales (Boucher et al. 2013). Fundamental conundrums on clouds, the coupling of clouds with atmospheric circulation, and climate interactions have remained unsolved and have been identified as considerable challenges in climate research (Bony et al. 2015).
“One of the largest uncertainties amongst these challenges is the vertical property of clouds and their radiative effects (Li et al. 2015). Vertical variation of clouds can affect the vertical distribution of atmospheric radiative heating, surface energy balance, and general circulation by changing the vertical structure of radiative warming and cooling rates (Johansson et al. 2015; Pan et al. 2017). Quantifying the vertical distribution of cloud radiative forcing and their impacts on atmospheric circulation and regional climate has become critical.”
5. Yin and Porporato, 2020
“Toward this goal, here we analyze the radiation at the top of the atmosphere and propose a measure of the DCC [diurnal cloud cycle] radiative effect (DCCRE) as the difference between the total radiative fluxes with the full cloud cycle and its uniformly distributed cloud counterpart.
“When applied to the frequency of cloud occurrence, DCCRE is linked to the covariance between DCC and cloud radiative effects. Satellite observations show that the daily cloud cycle is strongly linked to pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and climate hiatus, revealing its potential role in controlling climate variability.”
6. Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020
“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”
“When reaching the Earth, part of the incoming solar radiation is reflected off clouds and the surface as shortwave radiation (SW). Changes in cloud distribution or the surface albedo affect this flux and change the energy balance.
“In the last four decades, changes in cloud distribution in low-level clouds such as subtropical stratocumulus have been of great importance since they have the ability to reflect large amounts of radiation back to space but do not reduce significantly the outgoing terrestrial radiation. … [S]hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field.”
“The existence of reflective surfaces such as clouds or the ground determines directly the amount of SW radiation and, thus, the available energy for being absorbed and reemitted as LW. … A plausible hypothesis to explain the changes in SW radiation is that cloud amount and properties have changed in the last decades.”
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-08--EVs, Solar, Wind Sidelined As State Budgets Slashed

Written by Alan McDonnell on .
Posted in Latest news The future of many climate-change and renewable-energy projects across the United States is in serious doubt as states slash budgets due to the fallout from the CCP virus crisis .
With fiscal black holes looming and taxation and other income having been decimated , state governors look set to cut back where they can to ensure the provision of essential services .
Rebates for EVs and funding for renewables such as wind and solar are at the top of the chopping list .
A prime example is California .
Gov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion budget shortfall due to the CCP ( Chinese Communist Party ) virus , also known as the novel coronavirus .
His recent budgetary amendments were singled out for criticism by the California Sierra Club for “ cutting and shifting funds away from key environmental programs.
” According to the International Energy Agency ’ s ( IEA ) recent World Energy Investment 2020 report , the global economy is currently facing “ the largest decline in global energy investment in history.
” “ At the start of 2020 , global energy investment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in six years , ” according to the report .
“ But after the COVID-19 crisis brought large swathes of the world economy to a standstill in a matter of months , investment is now expected to plummet by 20 percent , or almost $ 400 billion , compared with last year.
” The IEA expects global GDP to decline by around 6 percent , with a U-shaped recovery “ accompanied by a substantial permanent loss of economic activity.
” The reduced investment in energy-related spending is due to lower demand and reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil industry , as well as the impact of lockdowns and physical restrictions on movement .
“ Spending is expected to plunge in every major sector this year—from fossil fuels to renewables and efficiency , ” according to the IEA .
States and municipalities across America are struggling to find ways to plug the holes in their budgets and financial plans .
An economic impact assessment for the State of New York ( pdf ) was drawn up by Boston Consulting Group in April that indicates a projected budget shortfall of $ 13.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus pandemic .
“ The lost revenues would diminish the State ’ s ability to provide services to New Yorkers at a time when they need them most .
In jeopardy is funding for health care , hospitals , K-12 schools , higher education , and infrastructure.
” Washington State is also facing a budget shortfall .
On May 13 , the Director of the State of Washington ’ s Office of Financial Management , David Schumacher , reported ( pdf ) that “ collections over the next three fiscal years will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast less than three months ago.
” Schumacher directed agencies of the state to identify budget savings options for 2021 , and to “ propose reductions as part of their 2021–23 budget submittals.
” In addition to freezes on new hires and purchases of equipment , agencies were urged to “ reduce , delay or eliminate programs ” and to “ identify programs or services that do not meet your core mission .
”

Written by Alan McDonnell on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The future of many climate-change and renewable-energy projects across the United States is in serious doubt as states slash budgets due to the fallout from the CCP virus crisis.
With fiscal black holes looming and taxation and other income having been decimated, state governors look set to cut back where they can to ensure the provision of essential services.
Rebates for EVs and funding for renewables such as wind and solar are at the top of the chopping list.
A prime example is California. Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a $54 billion budget shortfall due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, also known as the novel coronavirus.
His recent budgetary amendments were singled out for criticism by the California Sierra Club for “cutting and shifting funds away from key environmental programs.”
Energy Investment Plummets Worldwide
According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) recent World Energy Investment 2020 report, the global economy is currently facing “the largest decline in global energy investment in history.”
“At the start of 2020, global energy investment was on track for its largest annual rise in six years,” according to the report.
“But after the COVID-19 crisis brought large swathes of the world economy to a standstill in a matter of months, investment is now expected to plummet by 20 percent, or almost $400 billion, compared with last year.”
The IEA expects global GDP to decline by around 6 percent, with a U-shaped recovery “accompanied by a substantial permanent loss of economic activity.”
The reduced investment in energy-related spending is due to lower demand and reduced energy company income, particularly in the oil industry, as well as the impact of lockdowns and physical restrictions on movement.
“Spending is expected to plunge in every major sector this year—from fossil fuels to renewables and efficiency,” according to the IEA.
State Budget Crises
States and municipalities across America are struggling to find ways to plug the holes in their budgets and financial plans. An economic impact assessment for the State of New York (pdf) was drawn up by Boston Consulting Group in April that indicates a projected budget shortfall of $13.3 billion as a result of the CCP virus pandemic.
“The lost revenues would diminish the State’s ability to provide services to New Yorkers at a time when they need them most. In jeopardy is funding for health care, hospitals, K-12 schools, higher education, and infrastructure.”
Washington State is also facing a budget shortfall. On May 13, the Director of the State of Washington’s Office of Financial Management, David Schumacher, reported (pdf) that “collections over the next three fiscal years will be about $7 billion lower than was forecast less than three months ago.”
Schumacher directed agencies of the state to identify budget savings options for 2021, and to “propose reductions as part of their 2021–23 budget submittals.”
In addition to freezes on new hires and purchases of equipment, agencies were urged to “reduce, delay or eliminate programs” and to “identify programs or services that do not meet your core mission.”
Read rest at The Epoch Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-09--BBC Asks ‘What Is Climate Change?’; Scolds Readers With Lies

Written by Michael Walsh on .
Posted in Latest news That ’ s the question posed by the all-activism all-the-time BBC in Britain .
Some of us fondly remember the days when the Beeb meant I , Claudius or various adaptation of 19th-century English novels , but now it ’ s devolved into a tiresome Leftist scold , trying to frighten the children and mental defectives into believing the world is coming to an end : In order to believe this arrant hooey , you must believe that CO2 keeps the planet from freezing but at the same time — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that seems to have evolved entirely by chance — you ’ re just going to have to take it on faith that we humans are bollixing everything up : and all in just 50 years !
The fact that half a century is just about within the lifetimes of everybody reading this post is entirely coincidental , of course , because just like the Holy Ghost , “ you can ’ t see it , you can ’ t smell it , but it ’ s actually all around us , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our climate crisis.
” The key to understanding the Religion of Climate Change is making you believe that you are the problem .
That ’ s why they ’ re so insistent upon locating this “ crisis ” within living memory .
Here ’ s a more coordinated harum-scarum with an English accent .
( Weasel words , as always here at The Pipeline , are highlighted in bold . )
Notice how , at the outset , “ global warming ” — we ’ re back to that again — is immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : While Covid-19 has shaken much of human society , the threat posed by global warming has not gone away .
Human activities have increased carbon dioxide emissions , driving up temperatures .
Extreme weather and melting polar ice are among the possible effects .
The Earth ’ s average temperature is about 15C [ 59F ] but has been much higher and lower in the past .
There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times .
This is linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Earth ’ s atmosphere traps some of the Sun ’ s energy .
Solar energy radiating back to space from the Earth ’ s surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions .
This heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface of the planet .
Without this effect , the Earth would be about 30C [ 86F ] colder and hostile to life .
Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect , with gases released from industry and agriculture trapping more energy and increasing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change or global warming .
Note the Note at the bottom of the graph : “ Average is calculated from 1951-1980 land surface temperature data.
” Why not calculate the “ average ” from say , 476 A.D. , and the Fall of the Roman Empire to the turn of the sixth century ?
Wouldn ’ t that be just as representative of what the ideal “ average ” ought to be ?
Cherry-picking a 29-year period within most of our lifetimes is sure to make some point — but “ warming ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ” is like taking the batting average of a marginal player on a hot streak in spring training and projecting it out over the course of a ten-year major league career .
But that doesn ’ t stop the Beeb or the other climate-change nutters , of course , who are now frightening the horses with images of the volume of seawater swelling as it heats up , soon to overrun all the world ’ s major landmasses .
Where ’ s Noah when we need him ?
But as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming/change will affect the poor and people of color hardest , so why not give up beef you selfish bastards and stop using fossil fuels to move about and heat your houses because as warming/cooling/change happens , you ’ re going to be plenty warm/cold anyway and so just die already and save us the trouble of killing you .
They didn ’ t actually say that .
But you know they mean it .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Michael Walsh on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
That’s the question posed by the all-activism all-the-time BBC in Britain.
Some of us fondly remember the days when the Beeb meant I, Claudius or various adaptation of 19th-century English novels, but now it’s devolved into a tiresome Leftist scold, trying to frighten the children and mental defectives into believing the world is coming to an end:
CO2 is at the heart of our changing climate@BBCRealityCheck looks at whyhttps://t.co/tFPfJBG1sF pic.twitter.com/VQTtb70j7M — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) June 9, 2020
In order to believe this arrant hooey, you must believe that CO2 keeps the planet from freezing but at the same time — because of “an incredibly delicate balance” that seems to have evolved entirely by chance — you’re just going to have to take it on faith that we humans are bollixing everything up: and all in just 50 years!
The fact that half a century is just about within the lifetimes of everybody reading this post is entirely coincidental, of course, because just like the Holy Ghost, “you can’t see it, you can’t smell it, but it’s actually all around us, and it’s at the heart of our climate crisis.”
The key to understanding the Religion of Climate Change is making you believe that you are the problem. That’s why they’re so insistent upon locating this “crisis” within living memory.
Here’s a more coordinated harum-scarum with an English accent. (Weasel words, as always here at The Pipeline, are highlighted in bold.)
Notice how, at the outset, “global warming” — we’re back to that again — is immediately linked to another phantom menace, Covid-19:
While Covid-19 has shaken much of human society, the threat posed by global warming has not gone away. Human activities have increased carbon dioxide emissions, driving up temperatures. Extreme weather and melting polar ice are among the possible effects. The Earth’s average temperature is about 15C [59F] but has been much higher and lower in the past. There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times. This is linked to the greenhouse effect, which describes how the Earth’s atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy. Solar energy radiating back to space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.
This heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface of the planet. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C [86F] colder and hostile to life. Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect, with gases released from industry and agriculture trapping more energy and increasing the temperature. This is known as climate change or global warming.
Note the Note at the bottom of the graph: “Average is calculated from 1951-1980 land surface temperature data.”
Why not calculate the “average” from say, 476 A.D., and the Fall of the Roman Empire to the turn of the sixth century?
Wouldn’t that be just as representative of what the ideal “average” ought to be? Cherry-picking a 29-year period within most of our lifetimes is sure to make some point — but “warming” isn’t it.
Global-warming “science” is like taking the batting average of a marginal player on a hot streak in spring training and projecting it out over the course of a ten-year major league career.
But that doesn’t stop the Beeb or the other climate-change nutters, of course, who are now frightening the horses with images of the volume of seawater swelling as it heats up, soon to overrun all the world’s major landmasses.
Where’s Noah when we need him?
There is uncertainty about how great the impact of a changing climate will be. It could cause fresh water shortages, dramatically alter our ability to produce food, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms and heatwaves. This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events — though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.
No kidding!
But as long as we’re on the subject, warming/change will affect the poor and people of color hardest, so why not give up beef you selfish bastards and stop using fossil fuels to move about and heat your houses because as warming/cooling/change happens, you’re going to be plenty warm/cold anyway and so just die already and save us the trouble of killing you.
They didn’t actually say that. But you know they mean it.
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--2020-06-09--Inconvenient Truth: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong On Snows Of Kilimanjaro

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news In his 2006 book , An Inconvenient Truth , Al Gore asserted there would be no more snows on Mt .
Kilimanjaro ( pictured ) by the year 2016 .
On the contrary , Mt .
Kilimanjaro , located just 205 miles from the equator in Tanzania , continues to host huge , year-round glaciers and snowfall on a regular basis .
In fact , today ’ s eight-day weather forecast for Mt .
Kilimanjaro , provided by weather.com via Google , shows a forecast of snow every day for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his 2006 book , Gore writes : “ Another friend , Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University , is the world ’ s leading expert on mountain glaciers .
Here he is at the top of Kilimanjaro in 2000 with the pitiful last remnants of one of its great glaciers .
He predicts that within 10 years there will be no more ‘ Snows of Kilimanjaro.
’ ” However , the website www.just-kilimanjaro.com reports the snow-capped mountain peak continues to exist “ with permanent glaciers covering its entire tip.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ice and snow can be found year-round on the mountain ’ s upper reaches .
There are massive glaciers , ice fields , and towering walls of ice that blaze in the equatorial sun , ” the website reports .
And , finally , here is today ’ s eight-day forecast for Mt .
Kilimanjaro , as provided by weather.com via Google : Climate alarmism is “ settled science , ” right ?
Challenging the claims of Al Gore and other climate alarmists is “ denying climate science ” and “ attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Realism will keep you posted on the statement-of-correction sure to be issued very soon by Al Gore .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In his 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserted there would be no more snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro (pictured) by the year 2016.
On the contrary, Mt. Kilimanjaro, located just 205 miles from the equator in Tanzania, continues to host huge, year-round glaciers and snowfall on a regular basis.
In fact, today’s eight-day weather forecast for Mt. Kilimanjaro, provided by weather.com via Google, shows a forecast of snow every day for the foreseeable future.
On page 45 of his 2006 book, Gore writes:
“Another friend, Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, is the world’s leading expert on mountain glaciers. Here he is at the top of Kilimanjaro in 2000 with the pitiful last remnants of one of its great glaciers. He predicts that within 10 years there will be no more ‘Snows of Kilimanjaro.’”
However, the website www.just-kilimanjaro.com reports the snow-capped mountain peak continues to exist “with permanent glaciers covering its entire tip.”
The website www.deeperafrica.com reports similar year-round snow. “Ice and snow can be found year-round on the mountain’s upper reaches. There are massive glaciers, ice fields, and towering walls of ice that blaze in the equatorial sun,” the website reports.
And, finally, here is today’s eight-day forecast for Mt. Kilimanjaro, as provided by weather.com via Google:
Climate alarmism is “settled science,” right? Challenging the claims of Al Gore and other climate alarmists is “denying climate science” and “attacking science” right?
We at Climate Realism will keep you posted on the statement-of-correction sure to be issued very soon by Al Gore.
Image by Kim Andre Stiansen from Pixabay
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--2020-06-09--Poll: Britons More Concerned About COVID Than Climate Change

Written by Harry Wilkinson , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news A new opinion poll commissioned by The Global Warming Policy Forum has revealed that when asked about the overall impact on humanity , the British public is now more concerned about the coronavirus pandemic than climate change .
Carried out by polling company , YouGov , the results represent a massive swing in public opinion since March 12 , when the public was first asked : ‘ Regarding the overall impact on humanity , are you more concerned about the impact of coronavirus or climate change ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ coronavirus ’ , up from 32 % in March .
Only 30 % said ‘ climate change ’ , down from 45 % .
There were significant differences in response based on political affiliation .
A whopping 67 % of Conservative voters said they were more concerned about coronavirus , compared to only 19 % who said climate change .
Labour voters were evenly split , with coronavirus and climate change both scoring 43 % .
These differences were reflected in the opinions of different age groups , with older voters relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evenly split .
The survey also questioned people about how they thought the government should act after the pandemic .
Participants were asked which statement came closest to their opinion : ‘ The government should prioritize getting the economy moving again even if it could mean relaxing climate change targets.
’ ‘ The government should prioritize both the economy and climate change targets equally.
’ ‘ The government should prioritize sticking to climate change targets even if it could mean a slower recovery for the economy.
’ The results revealed that while a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change should be prioritized equally ( 42 % ) , there were significantly more people who thought that the government should concentrate on getting the economy moving again ( 34 % ) , compared to those who thought climate change should be prioritized ( 14 % ) .
This was particularly the case among Conservative voters , who by a large margin thought that the economy should be prioritized even if it meant that climate change targets might have to be relaxed ( 56 % ) .
For a Conservative government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to legislation , and which is now touting a ‘ green recovery ’ , these results could be interpreted as a warning that voters will be reluctant to tolerate decarbonization policies that hit growth .
It was also revealed that much of the public is yet to form a strong view about what the implications of Net-Zero will be .
When asked if they thought net-zero carbon emissions would have a positive or negative effect on the economy , or make no difference , during the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic , 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know ’ .
Seventeen percent answered that they thought it would have a negative effect , and 34 % thought it would have a positive effect , while 20 % thought there would be no difference .
Fieldwork was conducted on May 13-14 , 2020 .
Sample Size : 1686 Adults in GB .
Full tables are available here .
Harry Wilkinson is the Head of Policy at the Global Warming Policy Forum .

Written by Harry Wilkinson, guest post on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new opinion poll commissioned by The Global Warming Policy Forum has revealed that when asked about the overall impact on humanity, the British public is now more concerned about the coronavirus pandemic than climate change.
Carried out by polling company, YouGov, the results represent a massive swing in public opinion since March 12, when the public was first asked: ‘Regarding the overall impact on humanity, are you more concerned about the impact of coronavirus or climate change?’
This time, 54% said ‘coronavirus’, up from 32% in March. Only 30% said ‘climate change’, down from 45%.
There were significant differences in response based on political affiliation. A whopping 67% of Conservative voters said they were more concerned about coronavirus, compared to only 19% who said climate change.
Labour voters were evenly split, with coronavirus and climate change both scoring 43%.
These differences were reflected in the opinions of different age groups, with older voters relatively more concerned about coronavirus and younger voters evenly split.
The survey also questioned people about how they thought the government should act after the pandemic. Participants were asked which statement came closest to their opinion:
‘The government should prioritize getting the economy moving again even if it could mean relaxing climate change targets.’
‘The government should prioritize both the economy and climate change targets equally.’
‘The government should prioritize sticking to climate change targets even if it could mean a slower recovery for the economy.’
The results revealed that while a plurality thought that both the economy and climate change should be prioritized equally (42%), there were significantly more people who thought that the government should concentrate on getting the economy moving again (34%), compared to those who thought climate change should be prioritized (14%).
This was particularly the case among Conservative voters, who by a large margin thought that the economy should be prioritized even if it meant that climate change targets might have to be relaxed (56%).
For a Conservative government that has committed the objective of Net-Zero emissions to legislation, and which is now touting a ‘green recovery’, these results could be interpreted as a warning that voters will be reluctant to tolerate decarbonization policies that hit growth.
It was also revealed that much of the public is yet to form a strong view about what the implications of Net-Zero will be.
When asked if they thought net-zero carbon emissions would have a positive or negative effect on the economy, or make no difference, during the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, 29% of respondents answered ‘don’t know’.
Seventeen percent answered that they thought it would have a negative effect, and 34% thought it would have a positive effect, while 20% thought there would be no difference.
Fieldwork was conducted on May 13-14, 2020. Sample Size: 1686 Adults in GB. Full tables are available here.
Harry Wilkinson is the Head of Policy at the Global Warming Policy Forum.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-09--Reigning In The Green Bureaucracy

Reigning In The Green Bureaucracy

Written by Peter Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news It took about 13 months and 15 days to construct the Empire State Building in New York City , which opened in 1931 on 34th street in midtown Manhattan .
At 1,250 feet and 102 stories , it was the tallest building in the world until 1970 , when the Twin Towers in downtown eclipsed it .
It took 11 years to construct the Freedom Tower , which opened 2014 adjacent to where the Twin Towers once stood .
At 1,300 feet , this skyscraper took nearly ten times longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other examples are the key reason that President Trump last week signed an executive order for federal agencies to shorten environmental reviews for construction of highways , mines , pipelines , and other projects on federal lands as the nation continues to suffer economically during the Covid-19 emergency .
Modern-day construction of infrastructure takes too long and becomes too expensive due , at least in part , to mandated , multi-layered bureaucratic reviews .
Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) , the Clean Water Act , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multi-step , detailed reviews of the potential impact of construction projects on the environment .
The executive order is a continuation of efforts by the president going back three years to streamline these regulatory reviews in order to speed up projects , lower their costs , and strengthen the economy .
NEPA has been on the books since 1970 .
Such laws are necessary and warranted , yet many anti-development and Green groups have historically used them not to ensure adequate reviews and safeguards , but to stop human progress and modernization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial lawyers , who also are politically influential .
The Interstate Highway System , built in the 1950s , is one of the greatest public work achievements in history , a crown jewel of President Eisenhower ’ s administration .
It is fully embraced by millions of Americans who drive on it , and integral to the economy .
Imagine trying to build that system today ?
It is unimaginable , with a multitude of agencies and laws involved .
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act ( ARRA ) in 2009 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Recession , provides a salient modern contrast .
This $ 787 billion undertaking ( which was big money at the time ) was sold as an infrastructure bill that would bring “ shovel-ready projects ” to completion and create jobs .
It did little , absent a small portion that was used for highway and bridge repair .
President Obama later acknowledged that “ ‘ shovel-ready ’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.
” President Trump ’ s latest executive order does not repeal NEPA or any other statute .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about administering such laws in a more balanced and efficient manner , which is a discussion worth having , especially now .
The Trump administration has been pushing the debate over the costs and benefits of environmental laws and processes affecting construction and job creation , especially now as the nation grapples with economic collapse from the pandemic with millions of Americans out of work .
Sadly , millions of unemployed Americans will have no sympathy from extremist Green groups and politicians who , right on key , assume the worst from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christy Goldfuss of the Center for American Progress was a revealing example .
Goldfuss headed President Obama ’ s Council on Environmental Quality , and said the Trump administration is “ trying to divert attention away ( sic ) from the crisis of racial injustice happening around the country by giving agency leads the excuse to ram through polluting projects that will prop up the dying fossil fuel industry while destroying the very same communities that are dying at higher rates from Covid-19 and police violence as well.
” Ms. Goldfuss ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to racial politics is a vile non-sequitur designed to exacerbate division .
It ’ s also an example of the impossibility of having an honest debate about anything in this country .
Notice further her mention of “ prop [ ing ] up the dying fossil fuel industry.
” There ’ s the real rub for green activists .
Killing fossil fuels is the key ingredient in transforming America in ways that will make us poorer and more dependent on the government for sustenance , which ultimately empowers people influencing and running the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to streamline bureaucratic oversight and litigation to construct and repair infrastructure is not zero-sum anti-environment , despite the hysteria from the usual suspects .
We need not return to the days when a skyscraper or major bridge crossing could be built in a year ; but when it takes up to a decade and longer , then the environmental process needs fixing to ensure a sensible , cost-effective balance .

Written by Peter Murphy on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It took about 13 months and 15 days to construct the Empire State Building in New York City, which opened in 1931 on 34th street in midtown Manhattan.
At 1,250 feet and 102 stories, it was the tallest building in the world until 1970, when the Twin Towers in downtown eclipsed it.
It took 11 years to construct the Freedom Tower, which opened 2014 adjacent to where the Twin Towers once stood. At 1,300 feet, this skyscraper took nearly ten times longer to construct.
This comparison and countless other examples are the key reason that President Trump last week signed an executive order for federal agencies to shorten environmental reviews for construction of highways, mines, pipelines, and other projects on federal lands as the nation continues to suffer economically during the Covid-19 emergency.
Modern-day construction of infrastructure takes too long and becomes too expensive due, at least in part, to mandated, multi-layered bureaucratic reviews.
Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act require agencies to conduct multi-step, detailed reviews of the potential impact of construction projects on the environment.
The executive order is a continuation of efforts by the president going back three years to streamline these regulatory reviews in order to speed up projects, lower their costs, and strengthen the economy.
NEPA has been on the books since 1970. Such laws are necessary and warranted, yet many anti-development and Green groups have historically used them not to ensure adequate reviews and safeguards, but to stop human progress and modernization.
Litigation also reaps a financial bonanza for trial lawyers, who also are politically influential.
The Interstate Highway System, built in the 1950s, is one of the greatest public work achievements in history, a crown jewel of President Eisenhower’s administration.
It is fully embraced by millions of Americans who drive on it, and integral to the economy. Imagine trying to build that system today? It is unimaginable, with a multitude of agencies and laws involved.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009, which passed to help the nation recover from the Great Recession, provides a salient modern contrast.
This $787 billion undertaking (which was big money at the time) was sold as an infrastructure bill that would bring “shovel-ready projects” to completion and create jobs.
It did little, absent a small portion that was used for highway and bridge repair. President Obama later acknowledged that “‘shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”
President Trump’s latest executive order does not repeal NEPA or any other statute. It cannot. Rather, it is about administering such laws in a more balanced and efficient manner, which is a discussion worth having, especially now.
The Trump administration has been pushing the debate over the costs and benefits of environmental laws and processes affecting construction and job creation, especially now as the nation grapples with economic collapse from the pandemic with millions of Americans out of work.
Sadly, millions of unemployed Americans will have no sympathy from extremist Green groups and politicians who, right on key, assume the worst from streamlining environmental regulations.
A comment by Christy Goldfuss of the Center for American Progress was a revealing example.
Goldfuss headed President Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality, and said the Trump administration is “trying to divert attention away (sic) from the crisis of racial injustice happening around the country by giving agency leads the excuse to ram through polluting projects that will prop up the dying fossil fuel industry while destroying the very same communities that are dying at higher rates from Covid-19 and police violence as well.”
Ms. Goldfuss’s attempt to connect streamlining of environmental reviews to racial politics is a vile non-sequitur designed to exacerbate division. It’s also an example of the impossibility of having an honest debate about anything in this country.
Notice further her mention of “prop[ing] up the dying fossil fuel industry.” There’s the real rub for green activists.
Killing fossil fuels is the key ingredient in transforming America in ways that will make us poorer and more dependent on the government for sustenance, which ultimately empowers people influencing and running the government.
The Trump administration’s efforts to streamline bureaucratic oversight and litigation to construct and repair infrastructure is not zero-sum anti-environment, despite the hysteria from the usual suspects.
We need not return to the days when a skyscraper or major bridge crossing could be built in a year; but when it takes up to a decade and longer, then the environmental process needs fixing to ensure a sensible, cost-effective balance.
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--2020-06-09--Climate Group Played Role In Carrying Out Minneapolis Mayhem

Written by Millie Weaver on .
Posted in Latest news What you are about to see is part of a two-year undercover investigation into the leftist radicalization embedded within the climate justice movement that contributed to the riots in Minneapolis , Minnesota .
In this first video , we are going to show how the Sunrise Movement played a preemptive role in carrying out the mayhem , taking advantage of George Floyd ’ s death and using it as a trigger point , to further push their Green New Deal agenda and promoting the abolition of the police .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radicalizing middle school and high school children teaching them military tactics and preparation for high-risk actions .
Some of these tactics include escalation provocation techniques , blocking freeway traffic , and how to get arrested bogging-down law enforcement in the name of destroying capitalism to make way for the Green New Deal .
What some parents may have thought were innocent youth organizations genuinely fostered and ran by children are actually top-down monolithic structures with private intelligence , military contractors , and foreign interests influencing children to carry out their subversive objectives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota were not a spontaneous reaction to the murder of George Floyd .
These were well-planned events anticipating some perfect trigger point to bring about the “ new normal ” – a world without police , without borders , without industry , without wealth , without private property , without an economy – a world based on communist ideals embedded within the Green New Deal .
The Green New Deal is not about climate change , it is about climate justice – a radical new ideology hellbent on destroying western civilization under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading cause of climate change , social injustice , and all problems globally .
The organizers of these Youth Non-government Organizations , or Youngos , embellish white supremacy as a systemic problem , hyper-focusing on statistically rare instances of racial inequality and injustice while ignoring great strides of progress the United States has made over the past century towards equal opportunity and criminal justice reform .
However , in order to normalize radical policies put forth by the Green New Deal , crises have to be capitalized on to further their agenda while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights movements of the past .

Written by Millie Weaver on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
What you are about to see is part of a two-year undercover investigation into the leftist radicalization embedded within the climate justice movement that contributed to the riots in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In this first video, we are going to show how the Sunrise Movement played a preemptive role in carrying out the mayhem, taking advantage of George Floyd’s death and using it as a trigger point, to further push their Green New Deal agenda and promoting the abolition of the police.
We didn’t expect to find organizers radicalizing middle school and high school children teaching them military tactics and preparation for high-risk actions.
Some of these tactics include escalation provocation techniques, blocking freeway traffic, and how to get arrested bogging-down law enforcement in the name of destroying capitalism to make way for the Green New Deal.
What some parents may have thought were innocent youth organizations genuinely fostered and ran by children are actually top-down monolithic structures with private intelligence, military contractors, and foreign interests influencing children to carry out their subversive objectives.
The events that erupted in Minneapolis, Minnesota were not a spontaneous reaction to the murder of George Floyd.
These were well-planned events anticipating some perfect trigger point to bring about the “new normal” – a world without police, without borders, without industry, without wealth, without private property, without an economy – a world based on communist ideals embedded within the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal is not about climate change, it is about climate justice – a radical new ideology hellbent on destroying western civilization under the false pretense that white supremacy is the leading cause of climate change, social injustice, and all problems globally.
The organizers of these Youth Non-government Organizations, or Youngos, embellish white supremacy as a systemic problem, hyper-focusing on statistically rare instances of racial inequality and injustice while ignoring great strides of progress the United States has made over the past century towards equal opportunity and criminal justice reform.
However, in order to normalize radical policies put forth by the Green New Deal, crises have to be capitalized on to further their agenda while destroying the great accomplishments of the civil rights movements of the past.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Millennial Millie
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-09--Mass. Attorney General Admits Intention To Ban Fossil Fuels

Written by William Allison on .
Posted in Latest news Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey called on the state ’ s Department of Public Utilities to investigate “ the future of the natural gas industry ” in Massachusetts this week , alleging that the use of the fuel didn ’ t align with the state ’ s 2050 climate goals .
While such a claim is confusing , considering the role of natural gas in mitigating carbon emissions and the state ’ s significant reliance on the fuel , it was made all the more shocking by Attorney General Healey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat the climate crisis and meet our clean energy goals , we must transition away from fossil fuels and change the way gas utilities do business in our state , ” Attorney General Healey said .
“ We want the DPU to take a close look at the future of the natural gas industry in Massachusetts and make the policy and structural changes we need to ensure a clean energy future that is safe , reliable , and fair.
” ( emphasis added ) With that statement , the attorney general just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Admittedly , Healey has made statements in support of a “ clean energy transition ” before , but this serves as the starkest example of her true intention : banning fossil fuels by using whatever tools are available to her .
This intention is most notable in how it relates to Healey ’ s lawsuit against ExxonMobil .
Filing suit against the company in October 2019 , the attorney general claimed that her office brought the lawsuit on the basis of the company ’ s alleged “ deceptive marketing ” and “ campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Healey ’ s most recent comment , however , underscores that the lawsuit is , in reality , an attempt to stop the company from producing oil and natural gas .
In fact , the Massachusetts complaint even hints at her true motivation , with Healey stating : This is further bolstered by other efforts undertaken by the Massachusetts attorney general ’ s office .
For example , in a December 2017 hearing on Attorney General Healey ’ s investigation into ExxonMobil , the counsel from the attorney general ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate warnings on all of its advertising – including on gas pumps .
In addition to exposing her true intentions , Healey ’ s call for an investigation into Massachusetts natural gas utilities and lawsuits against companies like ExxonMobil could have devastating effects for the state , which heavily relies on the fuel .
According to the Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) , Massachusetts generates 67 percent of its electricity from natural gas .
EIA also states that “ more than half of the households in the state rely on natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heating ” – a crucial resource in a state that experiences very cold winters .
Yet there is fierce opposition to natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure from politicians like Healey and environmental activists , which has resulted in the stalling of new pipeline development in the region .
This opposition comes at a price .
When temperatures dropped in 2018 and faced with limited supply due to pipeline constrictions , the state was forced to import natural gas from Russia – an action Healey said she prefers when compared to using domestically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In short , Attorney General Healey ’ s recent comment shows her true intention is to ban oil and natural gas use in the state , even if that means bringing unfounded allegations against producers or relying on foreign adversaries like Russia to keep the lights on .

Written by William Allison on Jun 9, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey called on the state’s Department of Public Utilities to investigate “the future of the natural gas industry” in Massachusetts this week, alleging that the use of the fuel didn’t align with the state’s 2050 climate goals.
While such a claim is confusing, considering the role of natural gas in mitigating carbon emissions and the state’s significant reliance on the fuel, it was made all the more shocking by Attorney General Healey’s reasoning:
“In order to combat the climate crisis and meet our clean energy goals, we must transition away from fossil fuels and change the way gas utilities do business in our state,” Attorney General Healey said. “We want the DPU to take a close look at the future of the natural gas industry in Massachusetts and make the policy and structural changes we need to ensure a clean energy future that is safe, reliable, and fair.” (emphasis added)
With that statement, the attorney general just said the quiet part out loud.
Admittedly, Healey has made statements in support of a “clean energy transition” before, but this serves as the starkest example of her true intention: banning fossil fuels by using whatever tools are available to her.
This intention is most notable in how it relates to Healey’s lawsuit against ExxonMobil.
Filing suit against the company in October 2019, the attorney general claimed that her office brought the lawsuit on the basis of the company’s alleged “deceptive marketing” and “campaign to mislead both consumers and investors.”
Attorney General Healey’s most recent comment, however, underscores that the lawsuit is, in reality, an attempt to stop the company from producing oil and natural gas.
In fact, the Massachusetts complaint even hints at her true motivation, with Healey stating:
“The gravity of ExxonMobil’s historic and continuing unlawful actions cannot be overstated; the world lost forty critical years to develop and deploy new technologies that would allow an orderly transition away from fossil fuels,” (emphasis added)
This is further bolstered by other efforts undertaken by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office.
For example, in a December 2017 hearing on Attorney General Healey’s investigation into ExxonMobil, the counsel from the attorney general’s office stated that the company should include climate warnings on all of its advertising – including on gas pumps.
Massachusetts Relies on Natural Gas
In addition to exposing her true intentions, Healey’s call for an investigation into Massachusetts natural gas utilities and lawsuits against companies like ExxonMobil could have devastating effects for the state, which heavily relies on the fuel.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Massachusetts generates 67 percent of its electricity from natural gas.
EIA also states that “more than half of the households in the state rely on natural gas as their primary energy source for home heating” – a crucial resource in a state that experiences very cold winters.
Yet there is fierce opposition to natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure from politicians like Healey and environmental activists, which has resulted in the stalling of new pipeline development in the region.
This opposition comes at a price. When temperatures dropped in 2018 and faced with limited supply due to pipeline constrictions, the state was forced to import natural gas from Russia – an action Healey said she prefers when compared to using domestically produced natural gas transported via pipeline.
In short, Attorney General Healey’s recent comment shows her true intention is to ban oil and natural gas use in the state, even if that means bringing unfounded allegations against producers or relying on foreign adversaries like Russia to keep the lights on.
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-08--Inconvenient Truth: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong On Glacier National Park

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news In his 2006 book , An Inconvenient Truth , Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012 .
“ Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed , ‘ the park formerly known as Glacier , ’ ” Gore wrote .
Here in 2020 , however , glaciers remain in abundance in the Park .
Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed .
On page 47 of his book , Gore writes , “ I climbed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.
” Yet , Caitlyn Florentine , a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey ’ s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center , told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that 26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park , eight years after Gore ’ s no-glacier deadline .
Gore ’ s assertion that the glaciers would be gone by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction to be proven wrong .
The National Park Service previously put up signs claiming all the glaciers would be gone by 2020 .
Earlier this year , the Park Service attempted to remove and replace the signs without anybody noticing .
People noticed .
“ Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions , ” columnist James Delingpole observed , commenting on the Park Service ’ s stealth sign-replacement program .
In perhaps the most telling example of climate alarmists ’ lack of either credibility or integrity , the website GlacierHub @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 prediction under the subhead , “ Climate denialists pounce.
” Yes , you read that correctly .
The National Park Service put up propaganda signs all over Glacier National Park – at taxpayer expense – claiming the Park would have no more glaciers by 2020 .
Climate Realists questioned the prediction from the very beginning and were called science “ deniers ” for doing so .
The deadline passed , the Park Service was proven wrong , and Climate Realists were proven right .
Alarmists respond by calling the vindicated Climate Realists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Earth Institute is rewarding GlacierHub , by the way , by inviting GlacierHub to host its website to the Columbia University Earth Institute website .
Ethical , objective , sound science in action .
Either way , a loss of all glaciers by 2012 in Glacier National Park is yet another alarmist prediction that Al Gore got spectacularly wrong .
We at Climate Realism expect a full correction and an apology from Gore very soon and will report on it when it comes .

Written by James Taylor on Jun 8, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In his 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012.
“Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed, ‘the park formerly known as Glacier,’” Gore wrote.
Here in 2020, however, glaciers remain in abundance in the Park. Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed.
On page 47 of his book, Gore writes, “I climbed to the top of the bigger glacier in this park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.”
Yet, Caitlyn Florentine, a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that 26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park, eight years after Gore’s no-glacier deadline.
Gore’s assertion that the glaciers would be gone by 2012 wasn’t the only alarmist prediction to be proven wrong.
The National Park Service previously put up signs claiming all the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Earlier this year, the Park Service attempted to remove and replace the signs without anybody noticing. People noticed.
“Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions,” columnist James Delingpole observed, commenting on the Park Service’s stealth sign-replacement program.
In perhaps the most telling example of climate alarmists’ lack of either credibility or integrity, the website GlacierHub acknowledged the Park Service’s failed 2020 prediction under the subhead, “Climate denialists pounce.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The National Park Service put up propaganda signs all over Glacier National Park – at taxpayer expense – claiming the Park would have no more glaciers by 2020.
Climate Realists questioned the prediction from the very beginning and were called science “deniers” for doing so.
The deadline passed, the Park Service was proven wrong, and Climate Realists were proven right. Alarmists respond by calling the vindicated Climate Realists science “denialists.”
Columbia University’s Earth Institute is rewarding GlacierHub, by the way, by inviting GlacierHub to host its website to the Columbia University Earth Institute website. Ethical, objective, sound science in action.
Either way, a loss of all glaciers by 2012 in Glacier National Park is yet another alarmist prediction that Al Gore got spectacularly wrong.
We at Climate Realism expect a full correction and an apology from Gore very soon and will report on it when it comes.
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--2020-06-10--UK Consumers Face £2-3B Annual Bill To Prevent Green-Energy Blackouts

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The Global Warming Policy Foundation ( GWPF ) is today publishing a collection of papers by energy expert Dr. John Constable , documenting the rapid decay of the UK electricity system , with system balancing costs spiraling out of control over the last few weeks .
The cost of balancing the grid over the Bank Holiday weekend amounted to £50m , and National Grid has predicted additional costs of £700m from May to August alone .
It has taken desperate measures in an attempt to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observers , these may well prove futile .
GB system balancing costs have been rising sharply over recent decades , as inflexible renewables have taken a leading role in electricity supply , driven by £10 billion a year of subsidies and price-fixing arrangements .
In 2002 system balancing cost £367m , but by 2019 it had risen to just under £1.5bn , a level that was expected to be sustained this year .
However , because wind and solar can ’ t respond to the low demand caused by lockdown , National Grid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £2bn , and even that figure is based on the optimistic assumption that costs return to normal after August .
If the lockdown runs on into the autumn , the cost could easily rise by hundreds of millions more , and a prolonged post-COVID recession could mean consumers having to foot this bill for many years to come .
Dr. Constable , the author of the GWPF study , said : “ Renewables have been undermining the UK electricity system for years , with National Grid propping up a tottering system with vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown has caused a balancing cost surge and revealed this green appeasement policy as unsustainable .
The UK ’ s fragile renewables-based system can barely deal with the expected ; a surprise causes a crisis.
” “ If demand remains low during the post-COVID recession the multi-billion pound costs of managing and subsidizing renewables must be recovered from a much smaller volume of sales .
That is a recipe for rapid and abrupt price rises , the like of which the British public has never seen .
Enough is enough .
In what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national interest demands a cost minimization strategy for electricity , based on gas and nuclear .
”

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, guest post on Jun 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is today publishing a collection of papers by energy expert Dr. John Constable, documenting the rapid decay of the UK electricity system, with system balancing costs spiraling out of control over the last few weeks.
The cost of balancing the grid over the Bank Holiday weekend amounted to £50m, and National Grid has predicted additional costs of £700m from May to August alone.
It has taken desperate measures in an attempt to reduce the bill, but according to expert observers, these may well prove futile.
GB system balancing costs have been rising sharply over recent decades, as inflexible renewables have taken a leading role in electricity supply, driven by £10 billion a year of subsidies and price-fixing arrangements.
In 2002 system balancing cost £367m, but by 2019 it had risen to just under £1.5bn, a level that was expected to be sustained this year.
However, because wind and solar can’t respond to the low demand caused by lockdown, National Grid now expects the total to be about £2bn, and even that figure is based on the optimistic assumption that costs return to normal after August.
If the lockdown runs on into the autumn, the cost could easily rise by hundreds of millions more, and a prolonged post-COVID recession could mean consumers having to foot this bill for many years to come.
Dr. Constable, the author of the GWPF study, said:
“Renewables have been undermining the UK electricity system for years, with National Grid propping up a tottering system with vast piles of consumer cash. The Covid-19 lockdown has caused a balancing cost surge and revealed this green appeasement policy as unsustainable. The UK’s fragile renewables-based system can barely deal with the expected; a surprise causes a crisis.”
Dr. Constable added:
“If demand remains low during the post-COVID recession the multi-billion pound costs of managing and subsidizing renewables must be recovered from a much smaller volume of sales. That is a recipe for rapid and abrupt price rises, the like of which the British public has never seen. Enough is enough. In what everyone agrees is a very difficult moment the national interest demands a cost minimization strategy for electricity, based on gas and nuclear.”
John Constable: The Brink of Darkness: Britain’s Fragile Power Grid (PDF)
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-10--U.S. Heartland Clearly Reaping Benefits From Climate Change

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news A speaker at a Cigar Society of Chicago event tonight is delivering a talk titled , “ Climate Change Is Disrupting America ’ s Heartland : What We Can Do About It and What We ( maybe ) Can ’ t. ” The title indicates the speaker will paint a picture of climate disruption throughout the American Heartland .
The reality is entirely different .
A summary of the talk asserts climate change is creating flooding , drought , and pressure on insect populations that boost agricultural production .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order , citing objective data , evidence , and facts .
Floods – including very severe floods – have occurred throughout human history , and even before human history .
Global warming did not create floods .
Nor has global warming made flooding any more frequent or severe .
When alarmists point to a particular flooding event and claim climate change is to blame , the assertion defies objective data and even the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
As documented in Climate at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports “ low confidence ” in any climate change impact on floods .
Moreover , the IPCC even acknowledges that climate change is as likely to have reduced flooding frequency and severity as it has been to make them more common .
IPCC relied on many objective data and scientific studies to reach its conclusion .
For example , scientists examined 70 years of rainfall and flood data and wrote up their results in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters , finding wet and dry extremes are becoming milder .
They report , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wet regions/months became drier….
” Similarly , scientists report in the peer-reviewed Hydrological Sciences Journal , “ It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.
” Moreover , “ no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven , globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades.
” In short , compelling scientific evidence shows climate change is not causing any increase in the frequency or severity of flooding .
Of course , some flooding – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur , just as it always has .
But that doesn ’ t mean global warming caused it .
The scientific evidence , in fact , shows just the opposite .
As documented in Climate at a Glance : Drought , the United States is benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms .
• In 2017 , and then again in 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
• The United States is currently undergoing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
• 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 .
( See https : //www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf , p .
191 . )
Climate alarmists try to call both sides of the coin-flip regarding insects .
In several recent studies , alarmists claim global warming will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which they say will be harmful to crops .
More recently , as the predicted insect plagues have failed to develop , alarmists claim global warming will cause a decline in the insect population , which they say will be harmful to crops .
Actual science does not involve predicting two contradictory outcomes and then claiming “ Heads I win , tails you lose.
” At its core , alarmist insect predictions claim the same impact – more insects will reduce crop production , or fewer insects will reduce crop production .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of gradual warming since the Little Ice Age ended ( and that warming began long before humans invented coal-fired power plants and SUVs ) .
Any negative impacts on crop production , be it from more insects or fewer insects , should be readily apparent by now .
Let ’ s take a look at actual crop data and see .
As shown in Climate at a Glance : Crop Production : • As our planet gradually warms , global crop yields are setting new records almost every year .
• U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new records nearly every year .
• Longer growing seasons , warmer temperatures , fewer frost events , and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions .
Almost every important U.S. crop has set record yields per acre during the past three years .
Most of the top-10 years in yields-per-acre occurred during the past decade .
For example , each of the three record-high corn yields has occurred during the past three years .
Each of the five record-high rice yields has occurred during the past five years .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top-10 all-time wheat yields .
The graph below is provided by The Global Economy , with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization data .
The same holds true for Illinois .
Each of the seven years with the highest corn yields in Illinois history has occurred during the past seven years .
Floods , droughts , and other extreme weather events have always occurred and will continue to occur .
Global warming will not make them entirely disappear .
Nevertheless , it defies sound science to blame climate change for the extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sound science shows that , if anything , flooding , droughts , and other extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe in a warming world .
So , sit back , relax , and enjoy a cigar without fretting over the mythical climate change apocalypse !
: )

Written by James Taylor on Jun 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A speaker at a Cigar Society of Chicago event tonight is delivering a talk titled, “Climate Change Is Disrupting America’s Heartland: What We Can Do About It and What We (maybe) Can’t.”
The title indicates the speaker will paint a picture of climate disruption throughout the American Heartland. The reality is entirely different.
A summary of the talk asserts climate change is creating flooding, drought, and pressure on insect populations that boost agricultural production.
Let’s examine each of these assertions in order, citing objective data, evidence, and facts.
Flooding
Floods – including very severe floods – have occurred throughout human history, and even before human history. Global warming did not create floods. Nor has global warming made flooding any more frequent or severe.
When alarmists point to a particular flooding event and claim climate change is to blame, the assertion defies objective data and even the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Floods, the IPCC reports “low confidence” in any climate change impact on floods.
Moreover, the IPCC even acknowledges that climate change is as likely to have reduced flooding frequency and severity as it has been to make them more common.
IPCC relied on many objective data and scientific studies to reach its conclusion. For example, scientists examined 70 years of rainfall and flood data and wrote up their results in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters, finding wet and dry extremes are becoming milder.
They report, “On average, dry regions/months became wetter and wet regions/months became drier….”
Similarly, scientists report in the peer-reviewed Hydrological Sciences Journal, “It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.”
Moreover, “no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades.”
In short, compelling scientific evidence shows climate change is not causing any increase in the frequency or severity of flooding.
Of course, some flooding – including severe flooding – will continue to occur, just as it always has. But that doesn’t mean global warming caused it.
The scientific evidence, in fact, shows just the opposite.
Drought
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, the United States is benefiting from fewer and less extreme drought events as the climate modestly warms.
In 2017, and then again in 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
The United States is currently undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
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. (See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf, p. 191.)
Insects
Climate alarmists try to call both sides of the coin-flip regarding insects. In several recent studies, alarmists claim global warming will cause an increase in the insect population, which they say will be harmful to crops.
More recently, as the predicted insect plagues have failed to develop, alarmists claim global warming will cause a decline in the insect population, which they say will be harmful to crops.
Actual science does not involve predicting two contradictory outcomes and then claiming “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
Crop Production
At its core, alarmist insect predictions claim the same impact – more insects will reduce crop production, or fewer insects will reduce crop production.
Well, we have had approximately 150 years of gradual warming since the Little Ice Age ended (and that warming began long before humans invented coal-fired power plants and SUVs).
Any negative impacts on crop production, be it from more insects or fewer insects, should be readily apparent by now. Let’s take a look at actual crop data and see.
As shown in Climate at a Glance: Crop Production:
As our planet gradually warms, global crop yields are setting new records almost every year.
U.S. crop yields continue to grow, setting new records nearly every year.
Longer growing seasons, warmer temperatures, fewer frost events, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions.
Almost every important U.S. crop has set record yields per acre during the past three years. Most of the top-10 years in yields-per-acre occurred during the past decade.
For example, each of the three record-high corn yields has occurred during the past three years. Each of the five record-high rice yields has occurred during the past five years. Each of the past nine years has produced top-10 all-time wheat yields.
The graph below is provided by The Global Economy, with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization data.
The same holds true for Illinois. Each of the seven years with the highest corn yields in Illinois history has occurred during the past seven years.
Conclusion
Floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events have always occurred and will continue to occur. Global warming will not make them entirely disappear.
Nevertheless, it defies sound science to blame climate change for the extreme weather events that still do occur.
Sound science shows that, if anything, flooding, droughts, and other extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe in a warming world.
So, sit back, relax, and enjoy a cigar without fretting over the mythical climate change apocalypse! : )
Image by Hans Braxmeier from Pixabay
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--2020-06-10--Over Foot Of Snow Falls On Colo., Wyoming, Breaks 70-Yr Record

Written by Travis Fedschun on .
Posted in Latest news An unusual summertime snowstorm buried parts of Colorado and Wyoming on Tuesday in heavy , wet snow that piled up in higher elevations and even closed some roads .
The National Weather Service ( NWS ) said that winter storm warnings and winter weather advisories were issued Tuesday for areas west of Cheyenne in Wyoming and higher elevations of the Rockies in Colorado .
The NWS reported between 4 to 8 inches of snow through parts of Wyoming , while Wyoming Department of Transportation crews said a foot fell along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including I-80 , WYO 210 , and U.S. 287 were closed for several hours due to the wintry conditions .
Roadways reopened by the afternoon , but WYDOT urged motorists to remain cautious .
“ Slick spots may still remain , so stay alert , be ready to slow down and leave plenty of space between vehicles , ” the agency tweeted .
About 9,500 customers lost power in Laramie after tree branches were brought down by snow , Oil City News reported .
In Colorado , several inches of snow were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Up to 15.2 inches of snow fell near the town of Gould , Colo. , according to the NWS .
Warmer and drier weather is forecast through the weekend , as the strong cold front and storm system that allowed for the return to winter weather moves east .
The storm system also brought severe winds to the region , including a reported 102 mph wind gust that caused “ significant ” damage to one town .
According to the NWS , the latest date of the last snow in Denver is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace of snow fell .
The last date of measurable snow in Denver was June 2 , 1951 , when 0.3 of an inch of snow fell .

Written by Travis Fedschun on Jun 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
An unusual summertime snowstorm buried parts of Colorado and Wyoming on Tuesday in heavy, wet snow that piled up in higher elevations and even closed some roads.
The National Weather Service (NWS) said that winter storm warnings and winter weather advisories were issued Tuesday for areas west of Cheyenne in Wyoming and higher elevations of the Rockies in Colorado.
The NWS reported between 4 to 8 inches of snow through parts of Wyoming, while Wyoming Department of Transportation crews said a foot fell along parts of Interstate 80.
Several roadways, including I-80, WYO 210, and U.S. 287 were closed for several hours due to the wintry conditions.
Roadways reopened by the afternoon, but WYDOT urged motorists to remain cautious.
“Slick spots may still remain, so stay alert, be ready to slow down and leave plenty of space between vehicles,” the agency tweeted.
About 9,500 customers lost power in Laramie after tree branches were brought down by snow, Oil City News reported.
In Colorado, several inches of snow were reported in the mountains west of Denver. Up to 15.2 inches of snow fell near the town of Gould, Colo., according to the NWS.
A powerful storm system which moved across CO. brought snow to the high country overnight. The Winter Park & Fraser area measured between 5 & 7″ with 8″ in Red Feather Lakes. For the latest road reports from CDOT call 511 or go to their website at https://t.co/uoUwxQXFoP. #cowx pic.twitter.com/3EFIQDFV1r — NWS Boulder (@NWSBoulder) June 9, 2020
Warmer and drier weather is forecast through the weekend, as the strong cold front and storm system that allowed for the return to winter weather moves east.
The storm system also brought severe winds to the region, including a reported 102 mph wind gust that caused “significant” damage to one town.
According to the NWS, the latest date of the last snow in Denver is June 12, 1947, when a trace of snow fell. The last date of measurable snow in Denver was June 2, 1951, when 0.3 of an inch of snow fell.
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--2020-06-10--IRENA: A Never-Ending Source Of Green-Energy Newspeak

Written by Alan Moran on .
Posted in Latest news Stoking the fires of renewable energy ’ s purported advantages is the International Renewable Energy Agency ( IRENA ) , an intergovernmental outfit whose chief purpose is to serve as a spigot for endless propaganda .
Its official message is that fossil fuel is an archaic source of electricity now being battered by upstart competitors wind and solar .
Bear in mind that world electricity supply pans out at 38 percent for coal , 23 percent gas , and 26 percent hydro/nuclear .
Wind/solar supply 10 percent .
IRENA tirelessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could form a key component of economic stimulus packages in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
” And in the purple prose so common with these green-spruiking agencies it claims , “ Scaling up renewables can boost struggling economies .
It can save money for consumers , pique the appetites of investors , and create numerous high-quality new jobs.
” Investment in renewables is amplified by other benefits , the story goes , as it is alleged to bring “ health , sustainability , and inclusive prosperity.
” When it comes to renewables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold a carbon-neutral candle to the likes of their modern green-lipped urgers .
IRENA would have us see renewable power installations as a key component of economic stimulus packages in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , claiming that replacing one-quarter of the world ’ s existing coal capacity with wind and solar would , in addition to cutting electricity costs , bestow a stimulus worth US $ 940 billion , or around one percent of global GDP .
All this is , of course , is super-heated hot air billowing from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding .
It rests upon the sort of spurious arithmetic swallowed whole by Australian governments which , having granted regulatory favors to wind/solar , cheer the dynamiting of low-cost , dependable coal plants and the consequent price escalation and network unreliability .
IRENA estimates the cost of electricity from new coal plants at between US $ 50 per MWh and US $ 177 per MWh .
The cost of the plant itself is pretty standard internationally , but that of transmission and fuel is highly variable , as are construction costs .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Minerals Council estimated a new high-efficiency/low-emissions black coal generator would be as low as $ 40 per MWh .
Australian coal ’ s locational advantages were the key to this low cost , offset somewhat by a “ CFMEU ” union loading disability ( lifting labor costs 25 percent above the level that would prevail without unionized rigidities ) .
Compared with its coal-generation cost estimates , the shaded area in the diagram below , IRENA puts the cost of solar photovoltaics as having declined to US $ 68 per MWh ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 182 per MWh ; and that of wind to $ US53 per MWh .
Given all these entirely confected “ advantages ” of wind and solar , IRENA is disappointed that global growth in renewable investment seems to have stagnated over recent years .
It attributes this to the concocted story — cooked up by itself , mind you — about “ subsidies ” to coal , the estimates for which are derived from another IRENA paper that confusingly traverses many different international sources with widely different approaches and estimates .
The global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is $ 447 billion , which excludes greenhouse “ externality costs.
” The subsidies for coal itself are said to be $ 17 billion ( astonishingly , this includes the UK which no longer has any generation from coal ) .
Germany is the largest coal subsidizer ( to enable its coal industry to compete with imports ) .
Coal comprises 40 percent of German electricity supply , and IRENA quotes annual subsidy estimates ranging from $ US 10 billion while also lending credibility to the ( US ) $ 58 billion Greenpeace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a further $ 128 billion of subsidies to electricity generation generally , this from government-mandated price controls , estimates of concessional finance , and support for carbon capture and storage .
Coincidental to the IRENA release was a report of an agency dedicated to destroying the competitiveness of the Australian energy industry , the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute ( GCCS ) .
Bear in mind that GCCS was bankrolled by the Rudd/Gillard government but , despite all that money from the public purse , it is very secretive about its accounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another reputed success in carbon capture and storage , said to be burying 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 a year with Canadian government subsidies of C $ 558 million .
Some may take perverse comfort in knowing Australia is not the only country dedicated to committing economic suicide with addled “ energy competitiveness ” initiatives .
Agencies like IRENA parade their cost fabrications purely to arm the governments that finance them with the information they can use to promote the subsidies that are needed – temporarily of course – to get these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line .
The message is heard loud and clear in all Western nations ( except Trump ’ s America ) and lip service is paid to it in the developing world just so long as rich countries pick up the tab .
Most of the Western world is adopting economically debilitating emission-restraint policies , but there is no prospect of China , India , Vietnam , and Indonesia sacrificing their possibilities of Western-style living standards by abandoning fossil fuels , always the cheapest energy source .
As these nations are now responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions , all the international agitprop in the world will make no difference to the trivial global warming that the burning of fossil fuels may be causing .
Agencies like IRENA , their national counterparts , lobby organizations , and leaders like that of EU President Ursula von der Leyen continue to beat the drum even as reality bites elsewhere .
But reality bites elsewhere .
In Melbourne , several green-left councils have announced the deferral of “ sustainability ” expenditures as they grapple with massive funding reductions in the light of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the only government agencies who decide that , with reduced incomes , saving the planet takes a back seat to saving public service jobs !

Written by Alan Moran on Jun 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Stoking the fires of renewable energy’s purported advantages is the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an intergovernmental outfit whose chief purpose is to serve as a spigot for endless propaganda.
Its official message is that fossil fuel is an archaic source of electricity now being battered by upstart competitors wind and solar.
Bear in mind that world electricity supply pans out at 38 percent for coal, 23 percent gas, and 26 percent hydro/nuclear. Wind/solar supply 10 percent.
IRENA tirelessly advocates for renewables, saying they “could form a key component of economic stimulus packages in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
And in the purple prose so common with these green-spruiking agencies it claims, “Scaling up renewables can boost struggling economies. It can save money for consumers, pique the appetites of investors, and create numerous high-quality new jobs.”
Investment in renewables is amplified by other benefits, the story goes, as it is alleged to bring “health, sustainability, and inclusive prosperity.”
When it comes to renewables, no snake-oil salesman of old could hold a carbon-neutral candle to the likes of their modern green-lipped urgers.
IRENA would have us see renewable power installations as a key component of economic stimulus packages in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that replacing one-quarter of the world’s existing coal capacity with wind and solar would, in addition to cutting electricity costs, bestow a stimulus worth US$940 billion, or around one percent of global GDP.
All this is, of course, is super-heated hot air billowing from the deep pockets of IRENA’s multi-government funding.
It rests upon the sort of spurious arithmetic swallowed whole by Australian governments which, having granted regulatory favors to wind/solar, cheer the dynamiting of low-cost, dependable coal plants and the consequent price escalation and network unreliability.
IRENA estimates the cost of electricity from new coal plants at between US$50 per MWh and US$177 per MWh. The cost of the plant itself is pretty standard internationally, but that of transmission and fuel is highly variable, as are construction costs.
For Australia, rigorous analysis by GHD for the Minerals Council estimated a new high-efficiency/low-emissions black coal generator would be as low as $40 per MWh.
Australian coal’s locational advantages were the key to this low cost, offset somewhat by a “CFMEU” union loading disability (lifting labor costs 25 percent above the level that would prevail without unionized rigidities).
Compared with its coal-generation cost estimates, the shaded area in the diagram below, IRENA puts the cost of solar photovoltaics as having declined to US$68 per MWh; of large scale solar to US$182 per MWh; and that of wind to $US53 per MWh.
Given all these entirely confected “advantages” of wind and solar, IRENA is disappointed that global growth in renewable investment seems to have stagnated over recent years.
It attributes this to the concocted story — cooked up by itself, mind you — about “subsidies” to coal, the estimates for which are derived from another IRENA paper that confusingly traverses many different international sources with widely different approaches and estimates.
The global subsidy figure IRENA cites for fossil fuels is $447 billion, which excludes greenhouse “externality costs.”
The subsidies for coal itself are said to be $17 billion (astonishingly, this includes the UK which no longer has any generation from coal). Germany is the largest coal subsidizer (to enable its coal industry to compete with imports).
Coal comprises 40 percent of German electricity supply, and IRENA quotes annual subsidy estimates ranging from $US 10 billion while also lending credibility to the (US)$58 billion Greenpeace estimate.
Aside from coal, add a further $128 billion of subsidies to electricity generation generally, this from government-mandated price controls, estimates of concessional finance, and support for carbon capture and storage.
Coincidental to the IRENA release was a report of an agency dedicated to destroying the competitiveness of the Australian energy industry, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCS).
Bear in mind that GCCS was bankrolled by the Rudd/Gillard government but, despite all that money from the public purse, it is very secretive about its accounting.
Its latest press release refers to yet another reputed success in carbon capture and storage, said to be burying 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 a year with Canadian government subsidies of C$558 million.
Some may take perverse comfort in knowing Australia is not the only country dedicated to committing economic suicide with addled “energy competitiveness” initiatives.
Agencies like IRENA parade their cost fabrications purely to arm the governments that finance them with the information they can use to promote the subsidies that are needed – temporarily of course – to get these “clean” energy investments over the line.
The message is heard loud and clear in all Western nations (except Trump’s America) and lip service is paid to it in the developing world just so long as rich countries pick up the tab.
Most of the Western world is adopting economically debilitating emission-restraint policies, but there is no prospect of China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia sacrificing their possibilities of Western-style living standards by abandoning fossil fuels, always the cheapest energy source.
As these nations are now responsible for two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, all the international agitprop in the world will make no difference to the trivial global warming that the burning of fossil fuels may be causing.
Agencies like IRENA, their national counterparts, lobby organizations, and leaders like that of EU President Ursula von der Leyen continue to beat the drum even as reality bites elsewhere.
But reality bites elsewhere. In Melbourne, several green-left councils have announced the deferral of “sustainability” expenditures as they grapple with massive funding reductions in the light of the lockdown.
These councils will not be the only government agencies who decide that, with reduced incomes, saving the planet takes a back seat to saving public service jobs!
Read more at Quadrant
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print