climatechangedispatch--2020-09-10--Ignore The Green Propaganda: There’s No Koala Crisis In NSW

Written by Vic Jurskis on .
Posted in Latest news Our Black Summer proved two things beyond doubt : The unprecedented fires were a consequence of the unprecedented accumulation of explosive fuel , and koalas are under no threat of extinction .
But the Coalition seems likely to be left in smoking ruins because the minor party is taking a stand against government policy based on green propaganda .
In 2020 , the world ’ s largest-ever fire from a single , in this case , natural ignition burnt more than half a million hectares of mostly wilderness northwest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier , during the Settlement Drought , with equally extreme climatic and weather conditions , Aboriginal fires were burning 24/7 but were controlled by Europeans with hand tools and green branches when they reached the settlements .
Europeans didn ’ t even know that koalas existed at that stage because they were so scarce in the healthy open forests .
Federal and state government policies are based on the fantastic mythology that there were millions of koalas all over eastern Australia before we cleared most of their habitat and shot the survivors for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dense young forests that grew up in the foothills after Aboriginal burning was disrupted .
Then they spread across the valleys where declining paddock trees were constantly turning over soft young shoots .
Koalas were increasing at the height of the fur trade in the late nineteenth century .
Numbers crashed when soft young growth frizzled in the Federation Drought .
In the late twentieth century , koalas irrupted again in dense young regrowth forests created by intensive logging on the north coast .
From the 1980s , prescribed burning was reduced as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dangerous fuels increased in declining forests .
By 2017 there were unnaturally dense populations right through the north coast in young , old , and newly harvested forests .
In 2019 , a star witness at NSW Koala Inquiry , Dr. Kellie Leigh of Science for Wildlife , gave evidence that there were young expanding populations of koalas right through the wilderness around Sydney and into the suburbs .
“ Everywhere we look we find a lot of koalas.
” Before Black Summer , we endured a constant barrage of green propaganda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of logging , clearing , and climate change .
Then many thousands of these supposedly nearly extinct creatures were incinerated and the propaganda intensified .
The irony was apparently lost on Minister for Planning and Public Spaces , Rob Stokes .
On 20th December , he released the State Environmental Planning Policy ( Koala Habitat Protection ) 2019 .
It “ aims to … reverse the current trend of koala population decline ” by curtailing existing uses or new developments on private lands .
“ This Policy commences on 1 March 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NSW legislation website.
” To me , it seems not to fit the Cambridge Dictionary definition of legislation— “ laws suggested by a government and made official by a parliament ” .
Environment Minister and moderate-heavy Matt Kean is apparently more cunning than Stokes .
He ’ s promised to double koala populations .
It seems that his bureaucrats have worded him up that koalas are an irruptive species .
But no one has asked , in the light of Black Summer , how creating more national parks is supposed to save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representatives in parliament should be calling for the resignations of the North Shore Liberal ministers .
In this case , the Deputy Premier seems to be taking a principled stand for democracy .

Written by Vic Jurskis on Sep 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Our Black Summer proved two things beyond doubt: The unprecedented fires were a consequence of the unprecedented accumulation of explosive fuel, and koalas are under no threat of extinction.
But the Coalition seems likely to be left in smoking ruins because the minor party is taking a stand against government policy based on green propaganda.
In 2020, the world’s largest-ever fire from a single, in this case, natural ignition burnt more than half a million hectares of mostly wilderness northwest of Sydney.
Two hundred and thirty years earlier, during the Settlement Drought, with equally extreme climatic and weather conditions,
Aboriginal fires were burning 24/7 but were controlled by Europeans with hand tools and green branches when they reached the settlements. Europeans didn’t even know that koalas existed at that stage because they were so scarce in the healthy open forests.
Federal and state government policies are based on the fantastic mythology that there were millions of koalas all over eastern Australia before we cleared most of their habitat and shot the survivors for their skins.
Koalas actually irrupted in dense young forests that grew up in the foothills after Aboriginal burning was disrupted. Then they spread across the valleys where declining paddock trees were constantly turning over soft young shoots.
Koalas were increasing at the height of the fur trade in the late nineteenth century. Numbers crashed when soft young growth frizzled in the Federation Drought.
In the late twentieth century, koalas irrupted again in dense young regrowth forests created by intensive logging on the north coast. From the 1980s, prescribed burning was reduced as a result of green ideology.
Koalas and dangerous fuels increased in declining forests. By 2017 there were unnaturally dense populations right through the north coast in young, old, and newly harvested forests.
In 2019, a star witness at NSW Koala Inquiry, Dr. Kellie Leigh of Science for Wildlife, gave evidence that there were young expanding populations of koalas right through the wilderness around Sydney and into the suburbs. “Everywhere we look we find a lot of koalas.”
Before Black Summer, we endured a constant barrage of green propaganda that koalas were declining drastically as a result of logging, clearing, and climate change.
Then many thousands of these supposedly nearly extinct creatures were incinerated and the propaganda intensified.
The irony was apparently lost on Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Rob Stokes. On 20th December, he released the State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019.
It “aims to … reverse the current trend of koala population decline” by curtailing existing uses or new developments on private lands. “This Policy commences on 1 March 2020 and is required to be published on the NSW legislation website.”
To me, it seems not to fit the Cambridge Dictionary definition of legislation—“laws suggested by a government and made official by a parliament”.
Environment Minister and moderate-heavy Matt Kean is apparently more cunning than Stokes. He’s promised to double koala populations.
It seems that his bureaucrats have worded him up that koalas are an irruptive species. But no one has asked, in the light of Black Summer, how creating more national parks is supposed to save koala habitat.
I suggest that our representatives in parliament should be calling for the resignations of the North Shore Liberal ministers. In this case, the Deputy Premier seems to be taking a principled stand for democracy.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-10--Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Is A Repackaged Green New Deal

Written by Fuzzy Slippers on .
Posted in Latest news The media is tying itself in knots trying to assure the American people that Joe Biden is not on board with the radical socialists and communists that have taken over the Democratic Party .
They keep pointing at his near half-century record as a politician and screeching , “ he ’ s a moderate !
” However , even a casual glance at his campaign website suggests that his agenda , should he win in November , is very radical indeed .
In fact , his “ slate of agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been ? )
written by socialists Bernie Sanders and/or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( archive link ) .
They and others have already presented much of it…as the Green New Deal .
The page , entitled “ Build Back Better : Joe Biden ’ s Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families , ” could be a chapter out of the Communist Manifesto .
That tired , old white supremacist capitalism is so tired and old .
And white .
What we need is a Green New Deal that has most Americans in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or assigned to some government projects like the “ Public Health Job Corps.
” Biden believes this is no time to just build back to the way things were before , with the old economy ’ s structural weaknesses and inequalities still in place .
This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation .
An economy where every American enjoys a fair return for their work and an equal chance to get ahead .
An economy more vibrant and more powerful precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal .
Biden then lists the four points of this completely unAmerican plan that puts the power and the voice in a central government that seeks to ensure everyone is “ equal ” and gets their “ fair share.
” The plan recasts the American people as servants to the central government .
See what they do there ?
They aren ’ t the public servants who are elected to represent us and to serve our best interests , we become the servants who serve their best interests .
Mobilize American manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan today to build a strong industrial base and small-business-led supply chains to retain and create millions of good-paying union jobs in manufacturing and technology across the country .
Mobilize American ingenuity to build a modern infrastructure and an equitable , clean energy future .
Biden will soon release updated proposals to meet the climate crisis , build a clean energy economy , address environmental injustice , and create millions of good-paying union jobs .
Mobilize American talent and heart to build a 21st century caregiving and education workforce … Joe Biden will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far easier to afford child care and to ensure aging relatives and people with disabilities have better access to home and community-based care ; to elevate the pay , benefits , and professional opportunities for caregivers and educators ; to create millions of good-paying new jobs in these areas with a choice to join a union ; and to free up millions of people to join the labor force and grow a stronger economy in return .
Mobilize across the board to advance racial equity in America … As President , he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial wealth gap , to expand affordable housing , to invest in Black , Latino , and Native American entrepreneurs and communities , to advance policing and criminal justice reform , and to make real the promise of educational opportunity regardless of race or zip code .
All of these Green New Deal-based “ mobilizations ” of the American people in service to the state will be made possible , of course , by passing the “ Protecting the Right to Organize ( PRO ) Act , providing public service and federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other steps to make it easier for workers to organize unions and collectively bargain.
” No , this is not Bernie and AOC on crack .
This is the current Democrat nominee for president : Joe Biden .
And he is no moderate , not anymore .
We see this equally clearly in his equally Soviet-style “ plan ” for rural America .
In this plan , “ rural America ” effectively becomes the government ’ s agricultural and green energy tool , with the country split into “ regional food systems ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( archive link ) in service of “ all of America.
” “ Flyover ” country is just a place to get produce and fuel ( and yes , there ’ s a plan for that , too , and it includes “ an inclusive and empowering All-of-Government approach “ -archive link ) .
Oh , and “ rural America ” is also a fun place to visit when one feels a strange compulsion to be outdoors .
Basically , though , according to Team Biden , we need to make being servants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bargaining .
And it ’ s all going to be done with “ net-zero carbon emissions.
” Apparently , there will be no farting cows in Biden ’ s rural America .
Also , the Biden plan includes a renewed focus on ethanol and biofuels , so presumably , they have a regional zone all picked out for their production .
Ditto a zone or zones for wind and solar , in which big ( taxpayer- / worker- ) investments are promised .
And , per the Green New Deal , the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brick by brick , building by building .
Then , out of nowhere , Bernie ’ s tired pledge for government to provide broadband internet access to everyone rears its ugly commie head .
Actually , I ’ m pretty sure all of this is Bernie ’ s agenda .
He lost , though , so I guess Democrats think they can unload this disastrous Green New Deal nightmare via clueless Biden .
I ’ m pretty sure he ’ s never read a word of this vile , unAmerican claptrap , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t understand a word of it or even begin to comprehend its terrifying ramifications .
The media sure aren ’ t asking about any of this , but my guess is that President Trump will have plenty to say about it come the first presidential debate .

Written by Fuzzy Slippers on Sep 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The media is tying itself in knots trying to assure the American people that Joe Biden is not on board with the radical socialists and communists that have taken over the Democratic Party.
They keep pointing at his near half-century record as a politician and screeching, “he’s a moderate!”
However, even a casual glance at his campaign website suggests that his agenda, should he win in November, is very radical indeed.
In fact, his “ Build Back Better” slate of agenda items could have been (may have been?) written by socialists Bernie Sanders and/or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (archive link). They and others have already presented much of it…as the Green New Deal.
The page, entitled “Build Back Better: Joe Biden’s Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families,” could be a chapter out of the Communist Manifesto.
That tired, old white supremacist capitalism is so tired and old. And white. What we need is a Green New Deal that has most Americans in some type of “good union job” or assigned to some government projects like the “Public Health Job Corps.”
Biden believes this is no time to just build back to the way things were before, with the old economy’s structural weaknesses and inequalities still in place. This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation. An economy where every American enjoys a fair return for their work and an equal chance to get ahead. An economy more vibrant and more powerful precisely because everybody will be cut in on the deal.
Biden then lists the four points of this completely unAmerican plan that puts the power and the voice in a central government that seeks to ensure everyone is “equal” and gets their “fair share.”
The plan recasts the American people as servants to the central government.
The Biden plan will mobilize the American people in service of four bold, national efforts to address four great national challenges.
See what they do there? They aren’t the public servants who are elected to represent us and to serve our best interests, we become the servants who serve their best interests.
Mobilize American manufacturing and innovation … he is releasing a plan today to build a strong industrial base and small-business-led supply chains to retain and create millions of good-paying union jobs in manufacturing and technology across the country. Mobilize American ingenuity to build a modern infrastructure and an equitable, clean energy future. Biden will soon release updated proposals to meet the climate crisis, build a clean energy economy, address environmental injustice, and create millions of good-paying union jobs. Mobilize American talent and heart to build a 21st century caregiving and education workforce … Joe Biden will soon announce a plan to make it far easier to afford child care and to ensure aging relatives and people with disabilities have better access to home and community-based care; to elevate the pay, benefits, and professional opportunities for caregivers and educators; to create millions of good-paying new jobs in these areas with a choice to join a union; and to free up millions of people to join the labor force and grow a stronger economy in return. Mobilize across the board to advance racial equity in America … As President, he will pursue a dedicated agenda to close the racial wealth gap, to expand affordable housing, to invest in Black, Latino, and Native American entrepreneurs and communities, to advance policing and criminal justice reform, and to make real the promise of educational opportunity regardless of race or zip code.
All of these Green New Deal-based “mobilizations” of the American people in service to the state will be made possible, of course, by passing the “Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, providing public service and federal government workers with bargaining rights, and taking other steps to make it easier for workers to organize unions and collectively bargain.”
No, this is not Bernie and AOC on crack. This is the current Democrat nominee for president: Joe Biden. And he is no moderate, not anymore.
We see this equally clearly in his equally Soviet-style “plan” for rural America. In this plan, “rural America” effectively becomes the government’s agricultural and green energy tool, with the country split into “regional food systems” that are micro-managed by the federal government (archive link) in service of “all of America.”
Rural Americans fuel us and feed us. Rural lands provide us with places to spend time outdoors with friends and family and relax.
“Flyover” country is just a place to get produce and fuel (and yes, there’s a plan for that, too, and it includes “an inclusive and empowering All-of-Government approach“-archive link).
Oh, and “rural America” is also a fun place to visit when one feels a strange compulsion to be outdoors.
Basically, though, according to Team Biden, we need to make being servants to the state more attractive through collective bargaining.
The Biden Administration will partner with small and mid-sized farmers to help them collectively create supply chains to deliver fresh produce and other products to schools, hospitals, and other major state and federal institutions, including the Defense Department.
And it’s all going to be done with “net-zero carbon emissions.” Apparently, there will be no farting cows in Biden’s rural America.
Also, the Biden plan includes a renewed focus on ethanol and biofuels, so presumably, they have a regional zone all picked out for their production. Ditto a zone or zones for wind and solar, in which big (taxpayer- / worker-) investments are promised.
And, per the Green New Deal, the Biden plan promises to “rebuild America” brick by brick, building by building.
As president, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can meet America’s economic needs and withstand the impacts of climate change. …And, it will build the roads to give farms and small town businesses access to markets and an efficient means to participate in the world economy.
Then, out of nowhere, Bernie’s tired pledge for government to provide broadband internet access to everyone rears its ugly commie head.
Actually, I’m pretty sure all of this is Bernie’s agenda. He lost, though, so I guess Democrats think they can unload this disastrous Green New Deal nightmare via clueless Biden.
I’m pretty sure he’s never read a word of this vile, unAmerican claptrap, or that if he did, he didn’t understand a word of it or even begin to comprehend its terrifying ramifications.
The media sure aren’t asking about any of this, but my guess is that President Trump will have plenty to say about it come the first presidential debate.
Read more at Legal Insurrection
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-10--Gov. Newsom ‘Has No Patience For’ The Facts About CA Wildfires

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news California Gov .
Gavin Newsom is in the news today , proclaiming wildfires in his state have left him with “ no patience for climate change deniers.
” That is too bad .
If Newsom had the patience to spend two minutes reviewing wildfire facts , he wouldn ’ t be advancing a fake climate scare .
Deadline , Politico , and many other media outlets are reporting on Newsom ’ s comments today .
Politico ’ s story , “ Newsom : ‘ No patience for climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was typical of the coverage , with Newsom linking the ongoing horrific wildfires and heat California is suffering under supposed human-caused climate change .
The problem is the data undermine his and the headlines ’ assertions that the heat and wildfires are “ historic.
” Research shows massive wildfires have regularly swept through California .
Indeed , a 2007 paper in the journal Forest Ecology and Management reported that prior to European colonization in the 1800s , more than 4.4 million acres of California forest and shrub-land burned annually .
That is far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has burned cumulatively since 2000 .
As compared to the 4.4 million California acres that burned each year prior to European colonization , only 90,000 acres to 1.6 million California acres burn in a typical year now .
Wildfires have declined sharply over the course of the past century in the United States .
As reported in Climate at a Glance : Wildfires , long-term data from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center ( NIFC ) show wildfires have declined in number and severity since the early 1900s .
Assessing data on U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , NIFC reports the numbers of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century , with the current acres burned running just 1/4th to 1/5th of the amount of land that typically burned in the 1930s ( see the figure , below ) .
Globally , the data on wildfires are just as clear .
In his book False Alarm , Bjorn Lomborg observes : “ There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire , with satellites showing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just over the past 18 years … In total , the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles , from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.
” Gavin Newsom has announced he has lost patience for practicing science and discovering the truth .
Fortunately , climate realists still have the patience to do so .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Sep 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is in the news today, proclaiming wildfires in his state have left him with “no patience for climate change deniers.”
That is too bad. If Newsom had the patience to spend two minutes reviewing wildfire facts, he wouldn’t be advancing a fake climate scare.
Deadline, Politico, and many other media outlets are reporting on Newsom’s comments today.
Politico’s story, “Newsom: ‘No patience for climate change deniers’ amid historic wildfires,” was typical of the coverage, with Newsom linking the ongoing horrific wildfires and heat California is suffering under supposed human-caused climate change.
The problem is the data undermine his and the headlines’ assertions that the heat and wildfires are “historic.”
Research shows massive wildfires have regularly swept through California. Indeed, a 2007 paper in the journal Forest Ecology and Management reported that prior to European colonization in the 1800s, more than 4.4 million acres of California forest and shrub-land burned annually.
That is far more than the area of California that has burned cumulatively since 2000. As compared to the 4.4 million California acres that burned each year prior to European colonization, only 90,000 acres to 1.6 million California acres burn in a typical year now.
Wildfires have declined sharply over the course of the past century in the United States. As reported in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, long-term data from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have declined in number and severity since the early 1900s.
Assessing data on U.S. wildfires from as far back as 1926, NIFC reports the numbers of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century, with the current acres burned running just 1/4th to 1/5th of the amount of land that typically burned in the 1930s (see the figure, below).
Globally, the data on wildfires are just as clear. In his book False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg observes:
“There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned area just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.”
Gavin Newsom has announced he has lost patience for practicing science and discovering the truth. Fortunately, climate realists still have the patience to do so.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--Activists Blame ‘Climate Change’ For Wildfires, Rains, Heatwaves

Written by Thomas D. Williams , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Climate alarmists are pinning specific extreme weather events on global warming , insisting they would have “ almost no chance of happening without human-induced climate change.
” “ In recent weeks , the world has seen ferocious wildfires in the U.S. West , torrential rains in Africa , weirdly warm temperatures on the surface of tropical oceans , and record heat waves from California to the Siberian Arctic.
” Whereas in recent years , certain circumspection prevented scientists from attributing specific weather events to climate change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article reveals .
Event attribution — or the ability to accurately link a given weather phenomenon to manmade global warming — has been considered exceedingly risky at best and completely unreliable at worst , even according to true believers .
At a meeting of climate scientists at Oxford in 2012 , one participant argued that , given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically imperfect climate models used to generate attribution claims , they are “ unjustifiably speculative , basically unverifiable and better not made at all.
” Nature Magazine felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
” Apparently , some alarmists feel that that time has finally arrived .
“ We are seeing the emergence of some signals that would have had almost no chance of happening without human-induced climate change , ” Sonia Seneviratne , a climate scientist at Swiss university ETH Zurich , told Reuters .
“ What seemed like an established truth that you can not attribute a particular extreme weather event to climate change is less and less true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree , of course .
“ Extreme event attribution can tell us whether global warming made an event more likely or more severe , but it can ’ t tell us if global warming ‘ caused ’ an event in a yes-or-no sort of way , ” states the official website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) .
One of the central problems with extreme event attribution is that it is based on models and simulations rather than on observation and fact .
Since it deals in probabilities rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides no scientific proof of causality and will always require belief .
Skeptics of extreme event attribution will always point to historical climatic shifts — some of them massive — as well as past extreme weather events and ask the question : how was that possible before humans began emitting greenhouse gases in any significant way ?
Another question is why only certain extreme weather phenomena are not increasing but are staying stable or diminishing .
In late August , well-known climate activist Michael Shellenberger reported that hurricanes are not increasing in frequency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are at their lowest point in 120 years.
” Contrary to much of the hype found in mainstream media , Mr. Shellenberger — a Time magazine Hero of the Environment and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award — wrote in Forbes that “ hurricanes , floods , and other natural disasters aren ’ t getting worse .
They ’ re getting better .
Much better.
” Last June , Shellenberger caused a stir when he issued a public apology on behalf of climate scientists and environmentalists for contributing to panic over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf of environmentalists everywhere , “ I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years , ” he wrote .
As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , “ I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public , ” Shellenberger wrote .
In his essay , Shellenberger listed the 12 climate “ myths ” that have been etched into the modern psyche , but which have no basis in scientific fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ sixth mass extinction , ’ ” he wrote ; the Amazon “ is not ‘ the lungs of the world , ’ ” and climate change “ is not making natural disasters worse.
” “ Fires have declined 25 % around the world since 2003 , ” he noted , and the amount of land we currently use for meat “ has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska.
” Seeing how terrified and completely misguided people have become about the reality of climate change , Shellenberger issued an extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the form of a book , Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .

Written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate alarmists are pinning specific extreme weather events on global warming, insisting they would have “almost no chance of happening without human-induced climate change.”
“The planet is showing signs it’s in peril,” declares a Reuters article Thursday.
“In recent weeks, the world has seen ferocious wildfires in the U.S. West, torrential rains in Africa, weirdly warm temperatures on the surface of tropical oceans, and record heat waves from California to the Siberian Arctic.”
Whereas in recent years, certain circumspection prevented scientists from attributing specific weather events to climate change, that is starting to change, the article reveals.
Event attribution — or the ability to accurately link a given weather phenomenon to manmade global warming — has been considered exceedingly risky at best and completely unreliable at worst, even according to true believers.
At a meeting of climate scientists at Oxford in 2012, one participant argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically imperfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are “unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”
Nature Magazine felt compelled to conclude at the time that “better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.”
Apparently, some alarmists feel that that time has finally arrived.
“We are seeing the emergence of some signals that would have had almost no chance of happening without human-induced climate change,” Sonia Seneviratne, a climate scientist at Swiss university ETH Zurich, told Reuters.
“What seemed like an established truth that you cannot attribute a particular extreme weather event to climate change is less and less true,” she added.
Not all scientists agree, of course.
“Extreme event attribution can tell us whether global warming made an event more likely or more severe, but it can’t tell us if global warming ‘caused’ an event in a yes-or-no sort of way,” states the official website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
One of the central problems with extreme event attribution is that it is based on models and simulations rather than on observation and fact.
Since it deals in probabilities rather than direct, measurable causality, it provides no scientific proof of causality and will always require belief.
Skeptics of extreme event attribution will always point to historical climatic shifts — some of them massive — as well as past extreme weather events and ask the question: how was that possible before humans began emitting greenhouse gases in any significant way?
Another question is why only certain extreme weather phenomena are not increasing but are staying stable or diminishing.
In late August, well-known climate activist Michael Shellenberger reported that hurricanes are not increasing in frequency and that “deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest point in 120 years.”
Contrary to much of the hype found in mainstream media, Mr. Shellenberger — a Time magazine Hero of the Environment and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award — wrote in Forbes that “hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters aren’t getting worse. They’re getting better. Much better.”
Last June, Shellenberger caused a stir when he issued a public apology on behalf of climate scientists and environmentalists for contributing to panic over the supposed horrors of global warming.
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, “I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years,” he wrote.
As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public,” Shellenberger wrote.
In his essay, Shellenberger listed the 12 climate “myths” that have been etched into the modern psyche, but which have no basis in scientific fact.
“Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction,’” he wrote; the Amazon “is not ‘the lungs of the world,’” and climate change “is not making natural disasters worse.”
“Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003,” he noted, and the amount of land we currently use for meat “has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska.”
Seeing how terrified and completely misguided people have become about the reality of climate change, Shellenberger issued an extended formal apology for environmentalist “fear-mongering” in the form of a book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Is A Fable That Will Wreck The Economy

Written by Rupert Darwall on .
Posted in Latest news Not letting a crisis go to waste , climate change advocates have seized on COVID-19 to press their agenda to decarbonize the American economy .
The World Health Organization would have us believe that the pathogen ’ s emergence is linked to fossil fuels , though Chinese authorities have banned investigators from visiting the source of the virus in Wuhan .
The Green New Deal overlaps “ so perfectly ” with the coronavirus , says Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
And Larry Fink , CEO of the world ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden administration , views environmental sustainability and COVID-19 as “ one and the same , ” representing “ huge physical changes in our lives.
” Democrats have seized on this fable .
The pandemic demands unprecedented , transformational federal investment in “ resilient , sustainable , and inclusive infrastructure , ” their 2020 platform declares .
“ We can , and we will , deal with climate change .
It ’ s not only a crisis , it ’ s an enormous opportunity , ” Joe Biden said in his acceptance speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build it back , we ’ ll build it back better.
” “ Build back better ” is code for decarbonization—and the promise that , out of the ashes of a U.S. economy devastated by the coronavirus , a new economy will emerge under the beneficent guidance of the federal government , setting America on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions .
We don ’ t need to “ build back ” anything , though .
America ’ s physical infrastructure is intact .
Its power stations and energy infrastructure , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airports are almost exactly as they were before the virus struck .
We are not Germany in 1945 after Allied bombs had reduced it to rubble .
COVID-19 has done no damage to American physical assets .
What COVID-19 has destroyed is lives and livelihoods , and corporate and household balance sheets .
Businesses have fixed costs that they can ’ t recover .
Despite the best efforts of the Fed and its unprecedented monetary loosening , time won ’ t stand still for capital and the debt used to finance it when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The best antidote isn ’ t some building program but strong , sustained economic growth .
At this stage , the most pro-growth economic policy is adopting proportionate COVID-19 responses that accelerate the reopening of the economy while protecting the most vulnerable citizens and treating them with the most efficacious medical therapies .
You won ’ t get any of that from “ building back better.
” The Green New Deal and Biden ’ s plan for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 are the last things that a recovering economy needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ multi-trillion-dollar tax hikes—and with not one cent for deficit reduction , the proceeds going instead to controlling the “ global climate.
” And there ’ s more .
While America—with the glaring exception of California—already has all the energy it needs , Biden wants to spend $ 1.7 trillion on alternative energy , a gargantuan outlay that would pile on to an already rapidly growing federal deficit .
Climate activists draw many spurious links between COVID-19 and climate change , but they have one thing in common : zero tolerance .
For COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the principle of zero COVID .
For climate absolutists , society should be organized around the principle of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions .
We can see the collateral damage to the economy , to society , and to human freedom from the draconian measures adopted to contain this virus .
On climate , Biden promises drastic action but avoids telling voters what it might mean .
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more honest .
It says that net-zero requires “ rapid , far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ January , the British government ’ s chief scientific adviser notified Prime Minister Boris Johnson that achieving net-zero will require “ fundamental changes in our society and economy.
” The letter went on to warn that the government should “ consider and manage the impacts in areas where existing industries will be disrupted ” —a euphemism for being wiped out .
In the U.S. , that means the oil and gas industry .
“ Kiddo , ” Biden was filmed telling a voter , “ look in my eyes .
I guarantee we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He didn ’ t tell her that fossil fuels meet 80 % of U.S. energy needs .
Despite Biden ’ s subsequent denial that he would ban fracking , the logic of net-zero plainly says otherwise .
Its unavoidable implication is the progressive outlawing of all fossil fuel energy .
Fracking ended America ’ s dependence on imported energy and transformed it into a global hydrocarbon superpower .
The technique has created hundreds of thousands of high-paying blue-collar jobs , both in the shale fields and in downstream manufacturing .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of four better off by an average of $ 2,500 a year .
That ’ s an awful lot to give up for Joe Biden ’ s fable of “ building back better .
”

Written by Rupert Darwall on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Not letting a crisis go to waste, climate change advocates have seized on COVID-19 to press their agenda to decarbonize the American economy.
The World Health Organization would have us believe that the pathogen’s emergence is linked to fossil fuels, though Chinese authorities have banned investigators from visiting the source of the virus in Wuhan.
The Green New Deal overlaps “so perfectly” with the coronavirus, says Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
And Larry Fink, CEO of the world’s largest asset manager and likely Treasury Secretary in a Biden administration, views environmental sustainability and COVID-19 as “one and the same,” representing “huge physical changes in our lives.”
Democrats have seized on this fable. The pandemic demands unprecedented, transformational federal investment in “resilient, sustainable, and inclusive infrastructure,” their 2020 platform declares.
“We can, and we will, deal with climate change. It’s not only a crisis, it’s an enormous opportunity,” Joe Biden said in his acceptance speech. “We’ll not only build it back, we’ll build it back better.”
“Build back better” is code for decarbonization—and the promise that, out of the ashes of a U.S. economy devastated by the coronavirus, a new economy will emerge under the beneficent guidance of the federal government, setting America on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
We don’t need to “build back” anything, though. America’s physical infrastructure is intact.
Its power stations and energy infrastructure, its roads and bridges, its railways and airports are almost exactly as they were before the virus struck.
We are not Germany in 1945 after Allied bombs had reduced it to rubble. COVID-19 has done no damage to American physical assets.
What COVID-19 has destroyed is lives and livelihoods, and corporate and household balance sheets. Businesses have fixed costs that they can’t recover.
Despite the best efforts of the Fed and its unprecedented monetary loosening, time won’t stand still for capital and the debt used to finance it when economic activity grinds to a halt.
The best antidote isn’t some building program but strong, sustained economic growth. At this stage, the most pro-growth economic policy is adopting proportionate COVID-19 responses that accelerate the reopening of the economy while protecting the most vulnerable citizens and treating them with the most efficacious medical therapies.
You won’t get any of that from “building back better.”
The Green New Deal and Biden’s plan for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 are the last things that a recovering economy needs.
Mandating net-zero is the equivalent of imposing multi-trillion-dollar tax hikes—and with not one cent for deficit reduction, the proceeds going instead to controlling the “global climate.”
And there’s more. While America—with the glaring exception of California—already has all the energy it needs, Biden wants to spend $1.7 trillion on alternative energy, a gargantuan outlay that would pile on to an already rapidly growing federal deficit.
Climate activists draw many spurious links between COVID-19 and climate change, but they have one thing in common: zero tolerance.
For COVID-19 absolutists, society should be organized around the principle of zero COVID. For climate absolutists, society should be organized around the principle of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
We can see the collateral damage to the economy, to society, and to human freedom from the draconian measures adopted to contain this virus.
On climate, Biden promises drastic action but avoids telling voters what it might mean. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more honest. It says that net-zero requires “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” That’s true.
In January, the British government’s chief scientific adviser notified Prime Minister Boris Johnson that achieving net-zero will require “fundamental changes in our society and economy.”
The letter went on to warn that the government should “consider and manage the impacts in areas where existing industries will be disrupted”—a euphemism for being wiped out.
In the U.S., that means the oil and gas industry. “Kiddo,” Biden was filmed telling a voter, “look in my eyes. I guarantee we’re gonna end fossil fuels.”
He didn’t tell her that fossil fuels meet 80% of U.S. energy needs. Despite Biden’s subsequent denial that he would ban fracking, the logic of net-zero plainly says otherwise. Its unavoidable implication is the progressive outlawing of all fossil fuel energy.
Fracking ended America’s dependence on imported energy and transformed it into a global hydrocarbon superpower. The technique has created hundreds of thousands of high-paying blue-collar jobs, both in the shale fields and in downstream manufacturing.
It has cut energy prices, making a family of four better off by an average of $2,500 a year. That’s an awful lot to give up for Joe Biden’s fable of “building back better.”
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--‘Erroneous And Alarmist’: ABC Links Coronavirus To Climate Change

Written by News.com.au on .
Posted in Latest news Sky News host Chris Kenny has criticized ABC presenter , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ , for linking the emergence of coronavirus to climate change .
On Friday , ABC @ @ @ @ @ is the emergence of novel pathogens like the coronavirus more likely because of climate change @ @ @ @ @ the public broadcaster prefers the “ erroneous ” and “ alarmist claims ” of Dr. @ @ @ @ @ “ If the Spanish Flu was pre-climate change , and this is what you get @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll take global warming every day , ” Mr. Kenny said .
According to @ @ @ @ @ and Prevention , the Spanish Flu was estimated to have infected 500 million people and @ @ @ @ @ .
COVID-19 has so far infected more than 28 million people and caused more than @ @ @

Written by News.com.au on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Sky News host Chris Kenny has criticized ABC presenter, Dr. Norman Swan (pictured), for linking the emergence of coronavirus to climate change.
On Friday, ABC Dr. Swan was asked “is the emergence of novel pathogens like the coronavirus more likely because of climate change?”
“The answer is yes,” Dr. Swan said.
Mr. Kenny said the public broadcaster prefers the “erroneous” and “alarmist claims” of Dr. Swan to expert advice.
“If the Spanish Flu was pre-climate change, and this is what you get with climate change, I’ll take global warming every day,” Mr. Kenny said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Spanish Flu was estimated to have infected 500 million people and killed at least 50 million.
COVID-19 has so far infected more than 28 million people and caused more than 900,000 deaths.
Read more at News.com.au
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--Leftists Blame Climate Change For West Coast Fires—Why They’re Wrong

Written by Andrea Widburg on .
Posted in Latest news The West Coast is aglow but not in a good way .
Instead , fires are raging throughout California , Oregon , and Washington .
The property damage is appalling , and ten people have already died .
Leftists , predictably , have announced that their goddess , Mother Gaia , is again crying out from the horrors of anthropogenic climate change .
The reality is that there ’ s something bigger and more real going on , which is the actual climate .
La Nina is afoot in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having some extra fun in the West because the environmentalists have prevented California from protecting against fires .
The data from the fires is appalling .
In California , at least 2.5 million acres have burned .
In Oregon , 900,000 acres have burned , with one of the worst fires being attributed to arson .
In a nod to the cliché that everything that happens hits women and minorities the hardest , the Washington Post reports that “ In a small Oregon town , a wildfire devastates a Latino community.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burned .
Leftists know what ’ s to blame – it ’ s Anthropogenic Climate Change , which is the nearest thing they have to a religion .
Religions are unfalsifiable because faith ties all events to a deity .
In that vein , climate change is the answer to all weather and climate events .
Whether it ’ s too hot or cold , too still or windy , too wet or dry , it doesn ’ t matter .
The blame always falls on humans and their love affair with fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsurprising that one of the high priests of leftism , Barack Obama , would weigh in on the admittedly disturbing orange sky in California .
In his usual pompous way , he announced that humankind was at fault : Others wiser than Obama have pointed out that climate change is not the problem .
Instead , the problem is environmentalism .
Environmentalism is why California stopped grooming forests or doing controlled burns to get rid of deadwood ( aka tinder ) .
It was because of environmentalism that PG & E poured all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilities , such as the solar facilities that failed during California ’ s recent heatwave , and stopped repairing old power lines ( some going back 90 years ) or trimming back tinder around those power lines .
And all this misbegotten environmentalism has controlled California even as more people have moved into fire zones over the past several decades .
Even those awful environmental policies , though , do not tell the entire story .
There are two bigger things at play .
First , there ’ s California ’ s actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epic heatwave this year , back in 1913 the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees in California ’ s Death Valley .
That doesn ’ t even mean it was the hottest temperature ever .
It was just the hottest temperature ever recorded .
People have been recording temperatures in a consistent way only since the Victorian era .
That means that , long before the last 150 years , the Earth has almost certainly been setting all sorts of records about which we know nothing .
Second , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing of all about California ’ s furnace-like conditions .
This is a La Nina year , and it ’ s going to wreak havoc all over America : La Nina — a phenomenon that occurs when the surface of the Pacific Ocean cools — has officially formed , the U.S .
Climate Prediction Center said Thursday .
It triggers an atmospheric chain reaction that stands to roil weather around the globe , often turning the western U.S. into a tinder box , fueling more powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic and flooding parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re already in a bad position , and La Nina puts us in a situation where fire-weather conditions persist into November and possibly even December , ” said Ryan Truchelut , president of Weather Tiger LLC .
“ It is exacerbating existing heat and drought issues.
” The effects are already evident .
Rising temperatures and an extreme mega-drought across the U.S. West are fueling fires from Washington to Arizona .
California is having its worst fire season on record , torching an unprecedented 2.5 million acres .
And in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have formed by September , including Hurricane Laura , which killed more than a dozen people across the Caribbean and the U.S. last month .
No matter where you are , you ’ d better batten down the hatches , because anything that can go wild and dangerous with the weather will .
These unusual weather phenomena will have nothing to do with the lefts ’ favorite explanation of Gaia in crisis due to evil people .
Instead , they will reflect normal weather patterns around the globe , including in California .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the California greenies ’ failure to take steps that could protect their state from predictable weather events .

Written by Andrea Widburg on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The West Coast is aglow but not in a good way. Instead, fires are raging throughout California, Oregon, and Washington.
The property damage is appalling, and ten people have already died. Leftists, predictably, have announced that their goddess, Mother Gaia, is again crying out from the horrors of anthropogenic climate change.
The reality is that there’s something bigger and more real going on, which is the actual climate.
La Nina is afoot in the northern hemisphere, and she’s having some extra fun in the West because the environmentalists have prevented California from protecting against fires.
The data from the fires is appalling. In California, at least 2.5 million acres have burned. In Oregon, 900,000 acres have burned, with one of the worst fires being attributed to arson.
In a nod to the cliché that everything that happens hits women and minorities the hardest, the Washington Post reports that “In a small Oregon town, a wildfire devastates a Latino community.” And in Washington state, 480,000 acres have burned.
Leftists know what’s to blame – it’s Anthropogenic Climate Change, which is the nearest thing they have to a religion. Religions are unfalsifiable because faith ties all events to a deity.
In that vein, climate change is the answer to all weather and climate events. Whether it’s too hot or cold, too still or windy, too wet or dry, it doesn’t matter. The blame always falls on humans and their love affair with fossil fuels.
Therefore, it’s unsurprising that one of the high priests of leftism, Barack Obama, would weigh in on the admittedly disturbing orange sky in California.
In his usual pompous way, he announced that humankind was at fault:
The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities. Protecting our planet is on the ballot. Vote like your life depends on it—because it does. pic.twitter.com/gKGegXWxQu — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 10, 2020
Others wiser than Obama have pointed out that climate change is not the problem. Instead, the problem is environmentalism.
Environmentalism is why California stopped grooming forests or doing controlled burns to get rid of deadwood (aka tinder).
It was because of environmentalism that PG&E poured all of its money into building renewable energy facilities, such as the solar facilities that failed during California’s recent heatwave, and stopped repairing old power lines (some going back 90 years) or trimming back tinder around those power lines.
And all this misbegotten environmentalism has controlled California even as more people have moved into fire zones over the past several decades.
Even those awful environmental policies, though, do not tell the entire story. There are two bigger things at play.
First, there’s California’s actual climate. For all the hysteria about the epic heatwave this year, back in 1913 the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees in California’s Death Valley.
That doesn’t even mean it was the hottest temperature ever. It was just the hottest temperature ever recorded. People have been recording temperatures in a consistent way only since the Victorian era.
That means that, long before the last 150 years, the Earth has almost certainly been setting all sorts of records about which we know nothing.
Second, the leftists are ignoring the most significant thing of all about California’s furnace-like conditions. This is a La Nina year, and it’s going to wreak havoc all over America:
La Nina — a phenomenon that occurs when the surface of the Pacific Ocean cools — has officially formed, the U.S. Climate Prediction Center said Thursday. It triggers an atmospheric chain reaction that stands to roil weather around the globe, often turning the western U.S. into a tinder box, fueling more powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic and flooding parts of Australia and South America. “We’re already in a bad position, and La Nina puts us in a situation where fire-weather conditions persist into November and possibly even December,” said Ryan Truchelut, president of Weather Tiger LLC. “It is exacerbating existing heat and drought issues.” The effects are already evident. Rising temperatures and an extreme mega-drought across the U.S. West are fueling fires from Washington to Arizona. California is having its worst fire season on record, torching an unprecedented 2.5 million acres. And in the Atlantic, a record number tropical storms have formed by September, including Hurricane Laura, which killed more than a dozen people across the Caribbean and the U.S. last month.
No matter where you are, you’d better batten down the hatches, because anything that can go wild and dangerous with the weather will.
These unusual weather phenomena will have nothing to do with the lefts’ favorite explanation of Gaia in crisis due to evil people. Instead, they will reflect normal weather patterns around the globe, including in California.
The only unusual thing will have been the California greenies’ failure to take steps that could protect their state from predictable weather events.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--The High Cost Of The Green-Energy Delusion

Written by ccdeditor on .
Posted in Latest news The march of ‘ green energy ’ continues , but it is not green at all .
Solar energy is very dilute , so solar collectors cover huge areas of flat arable land , stealing farmland , starving wild herbs and grasses of sunlight , and creating ‘ solar deserts ’ .
Wind turbines steal energy from winds which often bring moisture from the ocean .
These walls of turbines create rain shadows , producing more rain near the turbines and more droughts down-wind .
Turbines work best along ridgelines where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The birds are chopped up by the whirling scythes , and so are bats .
Turbines annoy neighbors with noise and they increase bushfire risk .
If they are offshore , less moisture-bearing wind and less rain reach the land .
Now the green dreamers want to use Australia ’ s precious water to manufacture hydrogen for export to Asia in a round-robin electrolytic process that consumes far more energy than it can ever produce .
Electrolysis consumes nine tons of water plus heaps of electricity to make one ton of hydrogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the hydrogen is burned ( unlike water in steam turbines where most water is reused and some escapes to the atmosphere via cooling towers ) .
Hydrogen is a low-energy explosive gas .
Collecting , storing , and exporting it will be a hazardous business , and producing it will consume masses of Australian water and electricity to generate trendy ‘ green ’ fuel for Asia .
Burning this fuel will release pure Australian water into polluted Asian skies .
But the Australian Government is funding hydrogen speculation with $ 70million .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has a huge cost in rare metals ; it creates toxic waste problems ; solar panels create solar deserts ; turbines chop birds and steal wind and rain from inland areas ; and now they want to steal freshwater and energy to export low-energy explosive hydrogen .
In contrast , coal is fossil sunshine .
Burning it releases new energy for industry and its combustion products bring great benefits for the green world – water vapor , carbon dioxide plant food , and valuable plant micro-nutrients .
Why export our sunshine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our abundant fossil sunshine locked underground as ‘ politically stranded assets ’ ?
This article , with illustrations , can be downloaded here .

Written by Thomas Richard on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The march of ‘green energy’ continues, but it is not green at all.
Solar energy is very dilute, so solar collectors cover huge areas of flat arable land, stealing farmland, starving wild herbs and grasses of sunlight, and creating ‘solar deserts’.
Wind turbines steal energy from winds which often bring moisture from the ocean. These walls of turbines create rain shadows, producing more rain near the turbines and more droughts down-wind.
Turbines work best along ridgelines where soaring birds such as eagles seek thermals. The birds are chopped up by the whirling scythes, and so are bats.
Turbines annoy neighbors with noise and they increase bushfire risk. If they are offshore, less moisture-bearing wind and less rain reach the land.
Now the green dreamers want to use Australia’s precious water to manufacture hydrogen for export to Asia in a round-robin electrolytic process that consumes far more energy than it can ever produce.
Electrolysis consumes nine tons of water plus heaps of electricity to make one ton of hydrogen. This processed water is not recovered until the hydrogen is burned (unlike water in steam turbines where most water is reused and some escapes to the atmosphere via cooling towers).
Hydrogen is a low-energy explosive gas. Collecting, storing, and exporting it will be a hazardous business, and producing it will consume masses of Australian water and electricity to generate trendy ‘green’ fuel for Asia.
Burning this fuel will release pure Australian water into polluted Asian skies. But the Australian Government is funding hydrogen speculation with $70million.
Green energy isn’t green. It has a huge cost in rare metals; it creates toxic waste problems; solar panels create solar deserts; turbines chop birds and steal wind and rain from inland areas; and now they want to steal freshwater and energy to export low-energy explosive hydrogen.
In contrast, coal is fossil sunshine. Burning it releases new energy for industry and its combustion products bring great benefits for the green world – water vapor, carbon dioxide plant food, and valuable plant micro-nutrients.
Why export our sunshine, wind and freshwater via hydrogen while leaving our abundant fossil sunshine locked underground as ‘politically stranded assets’?
This article, with illustrations, can be downloaded here.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--Environmental Alarmism Is Making Forest Fires Worse

Written by Michael Shellenberger on .
Posted in Latest news I woke up an hour later than normal yesterday morning because smoke from northern California ’ s forest fires had blotted out the sun .
My bedroom windows glowed orange .
It looked like a scene out of the 1983 made-for-TV movie , “ The Day After , ” about nuclear war .
I wasn ’ t the only one creeped out by the apocalyptic hue .
“ ’ A Nuclear Winter ’ Over Bay Area , as Wildfires Blot Out the Sun , ” read a New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be a clear day , ” noted a scientist .
“ This is all generated from the fires.
” The same mechanism that caused the orange sky is what could destroy agriculture in the wake of thermonuclear war : particulate matter from burned wood blocking parts of the light spectrum from reaching the ground .
And yet the air quality wasn ’ t nearly as bad as it looked .
“ The good thing about it is most of the ( smoke ) is staying aloft , ” the air quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Management District ( BAAQMD ) , said .
“ The sun is able to scatter those smoke particles that produce this apocalyptic orange color that we ’ re seeing.
” And while the 2 million acres that have burned in California so far in 2020 is 10 times more area than burned in 2019 , it ’ s still 2 million acres less than the lowest estimate for acres burned within modern state borders annually before Europeans settled in America .
“ California was a very smoky place historically , ” says Malcolm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though we ’ re seeing area burned that is off-the-charts , it ’ s still probably less than what used to be burned before Europeans arrived.
” Many reporters note that more area has burned this year in California than at any other point in “ the modern period , ” but that period began in 1950 .
For the last half of the 20th Century , the annual area burned in California was just 250,000 acres a year , whereas the best-available science suggests 4.4 and 12 million acres burned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ On reflection , anthropogenic burning is higher than what we had for the lower estimate , ” said the lead author of that paper , Scott Stevens of UC Berkeley .
“ You talk to Native American elders and they say they burned oak woodlands every 2-3 years.
” Other scientists were less confident in those annual figures .
“ I wouldn ’ t say this happened every year , ” said Jon Keeley of the United States Geological Service .
“ Our historical fire climate studies show that in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have much less area burned , these fluctuating climates would have occurred in the past.
” The real problem , scientists say , is that today ’ s mountain forest fires are hotter and kill more trees than many forest fires killed in the past .
Is that due to climate change ?
In part , say scientists .
“ Climate dries the [ wood ] fuels out and extends the fire season from 4-6 months to nearly year-round , ” explains North , “ but it ’ s not the cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.
” For most of the last 100 years , Californians suppressed fires in forests , resulting in the accumulation of roughly five times more wood fuel debris than existed in forests before Europeans arrived .
So does that mean the smoke in the air is a function not of area burned , but instead , a function of wood fuel density ?
“ Yes , ” says North .
He pointed out that the 2013-2014 Rim fire , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people to unhealthy air conditions from smoke than it would have if the same area had been burned regularly with smaller “ prescribed ” fires .
As such , even though the intense heatwave spread fires faster than firefighters could put them out , it ’ s possible we would have awoken to an orange sky even had the planet ’ s temperature not risen one-degree Celsius over the last 100 years .
High temperatures , forest fires , and smoky skies also occurred in California in the nineteenth century .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” wrote the San Francisco correspondent for the New York Times on September 17 , 1860 .
“ An unusual thing for San Francisco.
” On September 2 , 1894 , the New York Times published an article headlined , “ The Cause of the Hazy Air – All Due to the Unusual Prevalence of Forest Fires.
” Said a scientist , “ Similar conditions have been noticed in the past , notably on the ‘ dark day ’ in 1781… probably caused by smoke .
In 1881 there was another dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
“ In 1781 the smoke was so dense that many persons thought the day of judgment had come.
” While fire suppression has allowed the build-up of wood fuel in California ’ s mountain forests , such as the Sierra Nevadas , big , hot fires burned in southern California ’ s chaparral or shrubland forests in 1889 , 1919 , and 1932 , long before fire suppression .
Keeley and his colleagues reviewed 100 newspaper reports from the 19th Century and found that “ large , high-intensity wildfires predate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire was the largest fire in California history.
” In 1895 , San Francisco was affected by haze from fires .
“ The bluish haze that brooded everywhere , ” noted the Times ’ San Francisco correspondent in 1895 , “ and to many , the trouble was just fog .
But it was real smoke that rode in on the winds.
” “ California Forests Burned , ” reported the Times on September 3 , 1899 .
“ Fire Which Started a Week Ago Has Traversed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” US government scientists and journalists raised the alarm .
In 1899 they claimed that forest fires resulted in “ sterilization of the soil…for thirty years.
” The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression .
President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief , Gifford Pinchot , drummed up fears of timber scarcity in order to expand federal control over forests and to suppress fires .
A turning point was the Federal government ’ s effort to battle the Great Fire of 1910 , otherwise known as the Big Burn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires burned 3 million acres , an area the size of Connecticut , in Idaho , Montana , Washington , and British Columbia .
Like the fires burning in California this year , the Big Burn was started by dry lightning and moved quickly through dried-out forestlands .
Seventy-eight firefighters were killed and Pinchot turned them into martyrs for the Forest Service .
Congress doubled its budget and expanded its policy of fire suppression .
Public support for fire suppression , including from California ’ s elites , grew in the 1920s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes in Berkeley , and burned 60,000 acres in Malibu .
Within half a century , scientists realized that fire suppression was a mistake .
“ By the 1960s when we realized it was a problem , ” said Keeley .
“ Vast amount of fuels had accumulated for 50 or more years .
The fires became far bigger than what could easily be handled.
” Historians agree .
“ But by putting out every fire , ” noted Timothy Egan , who wrote a book on the Big Burn , “ they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 50 years , the US Forest Service has only gradually started to use more prescription burning , in part due to community resistance .
“ Very often people complain about it , ” says Keeley , “ and oftentimes slow it down and limit it .
And I understand why .
While I agree with prescription burning , I also understand that smoke is obnoxious and unhealthy.
” And sometimes foresters lose control of the fires .
“ In the early 1960s they called them ‘ controlled burns ’ but they couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called them ‘ prescription burns.
’ They ’ ve caused huge economic losses , ” Keeley says .
Indeed , politicians are already blaming the US Forest Service for not putting one of northern California ’ s fires out sooner .
“ Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly , ” reported the Sacramento Bee , “ said the US Forest Service ‘ let this fire smolder for weeks .
They could have put it out.
’ ” Mechanical harvesting or “ thinning ” of forests by crews with chainsaws is an alternative to prescribed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scientists note .
Indeed , it usually only makes sense economically if loggers are allowed to cut down larger trees , a policy that has traditionally been opposed by conservationists .
Another obstacle stems from the fact that the training of the fire crews is focused on simply extinguishing fires .
The national parks , in contrast to the national forests , take a different approach .
“ In Yosemite [ National Park ] , they get forecasts and do models to see where the smoke will go , ” says North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the smoke will blow into Reno , Park Service crews will push the fire into granite outcrops or other areas with low fuels so it piddles along .
Then , when there are good conditions , where the smoke will loft high , they pull the fire across the landscape , ” North explains .
North is hopeful the public will be more accepting of smoke if they know it ’ s inevitable and are better prepared for it .
“ It ’ s all going to burn at some point .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can plan on most of the forests being completely fuel-saturated , conditions that produce the massive fires where we have no control over the timing or direction of the smoke .
“ If the public realizes that you ’ re going to get fire and smoke one way or another , ” said North , “ and pushes the agencies to have fires in a more predictable manner , they might say , ‘ Let ’ s do it if you give me more warning.
’ ” What matters is giving people a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People say , ‘ This sucks .
I don ’ t want fires everywhere.
’ But it ’ s a whole different world when you decide the conditions , ” says North .
And yet the news media , particularly environmental journalists writing for East Coast newspapers , seem intent on painting the fires as apocalyptic , and due mostly to climate change , even though the skies would still be smoky and orange from fires burning the accumulation of wood fuel .
The problem isn ’ t the misleading coverage per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading coverage risks making people feel less control over the fires .
After all , everyone knows that emissions reductions won ’ t change the amount of area burned or smoke produced any time soon .
Climate change or no climate change , scientists say somewhere between 500,000 and 4 million acres of forest land needs to burn annually in California .
Accepting that reality , and managing it in a practical and more nuanced way , requires moving beyond the kind of environmental alarmism that got us into this mess in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then we might be able to both limit , and plan for , the number of days in the future when we have to wake up to orange skies .
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine ’ s “ Hero of the Environment , ” Green Book Award Winner , and president of Environmental Progress , a research and policy organization .
He is also the author of several bestselling books.
, his latest being Apocalypse Never .

Written by Michael Shellenberger on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I woke up an hour later than normal yesterday morning because smoke from northern California’s forest fires had blotted out the sun.
My bedroom windows glowed orange. It looked like a scene out of the 1983 made-for-TV movie, “The Day After,” about nuclear war.
I wasn’t the only one creeped out by the apocalyptic hue. “’A Nuclear Winter’ Over Bay Area, as Wildfires Blot Out the Sun,” read a New York Times headline. “Without the smoke, it would be a clear day,” noted a scientist. “This is all generated from the fires.”
The same mechanism that caused the orange sky is what could destroy agriculture in the wake of thermonuclear war: particulate matter from burned wood blocking parts of the light spectrum from reaching the ground.
And yet the air quality wasn’t nearly as bad as it looked. “The good thing about it is most of the (smoke) is staying aloft,” the air quality meteorologist for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), said. “The sun is able to scatter those smoke particles that produce this apocalyptic orange color that we’re seeing.”
And while the 2 million acres that have burned in California so far in 2020 is 10 times more area than burned in 2019, it’s still 2 million acres less than the lowest estimate for acres burned within modern state borders annually before Europeans settled in America.
“California was a very smoky place historically,” says Malcolm North of the US Forest Survey.“Even though we’re seeing area burned that is off-the-charts, it’s still probably less than what used to be burned before Europeans arrived.”
Many reporters note that more area has burned this year in California than at any other point in “the modern period,” but that period began in 1950.
For the last half of the 20th Century, the annual area burned in California was just 250,000 acres a year, whereas the best-available science suggests 4.4 and 12 million acres burned in California annually before the arrival of Europeans.
“On reflection, anthropogenic burning is higher than what we had for the lower estimate,” said the lead author of that paper, Scott Stevens of UC Berkeley. “You talk to Native American elders and they say they burned oak woodlands every 2-3 years.”
Other scientists were less confident in those annual figures. “I wouldn’t say this happened every year,” said Jon Keeley of the United States Geological Service. “Our historical fire climate studies show that in California forests some years are cooler and moister and have much less area burned, these fluctuating climates would have occurred in the past.”
The real problem, scientists say, is that today’s mountain forest fires are hotter and kill more trees than many forest fires killed in the past. Is that due to climate change? In part, say scientists.
“Climate dries the [wood] fuels out and extends the fire season from 4-6 months to nearly year-round,” explains North, “but it’s not the cause of the intensity of the fires. The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.”
For most of the last 100 years, Californians suppressed fires in forests, resulting in the accumulation of roughly five times more wood fuel debris than existed in forests before Europeans arrived.
So does that mean the smoke in the air is a function not of area burned, but instead, a function of wood fuel density?
“Yes,” says North. He pointed out that the 2013-2014 Rim fire, which burned 250,000 acres, exposed five times more people to unhealthy air conditions from smoke than it would have if the same area had been burned regularly with smaller “prescribed” fires.
As such, even though the intense heatwave spread fires faster than firefighters could put them out, it’s possible we would have awoken to an orange sky even had the planet’s temperature not risen one-degree Celsius over the last 100 years.
Fires Aren’t New
High temperatures, forest fires, and smoky skies also occurred in California in the nineteenth century. “It’s hot – monstrous hot!” wrote the San Francisco correspondent for the New York Times on September 17, 1860. “An unusual thing for San Francisco.”
On September 2, 1894, the New York Times published an article headlined, “The Cause of the Hazy Air – All Due to the Unusual Prevalence of Forest Fires.” Said a scientist, “Similar conditions have been noticed in the past, notably on the ‘dark day’ in 1781… probably caused by smoke. In 1881 there was another dark day.”
Things seemed apocalyptic back then, too. “In 1781 the smoke was so dense that many persons thought the day of judgment had come.”
While fire suppression has allowed the build-up of wood fuel in California’s mountain forests, such as the Sierra Nevadas, big, hot fires burned in southern California’s chaparral or shrubland forests in 1889, 1919, and 1932, long before fire suppression.
Keeley and his colleagues reviewed 100 newspaper reports from the 19th Century and found that “large, high-intensity wildfires predate modern fire suppression policy” and concluded that “the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire was the largest fire in California history.”
In 1895, San Francisco was affected by haze from fires. “The bluish haze that brooded everywhere,” noted the Times’ San Francisco correspondent in 1895, “and to many, the trouble was just fog. But it was real smoke that rode in on the winds.”
“California Forests Burned,” reported the Times on September 3, 1899. “Fire Which Started a Week Ago Has Traversed 700,000 Acres and Cannot Be Controlled.”
US government scientists and journalists raised the alarm. In 1899 they claimed that forest fires resulted in “sterilization of the soil…for thirty years.”
The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression. President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot, drummed up fears of timber scarcity in order to expand federal control over forests and to suppress fires.
A turning point was the Federal government’s effort to battle the Great Fire of 1910, otherwise known as the Big Burn. Over two days in August, fires burned 3 million acres, an area the size of Connecticut, in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and British Columbia.
Like the fires burning in California this year, the Big Burn was started by dry lightning and moved quickly through dried-out forestlands.
Seventy-eight firefighters were killed and Pinchot turned them into martyrs for the Forest Service. Congress doubled its budget and expanded its policy of fire suppression.
Public support for fire suppression, including from California’s elites, grew in the 1920s and 1930s after forest fires wiped out 1,000 homes in Berkeley, and burned 60,000 acres in Malibu.
Within half a century, scientists realized that fire suppression was a mistake. “By the 1960s when we realized it was a problem,” said Keeley. “Vast amount of fuels had accumulated for 50 or more years. The fires became far bigger than what could easily be handled.”
Historians agree. “But by putting out every fire,” noted Timothy Egan, who wrote a book on the Big Burn, “they created the greatest wildfires.”
Baby Burns, Baby
Over the last 50 years, the US Forest Service has only gradually started to use more prescription burning, in part due to community resistance.
“Very often people complain about it,” says Keeley, “and oftentimes slow it down and limit it. And I understand why. While I agree with prescription burning, I also understand that smoke is obnoxious and unhealthy.”
And sometimes foresters lose control of the fires. “In the early 1960s they called them ‘controlled burns’ but they couldn’t control them and so they called them ‘prescription burns.’ They’ve caused huge economic losses,” Keeley says.
Indeed, politicians are already blaming the US Forest Service for not putting one of northern California’s fires out sooner. “Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly,” reported the Sacramento Bee, “said the US Forest Service ‘let this fire smolder for weeks. They could have put it out.’”
Mechanical harvesting or “thinning” of forests by crews with chainsaws is an alternative to prescribed burns, but far more expensive, the scientists note.
Indeed, it usually only makes sense economically if loggers are allowed to cut down larger trees, a policy that has traditionally been opposed by conservationists.
Another obstacle stems from the fact that the training of the fire crews is focused on simply extinguishing fires.
The national parks, in contrast to the national forests, take a different approach. “In Yosemite [National Park], they get forecasts and do models to see where the smoke will go,” says North.
“When it looks crappy like the smoke will blow into Reno, Park Service crews will push the fire into granite outcrops or other areas with low fuels so it piddles along. Then, when there are good conditions, where the smoke will loft high, they pull the fire across the landscape,” North explains.
North is hopeful the public will be more accepting of smoke if they know it’s inevitable and are better prepared for it. “It’s all going to burn at some point. If we stay with business-as-usual, then you can plan on most of the forests being completely fuel-saturated, conditions that produce the massive fires where we have no control over the timing or direction of the smoke.
“If the public realizes that you’re going to get fire and smoke one way or another,” said North, “and pushes the agencies to have fires in a more predictable manner, they might say, ‘Let’s do it if you give me more warning.’”
What matters is giving people a feeling of control over the fires. “People say, ‘This sucks. I don’t want fires everywhere.’ But it’s a whole different world when you decide the conditions,” says North.
And yet the news media, particularly environmental journalists writing for East Coast newspapers, seem intent on painting the fires as apocalyptic, and due mostly to climate change, even though the skies would still be smoky and orange from fires burning the accumulation of wood fuel.
The problem isn’t the misleading coverage per se. The problem is that the misleading coverage risks making people feel less control over the fires.
After all, everyone knows that emissions reductions won’t change the amount of area burned or smoke produced any time soon.
Climate change or no climate change, scientists say somewhere between 500,000 and 4 million acres of forest land needs to burn annually in California.
Accepting that reality, and managing it in a practical and more nuanced way, requires moving beyond the kind of environmental alarmism that got us into this mess in the first place.
If we do that, then we might be able to both limit, and plan for, the number of days in the future when we have to wake up to orange skies.
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and president of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. He is also the author of several bestselling books., his latest being Apocalypse Never.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-11--CBS News Spreads More Lies About Climate And Extreme Weather

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Today ’ s Google search for the term “ climate change , ” turned up this whopper of a story put out by CBS News , “ Wildfires and weather extremes : It ’ s not coincidence , it ’ s climate change , ” claiming : CBS is wrong on all counts .
There has been no recent uptick in weather extremes , nor are current heatwaves , droughts , or wildfires the most severe in modern history , unless you don ’ t count the late 19th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern history .
Data show the number and severity of heatwaves , droughts , and wildfires have all decreased over the past 150 years , even as the planet has modestly warmed .
As summarized in Climate at a Glance : Heat Waves , data from the U.S .
Climate Reference Network and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prove climate change has not increased the number or severity of heatwaves .
Indeed , in recent decades heatwaves have been far less frequent and severe , for example , than in the 1930s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , 40 states ’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960 , with 25 of the record highs being set or tied in the 1930s alone .
The most accurate nationwide temperature station network , implemented in 2005 , shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005 .
Nor did CBS tell the truth when it claimed , As meteorologist Anthony Watts pointed out in a Climate Realism article , “ Media hypes 130°F Death Valley Temperature – but it ’ s still short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1913 , over 100 years of “ global warming ” ago , Death Valley ’ s official weather station at Greenland Ranch hit an all-time record of 134°F , topping 130°F or higher three times in July of 2013 alone .
CBS gets the facts wrong concerning droughts and wildfires , as well – there has been a downward trend during the past century .
While CBS claims “ the West has entered into one of the worst megadroughts in the past 1,200 years , ” data from the National Integrated Drought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate at a Glance : Drought shows droughts have declined recently , with the United States undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
Severe periods of drought occurred around 1978 , 1954 , 1930 , and 1900 , with each of those droughts being significantly more severe than what the United States has experienced in the 21st century and the late 20th century .
Indeed , in 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
And the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) reports with “ high confidence ” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) has increased during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
Regarding wildfires , since drought is the key contributing climate factor , one should not be surprised to find , as reported in Climate at a Glance : Wildfires , records from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in number and severity in recent decades .
The NIFC tracks data on U.S. wildfires back as far as 1926 , and it shows the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century .
As Figure 2 below shows , current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the 1930s .
Globally , the data on wildfires is just as clear .
On page 67 of Bjorn Lomborg ’ s book False Alarm , he points to research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather extreme one wishes to examine , the evidence shows they have become less severe and frequent since the early 20th century .
CBS should do a little research before publishing stories that get basic weather facts so wrong .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Sep 11, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Today’s Google search for the term “climate change,” turned up this whopper of a story put out by CBS News, “Wildfires and weather extremes: It’s not coincidence, it’s climate change,” claiming:
“Right on the heels of arguably the West Coast’s most intense heatwave in modern history comes the most ferocious flare-up of catastrophic wildfires in recent memory … the recent uptick in the ferocity and frequency of these extremes, scientists say, is evidence of an acceleration of climate impacts…”
CBS is wrong on all counts. There has been no recent uptick in weather extremes, nor are current heatwaves, droughts, or wildfires the most severe in modern history, unless you don’t count the late 19th and early 20th century as part of modern history.
Data show the number and severity of heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires have all decreased over the past 150 years, even as the planet has modestly warmed.
As summarized in Climate at a Glance: Heat Waves, data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prove climate change has not increased the number or severity of heatwaves.
Indeed, in recent decades heatwaves have been far less frequent and severe, for example, than in the 1930s (See Figure 1 above).
In fact, 40 states’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960, with 25 of the record highs being set or tied in the 1930s alone.
The most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Nor did CBS tell the truth when it claimed,
“[i]n mid-August the West suffered through an extended heatwave which saw Death Valley surge to 130 degrees, the hottest temperature ever reliably measured on Earth.”
As meteorologist Anthony Watts pointed out in a Climate Realism article, “Media hypes 130°F Death Valley Temperature – but it’s still short of the 134°F record,” back in 1913, over 100 years of “global warming” ago, Death Valley’s official weather station at Greenland Ranch hit an all-time record of 134°F, topping 130°F or higher three times in July of 2013 alone.
CBS gets the facts wrong concerning droughts and wildfires, as well – there has been a downward trend during the past century.
While CBS claims “the West has entered into one of the worst megadroughts in the past 1,200 years,” data from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) cited in Climate at a Glance: Drought shows droughts have declined recently, with the United States undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Severe periods of drought occurred around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900, with each of those droughts being significantly more severe than what the United States has experienced in the 21st century and the late 20th century.
Indeed, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
And the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with “high confidence” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) has increased during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Regarding wildfires, since drought is the key contributing climate factor, one should not be surprised to find, as reported in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, records from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades.
The NIFC tracks data on U.S. wildfires back as far as 1926, and it shows the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century.
As Figure 2 below shows, current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the 1930s.
Globally, the data on wildfires is just as clear. On page 67 of Bjorn Lomborg’s book False Alarm, he points to research demonstrating:
“There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned area just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.”
No matter which type of weather extreme one wishes to examine, the evidence shows they have become less severe and frequent since the early 20th century.
CBS should do a little research before publishing stories that get basic weather facts so wrong.
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