climatechangedispatch--2020-08-07--Emperor Penguins Thrive As Alarmist Biologists Push For ‘Vulnerable’ Listing

Written by Susan J. Crockford , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news Emperor penguin ( Aptenodytes fosteri ) populations in 2019 were found to have grown by up to 10 % since 2009 – to as many as 282,150 breeding pairs ( up from about 256,500 ) out of a total population of over 600,000 birds ( Fretwell et al .
2012 ; Fretwell and Trathan 2020 ; Trathan et al .
2020 ) – despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when an ice shelf collapsed .
Yet , biologists studying this species are currently petitioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Vulnerable ’ ( Trathan et al .
2020 ) based on models that use the implausible and extreme RCP8.5 ‘ worst-case ‘ climate-change scenario ( e.g .
Hausfather and Peters 2020 ) that polar bear biologists find so compelling .
Not surprisingly , their unscientific models suggest emperor penguins could be close to extinction by 2100 under these unlikely conditions – but if we reduce CO2 emissions via political policy , the penguins will be saved !
Surprisingly , these researchers are going ahead with their petition to have emperor penguins uplisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their colleagues expressed in 2018 about using climate change predictions to arrive at a classification of ‘ Near Threatened ’ for the IUCN Red List assessment ( Birdlife International 2018 ) , as noted below in their ‘ justification ’ : Like polar bear biologists , some emperor penguin biologists just won ’ t give up on the prediction they developed back in the mid-2000s that climate change is sure to drive this species to near extinction .
For example , Jenouvrier et al .
( 2009 ) calculated that there was at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 95 % or more decline in emperor penguins by 2100 ( what they called a “ quasi-extinction ” ) due to changes in sea ice distribution .
They suggested a decline of this magnitude would entail a fall from about 6,000 breeding pairs to about 400 in a single colony .
The newest model ( Jenouvrier et al .
2020 ) similarly uses the RCP8.5 ‘ worse case ’ scenario to predict near-extinction by 2100 , as their ‘ graphic abstract ’ below shows .
This group is also recommending that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an Antarctic Specially Protected Species ” that would require a Species Action Plan ( Trathan et al .
2020 ) .
And as co-author Peter Fretwell told the BBC last fall ( 9 October 2019 ) : “ Everything we know – all the experts , all the models – tells us that Emperors are going to be in real trouble .
We need to pull out all the stops to help them .
That ’ s going to be hard because we know the one thing that ’ s really going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global climate.
” Sounds like something a polar bear specialist would say .
Except that for polar bears , the catastrophe they keep predicting just won ’ t happen despite the fact that summer Arctic sea ice has been declining faster than anyone expected – so far , an almost 50 % decline in ice has already happened yet global polar bear numbers keep slowly increasing ( Crockford 2019 ; 2020 ) .
I ’ d suggest that using far-fetched ‘ worst-case ’ scenario predictions to propose an unlikely but scary-sounding future catastrophe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better for emperor penguins than it has done for polar bears , especially when the animals keep thriving .
However , some of the papers listed below are open access , so if you ’ re interested in more details I suggest you have a look .
If you ’ d like a copy of the modeling paper ( Jenouvrier et al .
2020 ) , contact me and I ’ ll send it along .
You ’ ll find more on the emperor penguin conservation issue in this essay by biologist Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zoologist ( former adjunct professor , University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .

Written by Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Emperor penguin (Aptenodytes fosteri) populations in 2019 were found to have grown by up to 10% since 2009 – to as many as 282,150 breeding pairs (up from about 256,500) out of a total population of over 600,000 birds (Fretwell et al. 2012; Fretwell and Trathan 2020; Trathan et al. 2020) – despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when an ice shelf collapsed.
Yet, biologists studying this species are currently petitioning the IUCN to upgrade emperor penguins to ‘Vulnerable’ (Trathan et al. 2020) based on models that use the implausible and extreme RCP8.5 ‘worst-case‘ climate-change scenario (e.g. Hausfather and Peters 2020) that polar bear biologists find so compelling.
Not surprisingly, their unscientific models suggest emperor penguins could be close to extinction by 2100 under these unlikely conditions – but if we reduce CO2 emissions via political policy, the penguins will be saved!
Surprisingly, these researchers are going ahead with their petition to have emperor penguins uplisted despite the population increase and the reservations their colleagues expressed in 2018 about using climate change predictions to arrive at a classification of ‘Near Threatened’ for the IUCN Red List assessment (Birdlife International 2018), as noted below in their ‘justification’:
This species is listed as Near Threatened because it is projected to undergo a moderately rapid population decline over the next three generations owing to the projected effects of climate change. However, it should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty over future climatic changes and how these will impact the species.
Like polar bear biologists, some emperor penguin biologists just won’t give up on the prediction they developed back in the mid-2000s that climate change is sure to drive this species to near extinction.
For example, Jenouvrier et al. (2009) calculated that there was at least a 36% chance of a 95% or more decline in emperor penguins by 2100 (what they called a “quasi-extinction”) due to changes in sea ice distribution.
They suggested a decline of this magnitude would entail a fall from about 6,000 breeding pairs to about 400 in a single colony.
The newest model (Jenouvrier et al. 2020) similarly uses the RCP8.5 ‘worse case’ scenario to predict near-extinction by 2100, as their ‘graphic abstract’ below shows.
This group is also recommending that “the species is listed by the Antarctic Treaty as an Antarctic Specially Protected Species” that would require a Species Action Plan (Trathan et al. 2020).
And as co-author Peter Fretwell told the BBC last fall (9 October 2019):
“Everything we know – all the experts, all the models – tells us that Emperors are going to be in real trouble. We need to pull out all the stops to help them. That’s going to be hard because we know the one thing that’s really going to save them is stabilisation of the global climate.”
Sounds like something a polar bear specialist would say. Except that for polar bears, the catastrophe they keep predicting just won’t happen despite the fact that summer Arctic sea ice has been declining faster than anyone expected – so far, an almost 50% decline in ice has already happened yet global polar bear numbers keep slowly increasing (Crockford 2019; 2020).
I’d suggest that using far-fetched ‘worst-case’ scenario predictions to propose an unlikely but scary-sounding future catastrophe isn’t likely to work any better for emperor penguins than it has done for polar bears, especially when the animals keep thriving.
However, some of the papers listed below are open access, so if you’re interested in more details I suggest you have a look. If you’d like a copy of the modeling paper (Jenouvrier et al. 2020), contact me and I’ll send it along. You’ll find more on the emperor penguin conservation issue in this essay by biologist Jim Steele.
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-07--China’s Geopolitical Priorities Become Clear: Oil, Not Wind

Written by Dr. John Constable on .
Posted in Latest news China ’ s offshore wind installations for 2019 and its plans for the end of the decade are catching headlines .
Less well reported , in the United Kingdom at least , is the vastly more significant evidence that China is acting firmly to reduce the Western influence in the Persian Gulf and thus secure Middle Eastern oil supplies on a scale dwarfing current and probable future wind energy output .
China ’ s offshore wind ( ow ) dressing should be discounted entirely ; Beijing ’ s engineer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an energy policy that serves their national interest .
The Global Wind Energy Council ( GWEC ) has published its Global Offshore Wind Report 2020 , and the Guardian has naively reported its main conclusions with enthusiasm : “ China poised to power huge growth in global offshore wind energy ” .
Installations of offshore wind for 2019 were dominated by Europe and by China , who together account for 6 GW out of a global total of 6.1 GW .
China was the largest single installer at 2.4 GW , closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GW , and then Germany with 1.1 GW .
China now has a total installed capacity of about 6 GW , still behind the United Kingdom ’ s figure of about 9 GW , but clearly catching up quickly .
Indeed , GWEC anticipates that China ’ s installation rate will continue at between 3 and 6 GW per year throughout the coming decade , delivering an additional 52 GW over that period , and a total approaching 60 GW by 2030 .
In European terms that is a very large capacity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK system for example , but in the Chinese context , it is a minor element .
Supposing , very generously , a 50 % load factor , that 60 GW of Chinese offshore wind , if it is ever built , would generate some 260 TWh of electrical energy per annum , equivalent to well over 50 % of United Kingdom ’ s total annual electricity generation .
China , however , generates over 6,500 TWh of electrical energy per year at present , with about 300 TWh of that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from windpower on- and offshore .
Furthermore , Chinese electricity consumption has increased by nearly 1,000 % from its 1990 level , and is still rising rapidly , as can be seen clearly in the following chart from the International Energy Agency : One recent authoritative forecast suggests that China ’ s electricity demand might top 10,300 TWh in 2030 , rising to 12,700 TWh in 2050 .
The same projection suggests a total of about 1,000 TWh of wind energy onshore and offshore in 2030 wind , comprising about 10 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is dominated by conventional energy , coal , gas , hydro , and remains so even in 2050 .
The Global Wind Energy Council hype collapses into dust as the sunlight of fact falls upon it .
Even very rapid growth in Chinese offshore wind capacity , gigantic as it appears in the European mind , will be only slightly better than marking time in the overall context of Chinese growth .
China ’ s electricity system is and for many years will continue to be firmly ballasted by cheap coal and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For such a vast and conservatively engineered system 60 GW of offshore wind is an affordable gesture , and emphatically not a high risk , farm-betting , commitment .
For other smaller economies and markets the projected growth is very different , and the United Kingdom , for example , is already dangerously over-exposed .
China is simply dressing the window .
It is obvious that the government of the People ’ s Republic has concluded that renewables are not where their country ’ s interest lies .
The engineer bureaucrats of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they are clearly aware that conventional energy is indispensable to their national ambitions and their security , and it is on conventional energy that China ’ s wolf warrior diplomats are focusing their minds .
In recent weeks it has become known that China has signed an economic co-operation deal with Iran , with China promising $ 400 billion of infrastructure investment over twenty-five years , presumably in a non-convertible form , in return for privileged access to Iran ’ s oil : “ Pourquoi le mystérieux traité entre l ’ Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FigaroVox , 28 July 2020 ; “ Defying U.S. , China and Iran Near Trade and Military Partnership ” New York Times 11 July 2020 .
The promised Chinese investment amounts to about $ 16 billion per year on average , which is close to the historic value of Iran ’ s total annual oil exports of $ 19 billion per year ( OPEC ) , suggesting that China may become the predominant perhaps even the sole customer of Iranian oil exports .
Iran is heavily dependent on the value of oil exports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its exports and 4 % of total GDP , so for the comparatively trivial sum of $ 16 billion a year China has acquired a substantial degree of control over the Iranian economy , created an income stream for Chinese state-owned construction companies , and also secured Iranian oil exports for its own use .
Iran has proven reserves of about 200 billion barrels , and it exports about 350 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per year .
That is approximately 550 TWh of exported oil energy per year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped-for output of the 60 GW of offshore wind that China may never in fact build by 2030 .
As if this were not enough , in the last few days media in the United States have reported that US security services are currently investigating alarming signs that China may have been assisting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the construction of a nuclear processing plant , presumably for something more than mere cash in return ( “ U.S .
Examines Whether Saudi Nuclear Program Could Lead to Bomb Effort ” ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Iran co-operation pact and the Saudi nuclear project are not the actions of a country that believes the future belongs to renewable energy and that fossil fuels are stranded assets .
China ’ s government knows that oil remains of the first importance , and it aims to seize those valuable resources while the West is distracted by the shiny toys of wind and solar and foolishly thinks fossil fuels are history .
It is depressing to note that neither of these remarkable stories has yet had much coverage in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , is a notable exception .
Both matters should be front-page news , an ice-cold shower of reality for day-dreaming Europeans , dozing Brits .
Western political discussion has become so neurotically obsessed with the distal and poorly understood threats of climate change and is so ignorant of the underlying physical realities of wealth and strategic interest that we have all but completely forgotten what a well-designed , pragmatic and rational energy policy looks like .
China ’ s activities in and around the Persian Gulf are a stern and intimidating reminder @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Dr. John Constable on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
China’s offshore wind installations for 2019 and its plans for the end of the decade are catching headlines.
Less well reported, in the United Kingdom at least, is the vastly more significant evidence that China is acting firmly to reduce the Western influence in the Persian Gulf and thus secure Middle Eastern oil supplies on a scale dwarfing current and probable future wind energy output.
China’s offshore wind(ow) dressing should be discounted entirely; Beijing’s engineer bureaucrats know that oil is the key to an energy policy that serves their national interest.
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) has published its Global Offshore Wind Report 2020, and the Guardian has naively reported its main conclusions with enthusiasm: “China poised to power huge growth in global offshore wind energy”.
Installations of offshore wind for 2019 were dominated by Europe and by China, who together account for 6 GW out of a global total of 6.1 GW.
China was the largest single installer at 2.4 GW, closely followed by the United Kingdom at 1.8 GW, and then Germany with 1.1 GW.
China now has a total installed capacity of about 6 GW, still behind the United Kingdom’s figure of about 9 GW, but clearly catching up quickly.
Indeed, GWEC anticipates that China’s installation rate will continue at between 3 and 6 GW per year throughout the coming decade, delivering an additional 52 GW over that period, and a total approaching 60 GW by 2030.
In European terms that is a very large capacity, roughly equivalent to peak winter load on the UK system for example, but in the Chinese context, it is a minor element.
Supposing, very generously, a 50% load factor, that 60 GW of Chinese offshore wind, if it is ever built, would generate some 260 TWh of electrical energy per annum, equivalent to well over 50% of United Kingdom’s total annual electricity generation.
China, however, generates over 6,500 TWh of electrical energy per year at present, with about 300 TWh of that, just under 5% currently being obtained from windpower on- and offshore.
Furthermore, Chinese electricity consumption has increased by nearly 1,000% from its 1990 level, and is still rising rapidly, as can be seen clearly in the following chart from the International Energy Agency:
One recent authoritative forecast suggests that China’s electricity demand might top 10,300 TWh in 2030, rising to 12,700 TWh in 2050.
The same projection suggests a total of about 1,000 TWh of wind energy onshore and offshore in 2030 wind, comprising about 10% of China’s electricity generation, which is dominated by conventional energy, coal, gas, hydro, and remains so even in 2050.
The Global Wind Energy Council hype collapses into dust as the sunlight of fact falls upon it. Even very rapid growth in Chinese offshore wind capacity, gigantic as it appears in the European mind, will be only slightly better than marking time in the overall context of Chinese growth.
China’s electricity system is and for many years will continue to be firmly ballasted by cheap coal and gas to contain costs and maintain system security.
For such a vast and conservatively engineered system 60 GW of offshore wind is an affordable gesture, and emphatically not a high risk, farm-betting, commitment.
For other smaller economies and markets the projected growth is very different, and the United Kingdom, for example, is already dangerously over-exposed. China is simply dressing the window.
It is obvious that the government of the People’s Republic has concluded that renewables are not where their country’s interest lies.
The engineer bureaucrats of Beijing understand thermodynamics as well as anybody and they are clearly aware that conventional energy is indispensable to their national ambitions and their security, and it is on conventional energy that China’s wolf warrior diplomats are focusing their minds.
In recent weeks it has become known that China has signed an economic co-operation deal with Iran, with China promising $400 billion of infrastructure investment over twenty-five years, presumably in a non-convertible form, in return for privileged access to Iran’s oil: “Pourquoi le mystérieux traité entre l’Iran et la Chine inquiète tant”, FigaroVox, 28 July 2020; “Defying U.S., China and Iran Near Trade and Military Partnership” New York Times 11 July 2020.
The promised Chinese investment amounts to about $16 billion per year on average, which is close to the historic value of Iran’s total annual oil exports of $19 billion per year (OPEC), suggesting that China may become the predominant perhaps even the sole customer of Iranian oil exports.
Iran is heavily dependent on the value of oil exports, which are about 1/4 of all its exports and 4% of total GDP, so for the comparatively trivial sum of $16 billion a year China has acquired a substantial degree of control over the Iranian economy, created an income stream for Chinese state-owned construction companies, and also secured Iranian oil exports for its own use.
Iran has proven reserves of about 200 billion barrels, and it exports about 350 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per year.
That is approximately 550 TWh of exported oil energy per year, available now, and nearly twice the hoped-for output of the 60 GW of offshore wind that China may never in fact build by 2030.
As if this were not enough, in the last few days media in the United States have reported that US security services are currently investigating alarming signs that China may have been assisting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the construction of a nuclear processing plant, presumably for something more than mere cash in return (“U.S. Examines Whether Saudi Nuclear Program Could Lead to Bomb Effort”).
As the New York Times puts it:
Saudi Arabia’s work with the Chinese suggests that the Saudis may have now given up on the United States and turned to China instead to begin building the multibillion dollar infrastructure needed to produce nuclear fuel. China has traditionally not insisted on such strict nonproliferation safeguards, and is eager to lock in Saudi oil supplies.
The Iran co-operation pact and the Saudi nuclear project are not the actions of a country that believes the future belongs to renewable energy and that fossil fuels are stranded assets.
China’s government knows that oil remains of the first importance, and it aims to seize those valuable resources while the West is distracted by the shiny toys of wind and solar and foolishly thinks fossil fuels are history.
It is depressing to note that neither of these remarkable stories has yet had much coverage in Europe, though the Figaro article, cited above, is a notable exception.
Both matters should be front-page news, an ice-cold shower of reality for day-dreaming Europeans, dozing Brits.
Western political discussion has become so neurotically obsessed with the distal and poorly understood threats of climate change and is so ignorant of the underlying physical realities of wealth and strategic interest that we have all but completely forgotten what a well-designed, pragmatic and rational energy policy looks like.
China’s activities in and around the Persian Gulf are a stern and intimidating reminder.
Read more at The GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-07--The Australian Press Council Is A Hive Of Climate Zealots

Written by Ian Plimer on .
Posted in Latest news As a result of an activist campaign , the Australian Press Council took exception to my article in The Australian on November 22 , 2019 .
They claimed that my statement that there “ are no carbon emissions .
If there were , we could not see because most carbon is black .
Such terms are deliberately misleading , as are many claims ” was false .
Journalists in the Press Council should know basic English and the difference between an element ( carbon ) and a compound ( carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s science .
For the Press Council to claim that this is factually incorrect shows breathtaking ignorance .
There are eight forms ( allotropes ) of carbon , one of them ( diamond ) is not black which is why the word ‘ most ’ was used .
I was showing that to call the odorless , colorless , tasteless gas that is the food of life as ‘ carbon emissions ’ is Orwellian .
The Press Council objected to the use of ‘ fraudulent ’ in my statement about ‘ fraudulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear that the council is not aware of the widely publicized fraudulent expunging of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age by Michael Mann and failed court cases initiated by Mann .
They are clearly not aware of the admission of fraud in the Climategate emails .
The Press Council wrote , “ The Council considers that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part.
” I made absolutely no reference whatsoever to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been verballed .
When can I expect an apology ?
It was claimed that my statement , “ unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting , ” was wrong .
Polar ice concurrently melts , grows and moves and polar ice includes terrestrial ice and sea ice .
Changes in polar ice are due to a diversity of reasons and my point was that we only hear from activists who claim that polar ice is melting due to human-induced global warming .
We don ’ t hear that glaciers move due to recrystallization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are more than 150 volcanoes and areas of hot rocks beneath the Antarctic ice .
The Press Council claimed that my statement “ the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated ” was false .
There is a huge amount of scientific literature based on aerial photographs and satellite images showing that atolls are increasing in the area .
A ten-second Google search would have shown peer-reviewed publications supporting this statement .
Why was this not done ?
Or maybe the Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
As soon as the words carbon footprint , emissions , pollution , and decarbonization , climate emergency , extreme weather , unprecedented and extinction are used , I know I am being conned by ignorant activists , populist scaremongering , politicians , and rent-seekers .
Pollution by plastics , sulfur and nitrogen gases , particulates , and chemicals occurs in developing countries .
That ’ s real pollution .
The major pollution in the West is the polluting of minds about the role of CO2 .
There are no carbon emissions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to see because most carbon is black .
Such terms are deliberately misleading , as are many claims .
But then again , we should be used to this after the hysteria about the Great Barrier Reef .
We ’ ve had reefs on Earth for 3,500 million years .
They came and went many times , thriving when water was warmer and there was an elevated CO2 content of the atmosphere .
Reefs need CO2 ; it ’ s their basic food .
It has never been shown that human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Climate models have been around 30 years .
They have all failed .
Balloon and satellite measurements show a disconnect from climate model predictions .
We emit a trace atmospheric gas called carbon dioxide at a time in the planetary history of low atmospheric carbon dioxide .
Earth ’ s climate dances to rhythms every day , every season and on far larger lunar , oceanic , solar , orbital , galactic , and tectonic cycles .
Climate change is normal and continual .
When cycles overlap , climate change can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as supernovas and volcanic eruptions can also change the climate .
The main greenhouse gas is water vapor .
It is the only gas in air that can evaporate , humidify , and condense into clouds that precipitate rain , hail , and snow .
Earth is unevenly heated .
Oceans hold most of the planet ’ s surface heat , not the atmosphere .
Carbon dioxide is plant food .
It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin .
Without carbon dioxide , all life on Earth would die .
Plants convert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during photosynthesis into sugars , cellulose , fruit , vegetables , and grains , which animal life uses as food .
Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide .
Plants need almost three times today ’ s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive .
For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields .
The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occurred every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content .
In the past , warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Earth .
Why should it be now ?
When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content , especially during very cold times , life struggles .
For the last 500 million years , the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing , and if we halved today ’ s atmospheric carbon dioxide content , all life would die .
This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral , shells , limey sediments , and muds and on the land into coals , muds , soils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there has been no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature .
Geology shows us again there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature .
Each of the six major past ice ages began when the atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than at present .
The idea that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to unstoppable global warming is demonstrably wrong .
In the past decade , China has increased its CO2 emissions by 53 percent , 12 times Australia ’ s total output of 1.3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , forests , farms , and continental shelves of Australia absorb far more carbon dioxide than we emit .
The attack on emissions of the gas of life is an irrational attack on industry , our modern way of life , freedoms , and prosperity .
It has nothing to do with the environment .

Written by Ian Plimer on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As a result of an activist campaign, the Australian Press Council took exception to my article in The Australian on November 22, 2019.
They claimed that my statement that there “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims” was false.
Journalists in the Press Council should know basic English and the difference between an element (carbon) and a compound (carbon dioxide).
This is elementary schoolkid’s science. For the Press Council to claim that this is factually incorrect shows breathtaking ignorance.
There are eight forms (allotropes) of carbon, one of them (diamond) is not black which is why the word ‘most’ was used. I was showing that to call the odorless, colorless, tasteless gas that is the food of life as ‘carbon emissions’ is Orwellian.
The Press Council objected to the use of ‘fraudulent’ in my statement about ‘fraudulent changing of weather records’.
It is clear that the council is not aware of the widely publicized fraudulent expunging of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age by Michael Mann and failed court cases initiated by Mann. They are clearly not aware of the admission of fraud in the Climategate emails.
The Press Council wrote, “The Council considers that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part.”
I made absolutely no reference whatsoever to the Bureau of Meteorology. I have been verballed. When can I expect an apology?
It was claimed that my statement, “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting,” was wrong. Polar ice concurrently melts, grows and moves and polar ice includes terrestrial ice and sea ice.
Changes in polar ice are due to a diversity of reasons and my point was that we only hear from activists who claim that polar ice is melting due to human-induced global warming.
We don’t hear that glaciers move due to recrystallization, that many glaciers are growing, or that there are more than 150 volcanoes and areas of hot rocks beneath the Antarctic ice.
The Press Council claimed that my statement “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated” was false.
There is a huge amount of scientific literature based on aerial photographs and satellite images showing that atolls are increasing in the area.
A ten-second Google search would have shown peer-reviewed publications supporting this statement. Why was this not done? Or maybe the Press Council has become yet another activist institution?
As soon as the words carbon footprint, emissions, pollution, and decarbonization, climate emergency, extreme weather, unprecedented and extinction are used, I know I am being conned by ignorant activists, populist scaremongering, politicians, and rent-seekers.
Pollution by plastics, sulfur and nitrogen gases, particulates, and chemicals occurs in developing countries. That’s real pollution. The major pollution in the West is the polluting of minds about the role of CO2.
There are no carbon emissions. If there were, we would not be able to see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.
But then again, we should be used to this after the hysteria about the Great Barrier Reef. We’ve had reefs on Earth for 3,500 million years.
They came and went many times, thriving when water was warmer and there was an elevated CO2 content of the atmosphere. Reefs need CO2; it’s their basic food.
It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Climate models have been around 30 years. They have all failed.
Balloon and satellite measurements show a disconnect from climate model predictions. We emit a trace atmospheric gas called carbon dioxide at a time in the planetary history of low atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Earth’s climate dances to rhythms every day, every season and on far larger lunar, oceanic, solar, orbital, galactic, and tectonic cycles.
Climate change is normal and continual. When cycles overlap, climate change can be rapid and large. Sporadic events such as supernovas and volcanic eruptions can also change the climate.
The main greenhouse gas is water vapor. It is the only gas in air that can evaporate, humidify, and condense into clouds that precipitate rain, hail, and snow. Earth is unevenly heated. Oceans hold most of the planet’s surface heat, not the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin. Without carbon dioxide, all life on Earth would die.
Plants convert carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight during photosynthesis into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables, and grains, which animal life uses as food. Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide.
Plants need almost three times today’s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive. For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields.
The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occurred every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content.
In the past, warming has never been a threat to life on Earth. Why should it be now? When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content, especially during very cold times, life struggles.
For the last 500 million years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing, and if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.
This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral, shells, limey sediments, and muds and on the land into coals, muds, soils, and vegetation.
In our lifetime, there has been no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature. Geology shows us again there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
Each of the six major past ice ages began when the atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than at present. The idea that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to unstoppable global warming is demonstrably wrong.
In the past decade, China has increased its CO2 emissions by 53 percent, 12 times Australia’s total output of 1.3 percent of the global total. The grasslands, forests, farms, and continental shelves of Australia absorb far more carbon dioxide than we emit.
The attack on emissions of the gas of life is an irrational attack on industry, our modern way of life, freedoms, and prosperity. It has nothing to do with the environment.
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--2020-08-07--Green Ignoramuses Now Want Sterile Energy

Written by Viv Forbes , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Queensland ’ s Great Barrier Reef ( pictured ) is once again the excuse for extending Green control of all land and waters .
The current scare concerns the quality of water draining into the Coral Sea .
The Greens ’ hidden agenda is to eliminate coastal agriculture , mining , and commercial fishing .
They would surrender the land to kangaroos , cassowaries , lantana , cane toads , wild cats , and feral pigs and the seas to marauding sharks , cruising whales , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be satisfied until pure water drains from farms , mines , ports , and rivers along the Queensland coast .
This is an impossible and misguided dream .
Pure water is sterile , and nothing flourishes in it .
Vibrant offshore life needs wind , rivers , and creeks to deliver minerals and nutrients into coastal waters .
Corals , shellfish , and marine plants need calcium , magnesium , potassium , phosphorus , nitrogen , sulfur , carbon dioxide , and trace elements to build their skeletons , shells , and plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficient in many minerals .
Farmers know that farm crops and domestic animals need mineral fertilizers for healthy growth .
So do potted plants , orchards , and gardens , and so does all ocean life .
Many of these minerals are supplied naturally by the erosion of rocks such as limestone , magnesite , rock phosphate , dolomite , basalt , and granite .
This is a slow process , but mining , crushing , or calcining these rocks can speed things up , providing natural mineral fertilizer for farms , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fertilizer for offshore marine life .
Seaweed and other marine plants need fertile muds delivered by flooding rivers , and all marine animals welcome bits of dead animal life .
All-natural fertilizers used for land plants will also benefit sea plants .
Dust and smoke from bushfires , volcanoes , smelters , and power stations can deliver natural nutrients such as oxides of nitrogen , sulfur , and carbon ( all essential for vigorous , healthy vegetation ) to soils and plants in surrounding areas .
There is no danger as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough or remote enough to dilute these gases before they reach the ground .
The atmosphere and surface waters are efficient distributors of dilute aerial fertilizers to land and sea plants .
This is far safer and cheaper than manufacturing artificial fertilizers and animal supplements and then selling these products to farmers who sometimes over-apply .
The main run-off dangers to coastal waters are herbicide and pesticide residue and soluble artificial chemical fertilizers used in excessive quantities .
This is real pollution , and it must be controlled .
Farmers have an incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs off is money wasted in purchase and application .
Governments should stop employing green activists .
We must restore a real department of agriculture employing experienced agronomists dedicated to helping farmers , not looking for ways to put them out of business .
One of the safest and most complete sources of trace nutrients for land and sea plants is coal — decomposed coal , coal dust , or emissions from coal combustion .
Why so good ?
Because almost every element in coal came from plants and is needed by plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of weathered coal seams can often be seen on aerial photos as bands of better soil and thicker , healthier scrub .
Barrier Reef Water Warriors need a dose of reality and perspective .
Since the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam , the mighty Burdekin River delivers far less in sediment and nutrients into the Coral Sea .
We can assist nature to restore some of this loss with aerial or aqueous mineral nutrients from mining and agricultural sources .
Coal mining and combustion provide many nutrients that benefit all plant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificially concentrated .
Viv Forbes has a lifetime of knowledge and experience in farming , pasture , and water management and the geology and chemistry of minerals , soils , and coal .

Written by Viv Forbes, guest post on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef (pictured) is once again the excuse for extending Green control of all land and waters.
The current scare concerns the quality of water draining into the Coral Sea.
The Greens’ hidden agenda is to eliminate coastal agriculture, mining, and commercial fishing.
They would surrender the land to kangaroos, cassowaries, lantana, cane toads, wild cats, and feral pigs and the seas to marauding sharks, cruising whales, and aboriginal fishermen.
Reef Warriors will never be satisfied until pure water drains from farms, mines, ports, and rivers along the Queensland coast. This is an impossible and misguided dream. Pure water is sterile, and nothing flourishes in it.
Vibrant offshore life needs wind, rivers, and creeks to deliver minerals and nutrients into coastal waters.
Corals, shellfish, and marine plants need calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur, carbon dioxide, and trace elements to build their skeletons, shells, and plant tissues.
Australian soils are leached and deficient in many minerals. Farmers know that farm crops and domestic animals need mineral fertilizers for healthy growth. So do potted plants, orchards, and gardens, and so does all ocean life.
Many of these minerals are supplied naturally by the erosion of rocks such as limestone, magnesite, rock phosphate, dolomite, basalt, and granite.
This is a slow process, but mining, crushing, or calcining these rocks can speed things up, providing natural mineral fertilizer for farms, and any dust and river runoff provides free fertilizer for offshore marine life.
Seaweed and other marine plants need fertile muds delivered by flooding rivers, and all marine animals welcome bits of dead animal life.
All-natural fertilizers used for land plants will also benefit sea plants. Dust and smoke from bushfires, volcanoes, smelters, and power stations can deliver natural nutrients such as oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon (all essential for vigorous, healthy vegetation) to soils and plants in surrounding areas.
There is no danger as long as exhaust stacks or volcanic cones are high enough or remote enough to dilute these gases before they reach the ground.
The atmosphere and surface waters are efficient distributors of dilute aerial fertilizers to land and sea plants.
This is far safer and cheaper than manufacturing artificial fertilizers and animal supplements and then selling these products to farmers who sometimes over-apply.
The main run-off dangers to coastal waters are herbicide and pesticide residue and soluble artificial chemical fertilizers used in excessive quantities. This is real pollution, and it must be controlled.
Farmers have an incentive to control it — every bit that runs off is money wasted in purchase and application. Governments should stop employing green activists.
We must restore a real department of agriculture employing experienced agronomists dedicated to helping farmers, not looking for ways to put them out of business.
One of the safest and most complete sources of trace nutrients for land and sea plants is coal — decomposed coal, coal dust, or emissions from coal combustion.
Why so good? Because almost every element in coal came from plants and is needed by plants. In the coalfields, the outcrops of weathered coal seams can often be seen on aerial photos as bands of better soil and thicker, healthier scrub.
Barrier Reef Water Warriors need a dose of reality and perspective. Since the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam, the mighty Burdekin River delivers far less in sediment and nutrients into the Coral Sea.
We can assist nature to restore some of this loss with aerial or aqueous mineral nutrients from mining and agricultural sources.
Coal mining and combustion provide many nutrients that benefit all plant and animal life. None is toxic unless artificially concentrated.
Viv Forbes has a lifetime of knowledge and experience in farming, pasture, and water management and the geology and chemistry of minerals, soils, and coal.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-07--Gallup Poll: Most Americans Rank Climate Change As Least Important Issue

Written by Hannah Bleau on .
Posted in Latest news A plurality of Americans considers the Chinese coronavirus the most important problem facing the country , while climate change — an issue central to the Democrat Party ’ s agenda — remains among the lowest in importance , garnering just one percent , a Gallup survey released this week found .
The Gallup poll , taken July 1-23 , among U.S. 1,007 adults , asked respondents , “ What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today ?
” A plurality , or 30 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important problem , followed by “ the government/poor leadership ” ( 23 percent ) , race relations/racism ( 16 percent ) , “ unifying the country ” ( six percent ) , and “ crime/violence ” ( five percent ) .
Nine percent of respondents chose economic problems , which included the economy “ in general , ” unemployment , and the wealth gap .
Notably , “ climate change/environment/pollution ” — green issues central to the progressive agenda and embraced by Joe Biden — came at the very bottom of the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elections/election reform , poverty/hunger/homelessness , national security , education , and immigration also garnered just one percent support each .
While a plurality considers the novel virus as the most important problem facing the nation , it represents a 15-point drop from the 45 percent who identified it as the central issue in April .
However , just 20 percent of those surveyed May 28-Jun 4 identified the coronavirus as the nation ’ s main issue , with concerns over the government and poor leadership edging the virus out by one percentage point @

Written by Hannah Bleau on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A plurality of Americans considers the Chinese coronavirus the most important problem facing the country, while climate change — an issue central to the Democrat Party’s agenda — remains among the lowest in importance, garnering just one percent, a Gallup survey released this week found.
The Gallup poll, taken July 1-23, among U.S. 1,007 adults, asked respondents, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
A plurality, or 30 percent, chose “coronavirus/diseases” as the most important problem, followed by “the government/poor leadership” (23 percent), race relations/racism (16 percent), “unifying the country” (six percent), and “crime/violence” (five percent).
Nine percent of respondents chose economic problems, which included the economy “in general,” unemployment, and the wealth gap.
Notably, “climate change/environment/pollution” — green issues central to the progressive agenda and embraced by Joe Biden — came at the very bottom of the list, garnering just one percent support.
Elections/election reform, poverty/hunger/homelessness, national security, education, and immigration also garnered just one percent support each.
While a plurality considers the novel virus as the most important problem facing the nation, it represents a 15-point drop from the 45 percent who identified it as the central issue in April.
However, just 20 percent of those surveyed May 28-Jun 4 identified the coronavirus as the nation’s main issue, with concerns over the government and poor leadership edging the virus out by one percentage point.
Race relations/racism followed closely behind, garnering 19 percent.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--Media Blame Isaias On Climate Change – As Hurricane Numbers Decline

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Hurricane Isaias hadn ’ t even made landfall in the United States before the media began proclaiming Isaias was the result of human-caused climate change .
Not only is there no evidence for such a claim , but hurricane numbers have been declining as global temperatures modestly warm .
Also , even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) disputes any connection between global warming and hurricanes .
A New York Times article , titled “ Hurricane , Fire , Covid-19 : Disasters Expose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided typical media coverage of Isaias .
The article asserted , “ Twin emergencies on two coasts this week — Hurricane Isaias and the Apple Fire — offer a preview of life in a warming world and the steady danger of overlapping disasters.
” There is nothing unusual , however , about hurricanes forming and wildfires burning simultaneously since the hurricane and wildfire seasons overlap .
TV weatherman Dan Satterfield added to the misinformation , publishing a blog post titled “ Hurricane Isaias Will Be Wetter and Stronger Because of Climate Change.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – because there is none .
On the contrary , and as detailed in Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes , hurricane impacts are at an all-time low .
“ The United States recently went more than a decade ( 2005 through 2017 ) without a major hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher , which is the longest such period in recorded history , ” notes the Climate at a Glance summary .
“ The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period ( 2009 through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , America ’ s most vulnerable state , Florida , recently concluded an 11-year period ( 2005 through 2016 ) without a landfalling hurricane of any size—the longest such period in recorded history.
” Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 “ Interim Report ” observes there is “ only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.
” Applied to Isaias , strong upper-level wind shear battered Isaiasin the Caribbean Sea .
That wind shear prevented Isaias from becoming very organized and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to barely reach Category 1 strength .
As documented in Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes , “ Wind shear inhibits strong storms from forming and rips apart storms that have already formed .
Scientists have learned that global warming is likely to cause more wind shear in places where hurricanes form and intensify.
” And indeed , the much-ballyhooed warmer ocean waters due to global warming were no match for the global warming-fueled wind shear that stunted Isaias ’ growth .
In summary , real-world hurricane data , the United Nations IPCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show global warming did not cause Isaias or make the storm any worse .
Any assertion to the contrary is fake science , even in the eyes of the United Nations .
Therefore , we can thankfully expect Facebook and Twitter to soon issue a warning label , or block anyone from linking to or reposting , the media ’ s false claims that global warming spawned or worsened Isaias .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Hurricane Isaias hadn’t even made landfall in the United States before the media began proclaiming Isaias was the result of human-caused climate change.
Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but hurricane numbers have been declining as global temperatures modestly warm.
Also, even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) disputes any connection between global warming and hurricanes.
A New York Times article, titled “Hurricane, Fire, Covid-19: Disasters Expose the Hard Reality of Climate Change,” provided typical media coverage of Isaias.
The article asserted, “Twin emergencies on two coasts this week — Hurricane Isaias and the Apple Fire — offer a preview of life in a warming world and the steady danger of overlapping disasters.”
There is nothing unusual, however, about hurricanes forming and wildfires burning simultaneously since the hurricane and wildfire seasons overlap.
TV weatherman Dan Satterfield added to the misinformation, publishing a blog post titled “Hurricane Isaias Will Be Wetter and Stronger Because of Climate Change.” Satterfield cited no evidence for this claim – because there is none.
On the contrary, and as detailed in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, hurricane impacts are at an all-time low.
“The United States recently went more than a decade (2005 through 2017) without a major hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher, which is the longest such period in recorded history,” notes the Climate at a Glance summary.
“The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period (2009 through 2017) in recorded history. Additionally, America’s most vulnerable state, Florida, recently concluded an 11-year period (2005 through 2016) without a landfalling hurricane of any size—the longest such period in recorded history.”
Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 “Interim Report” observes there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
Applied to Isaias, strong upper-level wind shear battered Isaiasin the Caribbean Sea. That wind shear prevented Isaias from becoming very organized and was the primary reason the storm struggled to barely reach Category 1 strength.
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, “Wind shear inhibits strong storms from forming and rips apart storms that have already formed. Scientists have learned that global warming is likely to cause more wind shear in places where hurricanes form and intensify.”
And indeed, the much-ballyhooed warmer ocean waters due to global warming were no match for the global warming-fueled wind shear that stunted Isaias’ growth.
In summary, real-world hurricane data, the United Nations IPCC, and the particular history of Isaias show global warming did not cause Isaias or make the storm any worse.
Any assertion to the contrary is fake science, even in the eyes of the United Nations.
Therefore, we can thankfully expect Facebook and Twitter to soon issue a warning label, or block anyone from linking to or reposting, the media’s false claims that global warming spawned or worsened Isaias.
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--2020-08-10--Greta Thunberg’s Message Of Doom Is Religion, Not Reality

Written by Iain Martin on .
Posted in Latest news In January , the great and not so good of the corporate elite gathered at Davos for another telling off from Greta Thunberg .
“ One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire , ” the climate activist reminded delegates .
“ I said I wanted you to panic.
” In the intervening year they had not panicked enough , she said .
Although the meeting of the World Economic Forum was dedicated to creating a “ Cohesive and Sustainable World ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green , the naughty capitalists and greedy governments refused to end the use of fossil fuels instantly .
The rotters refused to extinguish commercial lifestyles to save the planet from imminent immolation .
Ironically , even as the high priestess of the Extinction Rebellion religion preached her sermon , Covid-19 was sweeping in from China and weeks later would shut down the world economy .
Since then we have all been treated to a live experiment in what happens when economic activity is cut by 25 percent .
While there are undoubted upsides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air in cities , the downside is looming mass unemployment , the ruin of the global aviation industry , and worsening health and educational inequalities .
This is not enough for Extinction Rebellion campaigners who want to go even further in shutting down activity .
Earlier this month , Thunberg set out in an open letter a list of demands that , if implemented , would make the economic effects of Covid-19 seem mild .
Her co-signatories included assorted celebrities , activists , and , inevitably , Coldplay .
Climate catastrophists are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the road , perhaps because they have been eclipsed by the pandemic .
I am not someone who denies that protecting the environment is important .
Cleaner air is required .
When it comes to more efficient energy , less wasteful consumption , and rewilding our countryside , I ’ m all for it .
But the hysteria of the XR crew , amplified by the media , is counterproductive because it frightens people and could lead to panicked policy-making .
The risk is that overreaction by governments will turn voters against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need not be this way .
With the intelligent use of technology and mitigation measures , mankind is more than capable of adapting to warmer conditions .
This is one of the points made in Bjorn Lomborg ’ s important new book False Alarm : How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions , Hurts the Poor , and Fails to Fix the Planet .
Mr. Lomborg is a long-standing environmentalist regarded as a heretic by hardliners in the movement because he is an optimist who says that humanity is not doomed .
Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but populations have been “ scared witless ” into thinking that it means the end of life on Earth .
“ The rhetoric on climate change has become ever more extreme and less moored to the actual science , ” he says .
“ The science shows us that fears of a climate apocalypse are unfounded .
Global warming is real , but it is not the end of the world .
It is a manageable problem.
” Lomborg advocates a “ well-designed ” carbon tax and reduced emissions but also more adaptation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already happening .
For 150 years sea levels have been rising and we have adapted by improving coastal protection .
We ’ re learning more about rivers and flood protection too .
On heatwaves , economic growth will help to pay for better and more fuel-efficient air conditioning .
Cities can be adapted with more green spaces .
Even something as simple as ensuring that roofs and roads are lighter in color — not black , which absorbs heat and warms urban areas — can make a difference .
For the sin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times — woke bible and host of the Greta event at Davos in January — unleashed the eminent economist Joseph Stiglitz to lambast Mr. Lomborg , who has since responded with an amusing line-by-line demolition of Mr. Stiglitz ’ s claims .
But what may make the biggest difference to the debate is population decline .
A study published this month by the Department of Health Metrics Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle suggested that a declining global fertility rate would cause population levels to plummet from 2064 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Spain will have their populations more than halved .
This threatens to undermine one of the foundations of climate alarmism : the assumption that there are too many ghastly people and , by breeding and consuming resources , we will all soon destroy Mother Earth .
The prospect of population decline could be bad news for the fundraising efforts of the Greta crew if it becomes clear that climate change is even more manageable than thought .
I doubt that hardline climate campaigners will for one second allow this to dilute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
They have founded a religion and anything that distracts from it is heresy .
In that respect , they have much in common with woke calls for a social justice revolution .
The best parallel for both of these is perhaps with the 16th and 17th centuries and the spread of Puritanism , a campaign to purify worship and signal virtue .
As the more extreme Puritans knew , declaring the apocalypse — a simple message — is strangely seductive and exciting .
Once again , on climate , the less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that human beings are ingeniously adaptive .
We ’ ll find a way through if we all keep our heads .
Read more at The Times

Written by Iain Martin on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In January, the great and not so good of the corporate elite gathered at Davos for another telling off from Greta Thunberg.
“One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire,” the climate activist reminded delegates. “I said I wanted you to panic.” In the intervening year they had not panicked enough, she said.
Although the meeting of the World Economic Forum was dedicated to creating a “Cohesive and Sustainable World”, and corporate culture has gone obsessively green, the naughty capitalists and greedy governments refused to end the use of fossil fuels instantly.
The rotters refused to extinguish commercial lifestyles to save the planet from imminent immolation.
Ironically, even as the high priestess of the Extinction Rebellion religion preached her sermon, Covid-19 was sweeping in from China and weeks later would shut down the world economy.
Since then we have all been treated to a live experiment in what happens when economic activity is cut by 25 percent.
While there are undoubted upsides and lessons to be learned about cleaner air in cities, the downside is looming mass unemployment, the ruin of the global aviation industry, and worsening health and educational inequalities.
This is not enough for Extinction Rebellion campaigners who want to go even further in shutting down activity.
Earlier this month, Thunberg set out in an open letter a list of demands that, if implemented, would make the economic effects of Covid-19 seem mild. Her co-signatories included assorted celebrities, activists, and, inevitably, Coldplay.
Climate catastrophists are clearly keen to get the alarmist show back on the road, perhaps because they have been eclipsed by the pandemic.
I am not someone who denies that protecting the environment is important. Cleaner air is required. When it comes to more efficient energy, less wasteful consumption, and rewilding our countryside, I’m all for it.
But the hysteria of the XR crew, amplified by the media, is counterproductive because it frightens people and could lead to panicked policy-making.
The risk is that overreaction by governments will turn voters against any kind of environmental policy. It need not be this way. With the intelligent use of technology and mitigation measures, mankind is more than capable of adapting to warmer conditions.
This is one of the points made in Bjorn Lomborg’s important new book False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
Mr. Lomborg is a long-standing environmentalist regarded as a heretic by hardliners in the movement because he is an optimist who says that humanity is not doomed.
Global warming is happening, he says, but populations have been “scared witless” into thinking that it means the end of life on Earth.
“The rhetoric on climate change has become ever more extreme and less moored to the actual science,” he says. “The science shows us that fears of a climate apocalypse are unfounded. Global warming is real, but it is not the end of the world. It is a manageable problem.”
Lomborg advocates a “well-designed” carbon tax and reduced emissions but also more adaptation of the kind that, unheralded, is already happening. For 150 years sea levels have been rising and we have adapted by improving coastal protection.
We’re learning more about rivers and flood protection too. On heatwaves, economic growth will help to pay for better and more fuel-efficient air conditioning.
Cities can be adapted with more green spaces. Even something as simple as ensuring that roofs and roads are lighter in color — not black, which absorbs heat and warms urban areas — can make a difference.
For the sin of deviation from the apocalyptic consensus, The New York Times — woke bible and host of the Greta event at Davos in January — unleashed the eminent economist Joseph Stiglitz to lambast Mr. Lomborg, who has since responded with an amusing line-by-line demolition of Mr. Stiglitz’s claims.
But what may make the biggest difference to the debate is population decline.
A study published this month by the Department of Health Metrics Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle suggested that a declining global fertility rate would cause population levels to plummet from 2064.
Twenty-three countries including Japan, Thailand, and Spain will have their populations more than halved.
This threatens to undermine one of the foundations of climate alarmism: the assumption that there are too many ghastly people and, by breeding and consuming resources, we will all soon destroy Mother Earth.
The prospect of population decline could be bad news for the fundraising efforts of the Greta crew if it becomes clear that climate change is even more manageable than thought.
I doubt that hardline climate campaigners will for one second allow this to dilute the purity of their doom-laden message, though. They have founded a religion and anything that distracts from it is heresy.
In that respect, they have much in common with woke calls for a social justice revolution. The best parallel for both of these is perhaps with the 16th and 17th centuries and the spread of Puritanism, a campaign to purify worship and signal virtue.
As the more extreme Puritans knew, declaring the apocalypse — a simple message — is strangely seductive and exciting.
Once again, on climate, the less intoxicating and more cheeringly mundane reality is that human beings are ingeniously adaptive. We’ll find a way through if we all keep our heads.
Read more at The Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--How Media Enables Climate Alarmism To Flourish Unchecked

Written by Peter Murphy on .
Posted in Latest news I have been a news junkie since high school .
Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new , yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn .
The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor one political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises .
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity , including coronavirus reporting , downplaying the riots in American cities , and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative .
The climate change issue is another glaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most media coverage portrays the subject as a singular truth , that is , human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday .
Typically , no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged , much less given credence .
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia , laziness , dishonesty , and censorship , which CFACT itself has been a recipient .
It has gotten so bad , two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among this journalistic dereliction is NBC ’ s Chuck Todd , a wind-up doll for climate credulity and a former congressional aide .
Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming .
No counterpoint allowed is standard for “ mainstream ” climate reporting .
Time magazine , another substantial media outlet , has long obsessed about the “ Endangered Earth , ” as far back as the late 1980s .
By then , global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Year ” was replaced for 1988 as “ Planet of the Year.
” Time has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since , even as Earth ’ s environment improved , global poverty declined , and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped .
No matter , its 2019 “ Person of the Year ” was the indefatigable and exploited , Greta Thunberg .
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread , some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “ Captain Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartoon began the brainwashing process .
Journalists have long practiced as stenographers for celebrities and politicians who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions .
Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics , yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny .
Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ?
Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer , or how wind and solar can “ replace ” fossil fuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The list goes on .
Now and then there are modest exceptions , as when Fox News ’ host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017 and pushed back some .
Yet , even in that instance , Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore , including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets .
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians , few Republicans are willing to go on the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the multi-trillion-dollar price tag of the Green New Deal .
For such Republicans , the calculation is to avoid controversy , rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda .
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “ study ” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters .
Regardless of political leanings or personal bias , every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last spring , for example , the journal Nature Climate Change published a whimsical study that claimed half the world ’ s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change .
Every media outlet I found that reported on the study parroted its findings , with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story .
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change .
Michael Shellenberger , in his new book , Apocalypse Never , documents how this sensationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual IPCC research .
The cumulative effect of years of robotic reporting on man-made global warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry .
If not countered , it will further lead to a misinformed public , and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide .

Written by Peter Murphy on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
I have been a news junkie since high school. Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new, yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn.
The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor one political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises.
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity, including coronavirus reporting, downplaying the riots in American cities, and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative.
The climate change issue is another glaring example that goes beyond mere bias. Most media coverage portrays the subject as a singular truth, that is, human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday.
Typically, no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged, much less given credence.
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia, laziness, dishonesty, and censorship, which CFACT itself has been a recipient.
It has gotten so bad, two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations and several newsrooms displayed infantile wokeness.
Chief among this journalistic dereliction is NBC’s Chuck Todd, a wind-up doll for climate credulity and a former congressional aide.
Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming. No counterpoint allowed is standard for “mainstream” climate reporting.
Time magazine, another substantial media outlet, has long obsessed about the “Endangered Earth,” as far back as the late 1980s.
By then, global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970s. Time’s annual “Person of the Year” was replaced for 1988 as “Planet of the Year.”
Time has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since, even as Earth’s environment improved, global poverty declined, and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped. No matter, its 2019 “Person of the Year” was the indefatigable and exploited, Greta Thunberg.
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread, some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “Captain Planet” generation when Ted Turner’s cartoon began the brainwashing process.
Journalists have long practiced as stenographers for celebrities and politicians who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions. Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics, yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny.
Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer, or how wind and solar can “replace” fossil fuels when they rely on them so extensively? The list goes on.
Now and then there are modest exceptions, as when Fox News’ host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017 and pushed back some. Yet, even in that instance, Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore, including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets.
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians, few Republicans are willing to go on the record with reporters to counter them beyond complaining about the multi-trillion-dollar price tag of the Green New Deal.
For such Republicans, the calculation is to avoid controversy, rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda.
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “study” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters.
Regardless of political leanings or personal bias, every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on either side of the climate change issue.
Last spring, for example, the journal Nature Climate Change published a whimsical study that claimed half the world’s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change. Every media outlet I found that reported on the study parroted its findings, with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story.
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change. Michael Shellenberger, in his new book, Apocalypse Never, documents how this sensationalist reporting is regularly at variance with the actual IPCC research.
The cumulative effect of years of robotic reporting on man-made global warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry.
If not countered, it will further lead to a misinformed public, and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--Study: Southern Ocean Site Has Just Cooled To Ice Age-Era Temperatures

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news A new temperature reconstruction indicates today ’ s sea surface @ @ @ @ @ but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years .
A Southern Ocean site @ @ @ @ @ ( Ghadi et al.
, 2020 ) has averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during @ @ @ @ @ a 410 ppm CO2 concentration , this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels @ @ @ @ @ site was 2°C warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm about 20,000 years @ @ @ @ @ peak of the last ice age .
During the Early Holocene ( 10,000 to 8,000 @ @ @ @ @ sea surface temperatures were also 2°C warmer than today .
There is no indication that @ @ @ @ @ any way correlated with temperature changes throughout this entire 156,000-year epoch .
Read more at @ @ @

Written by Kenneth Richard on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new temperature reconstruction indicates today’s sea surface temperatures are colder than all but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years.
A Southern Ocean site analyzed in a new study (Ghadi et al., 2020) has averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during interglacials. Today, with a 410 ppm CO2 concentration, this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels (2°C).
The site was 2°C warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm about 20,000 years ago, or during the peak of the last ice age.
During the Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,000 years ago), summer sea surface temperatures were also 2°C warmer than today.
There is no indication that CO2 concentration changes are in any way correlated with temperature changes throughout this entire 156,000-year epoch.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-10--Biden Vs. Trump: The Battle Over America’s Energy Future

Written by Tilak Doshi on .
Posted in Latest news With the U.S. presidential elections less than 90 days away , energy policy has emerged as one of the core issues .
This is not only because the Democratic Party , in seeking to unseat incumbent President Trump , has itself elevated energy and climate change policies to its highest priority .
Energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy – hence U.S. energy policy will affect the livelihood of all Americans .
As the U.S. has emerged as the world ’ s leading oil and gas producer over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies adopted by the next U.S. administration will also profoundly influence global economic and geopolitical affairs .
The Radical Democrats and The Vacillating Mr. Biden In the Democratic Party presidential primaries , nearly every one of the more than 20 major nominees supported first-term congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s “ Green New Deal ” which was her radical grand plan to save the planet from a presumed 12-year deadline to global extinction .
Since April , when Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee after Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out , Biden has shunned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continued to move left especially on energy policy .
In May , it was announced that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will co-chair Joe Biden climate policy council as Biden took steps to “ unify ” the party with the Bernie Sander ’ s wing of progressives .
In June , the Democratic National Committee signaled its shift towards extreme positions on energy and climate issues reflected by the views of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez .
The DNC Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis , stacked with progressive climate activists , pressed Mr. Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the climate crisis.
” The DNC 14-page plan calls for expenditures of up to $ 16 trillion over the next decade to speed the country away from fossil fuels .
It includes getting to “ near-zero ” emissions by 2040 , banning fracking , ending the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2030 , denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects , ensuring 100 % clean renewable energy by 2030 in electricity generation , buildings , and transportation , and re-imposing the ban on US crude oil exports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The DNC proposal more closely resembles Sanders ’ climate plan in policies and scope than Mr. Biden ’ s , which called for a $ 1.7 trillion in climate spending over the next decade .
Mr. Biden later announced a new plan in mid-July to spend $ 2 trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in the transportation , electricity , and building sectors with a range of sweeping proposals to tackle climate change .
Mr. Biden has vacillated , asserting “ no new fracking ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backtracking in July in an interview in Pennsylvania where he said that he “ wouldn ’ t put fracking on the chopping block ” in response to a question about losing oil and gas jobs .
What A Biden Administration Would Do Contradictory policy promises by politicians appealing to different constituencies in the election trail are nothing new .
Once elections are won , pragmatism is expected to prevail as the real consequences of policy decisions become apparent .
Furthermore , the U.S. president ’ s powers to effect change are bound by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manage to flip the Senate while keeping the House , moderates from both parties in oil and gas-producing states such as Colorado , New Mexico , North Dakota , Oklahoma , and Texas would be fearful of destroying jobs and tax-revenues while recovering from the devastating pandemic-induced lockdowns .
While oil , natural gas , and coal accounted for over 83 % of the total energy used in the US in 2019 , wind , solar and new biofuels accounted for a paltry 6 % .
Punting for “ green jobs ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depend on massive government subsidies may sound uplifting in election campaigns focused on young environmentalists but are a poor substitute for economic performance in the real world .
Yet , it is clear that Mr. Biden , if elected , would be bound to undo most if not all of President Trump ’ s initiatives in energy and environmental affairs .
As promised , he would take executive and regulatory actions aimed at ending fracking and oil and gas drilling activity in federal lands .
A politicized Environmental Protection Agency – following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would discourage the fossil fuels sector in countless ways through administrative and regulatory choke-holds .
The blocking of oil and gas pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure would be enabled by activist environmentalists launching legal suits , as in the recent case of the Dakota Access Pipeline .
In his plan to “ secure environmental justice and equitable economic opportunity in a clean energy future , ” Biden committed to immediately re-join the Paris Agreement if elected president .
This could potentially open up the U.S. government to yet another avenue of judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , the recent UK Court of Appeal decision to block London ’ s Heathrow airport expansion explicitly cited the Paris Agreement climate targets as the basis to reject government-approved infrastructure plans .
In the age of U.S.-led oil abundance , conventional notions of geopolitical risk , and perceptions of energy security have been upended .
The surge in U.S. oil and gas production which gathered pace in the past few years with President Trump ’ s “ energy dominance ” agenda has made the U.S. less vulnerable to political and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased its foreign policy leverage in achieving its strategic objectives .
It has given the U.S. greater latitude to support allies and sanction rivals .
It has made it easier for the U.S. to impose export sanctions on oil-producing adversaries such as Venezuela and Iran without the fear of a resulting spike in global oil prices or on US domestic gasoline prices .
By effectively making the U.S. the “ swing ” producer in global oil markets , the fracking revolution has weakened the ability of OPEC and Russia to support crude oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency that would vacate the role of the U.S. as the world ’ s leading oil and gas producer would no doubt be welcomed by Russia and the OPEC oil and gas exporters struggling with low energy prices .
A recent Gallup poll , taken over July 1 – 23 , asked just over 1,000 US adults : “ What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today ?
” A plurality , 30 % , chose “ coronavirus/diseases ” as the most important problem , followed by “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , race relations/racism ( 16 % ) , “ unifying the country ” ( 6 % ) , and “ crime/violence ” ( 5 % ) .
Among economic problems , 9 % of the respondents chose the “ economy in general ” , unemployment , and the wealth gap .
Notably , “ climate change/environment/pollution ” came in at the very bottom of the list , garnering just 1 % support .
Whatever the state of Mr. Biden ’ s mental acuity , he must be aware of the risks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US economy in the midst of a pandemic to meet an alleged “ climate emergency.
” In 2017 , failed presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton claimed her biggest regret was in doubling up on ex-President Obama ’ s ‘ war on coal ’ and stating in her campaign trail that “ we ’ re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.
” Mr. Biden must hope he will not have such regrets .

Written by Tilak Doshi on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
With the U.S. presidential elections less than 90 days away, energy policy has emerged as one of the core issues.
This is not only because the Democratic Party, in seeking to unseat incumbent President Trump, has itself elevated energy and climate change policies to its highest priority.
Energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy – hence U.S. energy policy will affect the livelihood of all Americans.
As the U.S. has emerged as the world’s leading oil and gas producer over the past decade, the energy and climate policies adopted by the next U.S. administration will also profoundly influence global economic and geopolitical affairs.
The Radical Democrats and The Vacillating Mr. Biden
In the Democratic Party presidential primaries, nearly every one of the more than 20 major nominees supported first-term congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” which was her radical grand plan to save the planet from a presumed 12-year deadline to global extinction.
Since April, when Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee after Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out, Biden has shunned the traditional move back to the center and continued to move left especially on energy policy.
In May, it was announced that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will co-chair Joe Biden climate policy council as Biden took steps to “unify” the party with the Bernie Sander’s wing of progressives.
In June, the Democratic National Committee signaled its shift towards extreme positions on energy and climate issues reflected by the views of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
The DNC Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis, stacked with progressive climate activists, pressed Mr. Biden to back “bold and urgent action to address the climate crisis.”
The DNC 14-page plan calls for expenditures of up to $16 trillion over the next decade to speed the country away from fossil fuels.
It includes getting to “near-zero” emissions by 2040, banning fracking, ending the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2030, denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, ensuring 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 in electricity generation, buildings, and transportation, and re-imposing the ban on US crude oil exports and sharply curtailing exports of natural gas.
The DNC proposal more closely resembles Sanders’ climate plan in policies and scope than Mr. Biden’s, which called for a $1.7 trillion in climate spending over the next decade.
Mr. Biden later announced a new plan in mid-July to spend $2 trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in the transportation, electricity, and building sectors with a range of sweeping proposals to tackle climate change.
Mr. Biden has vacillated, asserting “no new fracking” in his debate Bernie Sanders in March but backtracking in July in an interview in Pennsylvania where he said that he “wouldn’t put fracking on the chopping block” in response to a question about losing oil and gas jobs.
What A Biden Administration Would Do
Contradictory policy promises by politicians appealing to different constituencies in the election trail are nothing new.
Once elections are won, pragmatism is expected to prevail as the real consequences of policy decisions become apparent. Furthermore, the U.S. president’s powers to effect change are bound by constitutional limits.
Even if the Democrats manage to flip the Senate while keeping the House, moderates from both parties in oil and gas-producing states such as Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas would be fearful of destroying jobs and tax-revenues while recovering from the devastating pandemic-induced lockdowns.
While oil, natural gas, and coal accounted for over 83% of the total energy used in the US in 2019, wind, solar and new biofuels accounted for a paltry 6%.
Punting for “green jobs” that have yet to materialize and which would depend on massive government subsidies may sound uplifting in election campaigns focused on young environmentalists but are a poor substitute for economic performance in the real world.
Yet, it is clear that Mr. Biden, if elected, would be bound to undo most if not all of President Trump’s initiatives in energy and environmental affairs.
As promised, he would take executive and regulatory actions aimed at ending fracking and oil and gas drilling activity in federal lands.
A politicized Environmental Protection Agency – following the Obama administration’s modus operandi – would discourage the fossil fuels sector in countless ways through administrative and regulatory choke-holds.
The blocking of oil and gas pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure would be enabled by activist environmentalists launching legal suits, as in the recent case of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In his plan to “secure environmental justice and equitable economic opportunity in a clean energy future,” Biden committed to immediately re-join the Paris Agreement if elected president.
This could potentially open up the U.S. government to yet another avenue of judicial intervention by its own law courts.
For example, the recent UK Court of Appeal decision to block London’s Heathrow airport expansion explicitly cited the Paris Agreement climate targets as the basis to reject government-approved infrastructure plans.
In the age of U.S.-led oil abundance, conventional notions of geopolitical risk, and perceptions of energy security have been upended.
The surge in U.S. oil and gas production which gathered pace in the past few years with President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda has made the U.S. less vulnerable to political and social upheavals in the Middle East and has increased its foreign policy leverage in achieving its strategic objectives.
It has given the U.S. greater latitude to support allies and sanction rivals. It has made it easier for the U.S. to impose export sanctions on oil-producing adversaries such as Venezuela and Iran without the fear of a resulting spike in global oil prices or on US domestic gasoline prices.
By effectively making the U.S. the “swing” producer in global oil markets, the fracking revolution has weakened the ability of OPEC and Russia to support crude oil prices by restraining output.
A Biden presidency that would vacate the role of the U.S. as the world’s leading oil and gas producer would no doubt be welcomed by Russia and the OPEC oil and gas exporters struggling with low energy prices.
Biden vs. Trump: The Odds
A recent Gallup poll, taken over July 1 – 23, asked just over 1,000 US adults: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
A plurality, 30%, chose “coronavirus/diseases” as the most important problem, followed by “the government/poor leadership” (23%), race relations/racism (16%), “unifying the country” (6%), and “crime/violence” (5%).
Among economic problems, 9% of the respondents chose the “economy in general”, unemployment, and the wealth gap.
Notably, “climate change/environment/pollution” came in at the very bottom of the list, garnering just 1% support.
Whatever the state of Mr. Biden’s mental acuity, he must be aware of the risks of campaigning on the radical makeover of the US economy in the midst of a pandemic to meet an alleged “climate emergency.”
In 2017, failed presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton claimed her biggest regret was in doubling up on ex-President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ and stating in her campaign trail that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Mr. Biden must hope he will not have such regrets.
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--2020-08-10--The Only Thing Killing Off Emperor Penguins Are Dodgy Climate Models

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , GWPF on .
Posted in Latest news Emperor penguin populations have been increasing in recent years , yet worst-case climate modelers predict their extinction by 2100 .
It is time to stop applying the implausible RCP8.5 scare-scenarios .
A new study of emperor penguins ( Aptenodytes fosteri ) populations in 2019 found that it had grown by up to 10 % since 2009 .
The largest of all penguin species in the Antarctic , emperors now number as many as 282,150 breeding pairs ( up from about 256,500 ) out of a total population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when one of the Antarctic ice shelves they were huddled upon collapsed .
The latest IUCN Red List assessment , completed in 2018 , classified emperors as ‘ Near Threatened ’ , a small step up from ‘ Least Concern ’ .
In their justification for this classification , the authors concluded : This species is listed as Near Threatened because it is projected to undergo a moderately rapid population decline over the next three generations owing to the projected effects of climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that there is considerable uncertainty over future climatic changes and how these will impact the species .
Oddly , however , other biologists studying this species are currently petitioning the IUCN to upgrade emperor penguins to ‘ Vulnerable ’ ( a classification equivalent to ‘ Threatened ’ in the US system ) based on survival models that predict the species could be close to extinction by 2100 using the RCP8.5 ‘ worse case ’ climate change scenario that polar bear biologists have so far found irresistible .
As polar bear biologists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we reduce CO2 emissions via global political policy , the penguins will be saved .
The media , of course , focus on the model predictions of near extinction by 2100 that support a political response to human-caused climate change , despite the fact that both polar bears and emperor penguins are currently doing very well under declining sea ice conditions at both poles .
They also ignore the valid criticisms of the RCP8.5 scenario made by many scientists , including Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters in a Nature paper earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these ‘ worse case ’ factors in models create quite implausible outcomes .
In a scathing commentary on recent model projections of future emperor penguin populations , zoologist Susan Crockford concluded : Read more at The GWPF

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF on Aug 10, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Emperor penguin populations have been increasing in recent years, yet worst-case climate modelers predict their extinction by 2100. It is time to stop applying the implausible RCP8.5 scare-scenarios.
A new study of emperor penguins (Aptenodytes fosteri) populations in 2019 found that it had grown by up to 10% since 2009.
The largest of all penguin species in the Antarctic, emperors now number as many as 282,150 breeding pairs (up from about 256,500) out of a total population of over 600,000 birds.
This growth occurred despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when one of the Antarctic ice shelves they were huddled upon collapsed.
The latest IUCN Red List assessment, completed in 2018, classified emperors as ‘Near Threatened’, a small step up from ‘Least Concern’.
In their justification for this classification, the authors concluded:
This species is listed as Near Threatened because it is projected to undergo a moderately rapid population decline over the next three generations owing to the projected effects of climate change. However, it should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty over future climatic changes and how these will impact the species.
Oddly, however, other biologists studying this species are currently petitioning the IUCN to upgrade emperor penguins to ‘Vulnerable’ (a classification equivalent to ‘Threatened’ in the US system) based on survival models that predict the species could be close to extinction by 2100 using the RCP8.5 ‘worse case’ climate change scenario that polar bear biologists have so far found irresistible.
As polar bear biologists have also done, they insist that if we reduce CO2 emissions via global political policy, the penguins will be saved.
The media, of course, focus on the model predictions of near extinction by 2100 that support a political response to human-caused climate change, despite the fact that both polar bears and emperor penguins are currently doing very well under declining sea ice conditions at both poles.
They also ignore the valid criticisms of the RCP8.5 scenario made by many scientists, including Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters in a Nature paper earlier this year, who insist that the use of these ‘worse case’ factors in models create quite implausible outcomes.
In a scathing commentary on recent model projections of future emperor penguin populations, zoologist Susan Crockford concluded:
I’d suggest that using far-fetched ‘worse case’ scenario predictions to propose an unlikely but scary-sounding future catastrophe isn’t likely to work any better for emperor penguins than it has done for polar bears, especially when the animals keep thriving.”
Read more at The GWPF
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print