Displaying posts categorized under

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE

Sycophants Who Flatter Child Climate ‘Oracles’ Deserve Unrelenting Ridicule by Frank Bullit

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/21/sycophants-who-flatter-child-climate-oracles-deserve-unrelenting-ridicule/

Following the Greta Thunberg path to fame is an Australian boy who gained notoriety for fuming about “narrow-minded” politicians. While the pair’s excesses can be attributed to their youth, the behavior of the shallow adults insisting the two are prophets who must be listened to cannot be excused. The proper response to these “grownups” behaving as high schoolers is harsh ridicule.

The world can’t help but know about Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish scold who seems to have dropped out of school to travel the world and impudently lecture her elders about how they have let her down. Though this girl knows nothing about climate other than it exists around her, and less about the world, adults nod in agreement as she rants, hand her multiple honors and awards, and have sworn they have been inspired as well as properly chastised by her. She was even considered last month as “the one to beat” for the Nobel Peace Prize, which was eventually given to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for putting an end to his country’s decades-long conflict with Eritrea.

Now comes Australia’s “Outback schoolboy” Dylan Storer, not as famous as Thunberg, but just as green, and we don’t mean that in an environmental sense. Storer, also 16, “has been praised on social media after slamming ‘narrow-minded’ politicians while weighing in on Australia’s bushfire crisis,” the Daily Mail reports.

“It’s not political opinion to say climate change hasn’t contributed to these horrific bushfires,” he said earlier this week on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Q&A” broadcast.

Of course Storer’s words were “met with huge applause from the audience,” because who can’t resist showing just how hip they are by airing their enthusiastic support of a raving child?

170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming Charles Rotter

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/14/170-years-of-earth-surface-temperature-data-show-no-evidence-of-significant-warming/

Author: Thomas K. Bjorklund, University of Houston, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

Key Points

1. From 1850 to the present, the noise-corrected, average warming of the surface of the earth is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade.

2. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. Recent increases in surface temperatures reflect 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation climate pattern.

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships between surface temperatures from 1850 to the present and reported long-range temperature predictions of global warming. A crucial component of this analysis is the calculation of an estimate of the warming curve of the surface of the earth. The calculation removes errors in temperature measurements and fluctuations due to short-duration weather events from the recorded data. The results show the average rate of warming of the surface of earth for the past 170 years is less than 0.07 degrees C per decade. The rate of warming of the surface of the earth does not correlate with the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The perceived threat of excessive future global temperatures may stem from misinterpretation of 40 years of increasing intensities of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern in the eastern Pacific Ocean. ENSO activity culminated in 2016 with the highest surface temperature anomaly ever recorded. The rate of warming of the earth’s surface has dropped 41 percent since 2006.

Caltech recently announced the start of a 5-year project with several other research centers to build a new climate model “from the ground up” (Perkins, R. 2018). During these five years, the world’s understanding of the causes of climate change should be greatly improved.

The scientific goal must be to narrow the range of uncertainty of predictions with better data and better models until human intervention makes sense. We have the time to get it right. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist. The challenge is to allow scientists the time and freedom to work without interference from special interests.

Cuomo’s Carbon Casualties Ban pipelines and fracking and then blame business for shortages.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuomos-carbon-casualties-11574033835

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is a proud opponent of fossil fuels. But now that the consequences of his policies are harming people in the real world—those who can’t afford to escape to Florida—the Governor is blaming others.

Mr. Cuomo has blocked shale fracking upstate and several pipelines delivering natural gas from Pennsylvania in the name of protecting waterways. But this is an excuse. Natural-gas production in Pennsylvania has increased 60% since Mr. Cuomo banned fracking five years ago, adding $6 billion to Keystone State GDP and its waterways are fine.

Mr. Cuomo’s real purpose is to eliminate natural gas as part of his political commitment to “carbon neutrality” by 2050, and this isn’t a cost-free promise. Upstate New Yorkers struggle economically and pay among the highest energy costs in the U.S. A quarter still rely on heating oil, which costs about $1,000 a year more than natural gas and emits nearly 40% more CO2. New Yorkers pay about 40% more for electricity than Pennsylvanians and 15% more than in New Jersey.

The utility Con Edison in March halted natural gas hookups north of New York City due to pipeline constraints. National Grid, the gas utility that serves Long Island, this fall imposed a moratorium on new hookups after the Governor vetoed a 23-mile gas pipeline beneath New York Harbor. National Grid said it couldn’t guarantee uninterrupted service without the pipeline. New oil-to-gas conversions could cause future gas shortages and outages.

Global Warming Politics Are Dividing Us, Because That’s The Way The Alarmists Want It

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/15/global-warming-politics-are-dividing-us-because-thats-the-way-the-alarmists-want-it/

A CNN producer recently wrote an opinion piece headlined “Climate politics are tearing the West apart.” He got it about half right. They are tearing us apart but not for the reasons he thinks.

Johan Bader, an associate producer for “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” is in agreement with The Economist, which has declared: “environmentalism is emerging as Europe’s new culture war.” We’re seeing much the same in the U.S.

But the cultural divide is not simply “concerned citizens” who “are pouring into the streets to lambaste feckless politicians for failing to protect the planet” against neighbors who “inveigh against out-of-touch politicians for instituting environmental policies that fail to protect them.”

The schism has been caused by a coalition of anti-capitalists, arrogant academics, authoritarians who have a need to dictate to others, know-it-alls, those who relish the status of their imagined moral superiority, and inveterate virtue-signalers who have “othered” global warming skeptics as well as the agnostics who have legitimate concerns about how the policy solutions forced on them will change their lives.

The first group, the aggressors, believe that anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe is beneath them. These elitist bullies consider a conflicting opinion an indication of low intellect, or criminality, or both. That’s why they can so easily define skeptics as rubes and outlaws who should be caged.

The cultural gap has been made obvious by the Extinction Rebellion. In one of its more infamous tantrums, the “painfully middle-class agitators” went “to a working-class part of East London early in the morning to lecture and inconvenience people who just wanted to get to work,” British columnist Brendan O’Neill recently wrote in Spiked.

The tension is not produced so much by one group being more well off than the other as it is one group thinking it is smarter than the other, and is therefore justified in hectoring and obstructing the othered group, and stealing its time. This plays out in the many efforts of true believers to “educate” their inferiors.

There is of course a religious element to the global warming scare, as well.

Liberal Media Scream: Jane Fonda wants ‘Nuremberg trials’ for energy executives by Paul Bedard

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/liberal-media-scream-jane-fonda-wants-nuremberg-trials-for-energy-executives

This week’s Liberal Media Scream features activist and Hollywood star Jane Fonda, who has been spending a lot of time in Washington recently protesting on climate change and even going to jail for her efforts.

Now, she wants energy executives and their political allies to be treated like Nazis and face a “Nuremberg” style trial similar to German dictator Adolf Hitler’s henchmen, who were often given the death penalty at the post-World War II trials.

She appeared on the debut of The Impeachment Show on the Viceland, where she said that there’s “literally a ticking time bomb over everything” because of climate change. She claimed “our government is being ruled by fossil fuel” and so “democracy is teetering on the edge of collapse.”

Charging that the “fossil fuel industry” has caused wars that have killed many Americans, she also charged oil executives and enabling politicians “should all be tried for crimes against humanity and nature.” Host Michael Moynihan said, “So, you want to see sort of a Nuremberg trial for climate criminals?” to which Fonda responded, “Yeah, I would.”

Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono: ‘Believe In Climate Change As Though It’s A Religion’ By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/democratic-sen-mazie-hirono-believe-in-climate-change-as-though-its-a-religion/

Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono thinks Americans ought to fundamentally change the way they think about climate change, arguing that climate change should be thought of as a “religion” rather than a “science.”

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion, it’s not a science,” Hirono encouraged.

“Believe in climate change as though it’s a religion and not a science” – Mazie Hirono pic.twitter.com/VkRDGr2rUn

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 12, 2019

The comment came during remarks the senator was delivering in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, making the case that citizens should be more active in leaving one’s comfort zone to be more assertive on left-wing demands.

Hirono’s bizarre line about climate change being framed as a religion over science falls in line with the direction that Democrats have been pushing the issue, ramping up calls to take an aggressive approach to combat environmental pollution.

Many 2020 Democrats chasing the party’s presidential nomination have signed onto the “Green New Deal,” a broad socialist proposal championed by freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York promising to wreak havoc on the global economy pledging “economic security” to those “unwilling to work.”

Ocasio-Cortez has previously compared climate change to World War II, calling for a World War II-scale movement to combat the impending destruction of the planet.

“So we talk about existential threats, the last time we had a really major existential threat to this country was around World War II, and so we’ve been here before and we have a blueprint of doing this before,” Ocasio-Cortez said last year.

Watson Video: The Truth About Extinction Rebellion Dismantling European civilization. Paul Joseph Watson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/paul-joseph-watson-video-truth-about-extinction-paul-joseph-watson/

In this new video, Paul Joseph Watson exposes the motives, fraud and hypocrisy of privileged, environmental fanatics who indoctrinate eco-anxiety among children — and lecture working class people on how to live their lives. Don’t miss it!

An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are. Jason D. Hill ****

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/

Greta Thunberg:

You have declared yourself a leader and said that your generation will start a revolution. You have comported yourself as a credentialed adult and climate change activist who has fearlessly addressed politicians and world leaders. You have dropped out of school and declared that there isn’t any reason to attend, or any reason for you to study since there will be no future for you to inherit. You have, rather than attend your classes, been leading Friday Climate Strikes for all students in your generation across the globe. Your attendance at oil pipelines has been striking. There, you unequivocally declare that all oil needs to remain in the ground where it belongs.

I shall, therefore, against the backdrop of your activism, address you as an adult rather than as a child.

In September of 2019 you crossed the Atlantic in a “zero carbon” racing yacht that had no toilet and electric light on board. You made an impassioned plea at the United Nations in which you claimed that, “we have stolen your dreams and our childhood with our empty words.”  You claimed that adults and world leaders come to young people for answers and explained in anger: “How dare you!” You claimed that we are failing you and that young people are beginning to understand our betrayal. You further declared that if we continue to fail your generation: “We will never forgive you.”

You have stated that you want us to panic, and to act as if our homes are on fire. You insist that rich countries must reduce to zero emissions immediately. In your speeches you attack economic growth and have stated that our current climate crisis is caused by “buying and building things.” You call for climate justice and equity, without addressing the worst polluter on the planet China; the country that is economically annexing much of Africa and Latin America. You dare not lecture Iran about its uranium projects — because that’s not part of the UN’s agenda, is it?

You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena. You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show. You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era. Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’? By Casey Plunkett

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change.  In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”  This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel.  Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.”  In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter?  Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science.  For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing.  How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science?  Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked. 

In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. 

Inherit the Wind Tony Thomas

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/inherit-the-w

It’s good to know that wind turbine blades are a bird’s best friend, or something like that. I’m citing “fun facts” on the website of Synergy, Western Australia’s state-owned electricity generator. Synergy operations include half a dozen WA wind farms, mostly coastal. Synergy claims, correctly, that its fun facts “may blow your mind.” Fun Fact No. 9 is illustrated with a pic of Sesame Street’s Big Bird, pop-eyed with delight about wind turbines’  blade-and-splatter prospects. The caption reads (author’s emphasis)

Wind technology is now much more bird-friendly. Earlier versions of wind farms, such as the ones first launched in the US, had thousands of small fast-spinning turbines. Not so good for birds. Now, wind farms have taller and slower-moving blades which are much nicer for our feathered friends.

I don’t know about those “slower moving blades”. Tip speed of a 75m blade for a giant 6MW turbine can be 290km per hour. Despite my blown mind, I also managed to look up Greens Tasmanian stalwart Bob Brown and his objection last July to a company’s plan to put 120 wind towers, each 270m at tip height, on Robbins Island. He doesn’t agree with Synergy that turbines are “nice for our feathered friends”. He wrote instead, “For which of these species will the wind farm be the thousandth cut?”[1]

This is by-the-way, just stuff I came across while looking into what happens to wind farms when they get to their use-by date. National Wind Farm Commissioner Andrew Dyer tells Quadrant Online, “Some farmers have not got the best legal advice before entering agreements. The industry is new and the decommissioning clauses will be tested in the coming years as older wind farms reach the end of their economic life. These clauses are incredibly important if you are a landowner.” [2]