RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-summit-to-nowhere-glasgow-cop26-joe-biden-11635543010?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

World leaders converge on Glasgow for a climate summit this weekend, and don’t laugh. This may be the worst-timed summit in history, but the delegates can still do substantial damage to the global economy, though none of it will matter to the climate.

It’s incongruous bordering on the bizarre to organize a summit like this while Europe is battening down for a winter fuel crisis, President Biden is begging OPEC to produce more oil, China is firing up its coal-fueled power plants amid an electricity shortage, and climate-change plans wilt as soon as they’re exposed to the sunlight of democratic politics.

No matter. This summit is called COP26 because there have already been 25. No less than the United Nations admitted this week that nations have made little progress on their previous climate pledges. But rather than adjust to this political reality, the delegates will make even more unrealistic promises.

The summit’s two main priorities are a pledge to reach “net zero” greenhouse-gas emissions by some future date, perhaps 2050, and to convince developed countries to pay poor countries to sign up for more CO2 reductions. Neither will amount to much.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-10-28-the-climate-is-warming-and-human-activities-are-the-cause-how-exactly-do-we-know-that

“The climate is changing, and we are the cause.” That is a statement that is so often-repeated and affirmed that it goes way beyond mere conventional wisdom. Probably, you encounter some version or another of that statement multiple times per week; maybe dozens of times. Everybody knows that it is true! And to express disagreement with that statement, probably more so than with any other element of current progressive orthodoxy, is a sure way to get yourself labeled a “science denier,” fired from an academic job, or even banished from the internet.

The UN IPCC’s recent Sixth Assessment Report on the climate is chock full of one version after another of the iconic statement, in each instance of course emphasizing that the human-caused climate changes are deleterious and even catastrophic. Examples:

Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence); fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence); and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). (Page A.3.5)

Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale. (Page A.3.4, Box TS.10)

Some recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. (Page A.3.4, Box TX.10)

So, over and over, it’s that we have “high confidence” that human influence is the cause, or that events would have been “extremely unlikely” without human influence. But how, really, do we know that? What is the proof?

This seems to me to be rather an important question. After all, various world leaders are proposing to spend some tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars to undo what are viewed as the most important human influences on the climate (use of fossil fuels). Billions of people are to be kept in, or cast into, energy poverty to appease the climate change gods. Political leaders from every country in the world are about to convene in Scotland to agree to a set of mandates that will transform most everyone’s life. You would think that nobody would even start down this road without definitive proof that we know the cause of the problem and that the proposed solutions are sure to work.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/10/peronist-pontiff-gasbags-with-addled-american/

Flogging a dead horse is nothing unusual. Some people – Australian republicans, campaigners for “balance” on the ABC, British EU “rejoiners” – do it all the time. But two dead horses flogging each other is a rare spectacle. That’s why it will be such a privilege to watch President Biden and Pope Francis in Rome on Friday demonstrating with their unique skills just how this act of deceased equine futility is done: two not very pleasant elderly exemplars of unprincipled ambition reinforcing one another in the illusion that each has something useful to say to the world, something to contribute to the betterment of mankind.

The pair of them will meet in the Vatican to earbash each other on the “climate emergency”. One assumes there will be plenty of black coffee on hand; it wouldn’t do for any of the assembled cardinals and diplomats to yield to the torpor and nod off while these two geriatric bores drone on about the world’s most tedious topic.

Insomniacs on the other hand might find it quite a treat as a senile opportunist and a crafty Peronist schemer try to outdo each other in lecturing us on what we should be going without for the sake of the weather. One hopes that some Vatican functionary is arranging for the wind generated by their combined utterances to be sustainably “harvested”. It could power the floodlighting of St Peter’s.

Biden is on his way, or being steered there, by his keepers, to extrude his verbal contribution to that Olympiad for climate catastrophics, COP26 in Glasgow. Francis had been going too, but changed his mind. Too many other blowhards, he probably decided. As his dictatorial papal style has long demonstrated, he doesn’t like competition. He always has to be the centre of attention.

One might wonder why a Pope is shoving his oar in on secular matters, but perhaps the kingdom not of this world is too small a stage for his talents. Anyway, a quick tête-à-tête in Rome will have to suffice for his agenda with Biden. Can we hazard a guess about what they’ll come up with?

First they’ll diagnose what to do about the climate. This will no doubt be along the lines of less coal for everyone except China, immediate canonisation of St Greta the Ecobrat, wind turbines on all church towers, bath night on Saturdays only – practical steps like that. Next one imagines them turning their attention to solving the COVID crisis. Jail anyone who calls it the China virus might well be Francis’s contribution, since he and President Xi are now all hotsy-totsy together since their agreement to accede to Beijing’s demand and throw China’s loyal Catholics under the bus, or in this case the Tiananmen tank, in return for the Vatican not saying unkind things about Xi’s persecution of the Uighurs. Yes, it’s that kind of one-way deal, a real bargain for the Church.

Biden’s take on COVID will be whatever floats through Dr Fauci’s mind that morning transcribed to the presidential autocue.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/27/that-dirty-green-energy-2/

While governments from Washington westward to California are forcing vaccinations on Americans whether they want the shots or not, don’t forget that policymakers want to do much the same with renewable energy. But renewables aren’t the unalloyed good we’re told they are. They have nasty downsides.

The forms of energy accepted by activists and politicians as “renewable” or “green” are restricted to wind and solar. While both are renewable (and are intermittent and therefore unreliable), neither is truly green. In this editorial, we will focus on solar, just to keep things short.

Solar power depends on photovoltaic panels, which convert sunlight to electricity. Those panels, indispensable to the process, are where solar power’s green reputation breaks down.

To start with, solar panels have a lifespan of roughly 25 to 30 years, so at some point, they become trash. (For the record, powering the world with solar energy would require more than 51 billion panels, which would take up more than 115,000 square miles, a parcel of land larger than Arizona.)

There are nearly 1.5 million panels right now in the lower 48.) What do we do with them?

Solar panels are recyclable – technically. But “the process in which materials are separated can be tedious and requires advanced machinery,” says CED Greentech, which means energy will be burned to extract the components.

Consequently, most dead solar panels, which are in fact considered hazardous waste, end up in landfills. Which isn’t green at all, since the greens despise landfills.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/greenpeace-co-founder-joins-climate-change-skeptics

Polar bears would not exist today without climate change, and they may even be thriving because of current climate trends. That’s what the co-founder of Greenpeace told scientists, economists, and academics who took part in an international conference challenging alarmist claims about global warming.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International, was one of several speakers featured as part of the Heartland Institute’s conference on the topic held this month.

During his talk, Moore described some of the events that helped gain notoriety for Greenpeace, such as the campaigns directed against nuclear testing and whale hunting dating back to the 1970s. He eventually felt compelled to leave Greenpeace when activists began to lose sight of their humanitarian mission while engaging in campaigns that were not rooted in sound science, he explained.

“At a philosophical level, Greenpeace had started with a strong humanitarian orientation to save human civilization from nuclear war,” Moore said. “That meant we actually liked people. That’s the peace in Greenpeace. The green, of course, was the environment. … I decided to fashion myself a sensible environmentalist basing my positions on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, and fear.”

Moore is now a director for the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit group that includes scientists devoted to highlighting the benefits of carbon dioxide. He is also the author of a new book titled Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, which takes aim at what Moore described as “scare stories” that cannot be justified on the basis of scientific observation and verification.

This is where the polar bears come into play. While environmental activist groups continue to circulate information based on the idea that “human-caused climate change” is a threat to the species, Moore sees a natural, dynamic evolutionary process at work.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/10/dont-notice-the-antarctic-temperature-reord/

Last winter, in one of the bleakest places on earth after Canberra and Belushya Guba, a novel hypothesis was proposed by a  rogue researcher in lockdown: the more anthropogenic hot air spoken in the northern hemisphere before a United Nations climate conference, the colder it becomes in the southern hemisphere, especially at the South Pole.

The conjecture has yet to be validated by a peer-reviewed article in Nature Climate Change. Nevertheless, a lot of people – especially the self-appointed guardians of truth who call out “fake news” and “misinformation” — hope it never reaches that learned journal, and certainly not the smartphones or Twitter accounts of apoplectic activists and hysterical weather-worriers. They would prefer it just goes away and does not linger like a bad smell; or is buried deep under Antarctic snow and ice, with or without the perpetrator, before the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) begins in Glasgow-on-Clyde in November, with or without President Xi (editor’s note: Xi isn’t going, preferring to laugh at the participants from a distance.)

Yet the supporting evidence is impressive.

As for the second part, global warming took a long winter vacation, at least in Antarctica.

The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), the average temperature at the US Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station was minus 60.9ºC for the six months. It was also the station’s second-coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature of minus 62.9ºC. This was an extraordinary 3.4ºC below the long-term average (1881-2010) for winter.

Antarctic sea ice extent also was above average for several months.  In late August it was the fifth-highest in the 43-year satellite record. The maximum observed on September 1 was 18.75 million square kilometres (7.24 million square miles, over twice the size of Australia) and the second-earliest seasonal maximum in the satellite record. Ironically, it was “relatively cool” near the North Pole last summer, compared to recent years, which allowed September’s ice extent to be the highest since 2014.

On Thursday, September 30, climatologist Maximiliano Herrera tweeted:

Exceptional cold in the Antarctic Plateau. The Russian Base of Vostok on 30 September dropped to a min. temperature of -79.4C, which is only 0.6C above the world lowest temperature ever recorded in October (recorded at the former Plateau Station, also in Antarctica).

The jury is still out on precisely what caused the cold snap and its significance. According to NSIDC:

the unusual cold was attributed to two extended periods of stronger-than-average encircling winds around the continent, which tend to isolate the ice sheet from warmer conditions. A strong upper-atmosphere polar vortex was observed as well. (NSIDC, October 5, 2021)

https://www.city-journal.org/california-switch-to-primarily-solar-and-wind-powered-grid-is-dead-end

The leaders of California and China have at least one thing in common: fear of blackouts. In late September, following widespread and economically debilitating losses of power, China’s vice premier Han Zheng ordered the country’s energy companies to ensure sufficient supplies before winter “at all costs” and added, ominously, that blackouts “won’t be tolerated.” A month earlier, California governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders to procure more natural gas-fired electrical capacity to avoid blackouts. And in a possible sign of more such moves to come, earlier in the summer, California’s electric grid operator “stole” electricity that Arizona utilities had purchased and that was in transit from Oregon.

In recent weeks, the European continent has also suffered blackouts, near-blackouts, and skyrocketing electricity prices triggered by a massive lull in nature’s windiness. Grid operators across Europe rushed to buy fuel and fire up old gas- and coal-fired plants. Europe petitioned Russia for more natural gas, and German coal plants ran out of fuel, causing a scramble (including in China) to get more (doubling global prices). Even long-forgotten oil-fired powerplants were pressed into emergency service on grids from Sweden to Asia.

The issue that’s now front and center is whether all these disruptions to electricity supply and price are, to use Silicon Valley language, a “feature” or a temporary “bug” of the new energy infrastructure favored by advocates of renewables: one dominated by power from the wind and sun. Proponents of this so-called energy transition admit that the road to a post-hydrocarbon world might be rough. But the solution, they say, is to accelerate construction of far more wind and solar machines. Thus, the key question now is not whether we need such a transition, or even what it would cost, but whether it’s even possible in the time frames now being bandied about (“carbon free by 2035”).

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/22/the-wreck-of-the-global-warming-narrative/

Fox News plans to start a 24-hour weather channel, and according to the Guardian, probably the looniest newspaper in Great Britain, “climate crisis researchers worry about the channel’s reach to perpetuate misinformation and advance political goals.” The alarmists actually have more to worry about than that. Their narrative continues to crash into reality.

To start with, how do they explain that three new studies show warming from ​​2001 to 2019 “was driven by increases in absorbed solar radiation, not human emissions”? Sure, the eco-activists will do what they always do: obfuscate, dodge, change the subject, and call out the “science deniers.”

They will do the same when confronted with the news that the last six months were the coldest on record in Antarctica. Just one of those places in a warming world, they say, where it happens to be more frigid than usual. Apparently we’re supposed to forget all that business about the continent, along with the North Pole, being “the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for detection of global warming.”

“As Antarctica holds about 90% of all the ice on the planet, what happens in Antarctica will have major effects on the rest of the world,” Discovering Antarctica, a partnership of organizations that includes the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office, said some years ago.

More recently we were told that “Antarctica is headed for a climate tipping point by 2060, with catastrophic melting if carbon emissions aren’t cut quickly.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-10-18-new-york-times-threatens-senator-manchin-with-witchcraft-if-he-obstructs-democrat-climate-agenda

It’s always been just a little odd that the guy the Democrats most need to get on board to get their big transformational plans enacted is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, while at the same time the centerpiece of those plans is to put the most important industry of West Virginia, coal mining, completely out of business. That sounds like it’s going to be a tough sell. Is there any argument that might convince this guy to get with the program?

In one of the funniest articles I have read anywhere recently, the New York Times thinks that it has come up with the argument that will carry the day: threaten Manchin with witchcraft! The article, covering about half of the front page of yesterday’s print edition, tells Manchin that if he continues to “block” the Democrats’ plans to destroy the coal industry, a spell will be cast over his state and it will be inundated with floods. The headline is “Blocking Climate Plan With Hometown at Risk.”

The Times characterizes Mr. Manchin’s stance thusly:

Mr. Manchin, a Democrat whose vote is crucial to passing his party’s climate legislation, is opposed to its most important provision that would compel utilities to stop burning oil, coal and gas and instead use solar, wind and nuclear energy, which do not emit the carbon dioxide that is heating the planet. Last week, the senator made his opposition clear to the Biden administration, which is now scrambling to come up with alternatives he would accept. Mr. Manchin has rejected any plan to move the country away from fossil fuels because he said it would harm West Virginia, a top producer of coal and gas.

Seems reasonable. Better threaten the guy:

Others say that by blocking efforts to reduce coal and gas use, Mr. Manchin risks hurting his state.

And how exactly would that work? Simple: if Manchin remains intransigent, West Virginia will be destroyed by epic floods.