The Power of Terrible Ideas

 American Thinker

The notion that our planet is in imminent danger of becoming uninhabitable because of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is more recent, dating to the late 1980s.  In The Age of Global Warming Rupert Darwall also traces Its roots to two men, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who, in 1896, wrote a paper predicting that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase temperatures by 5 to 6 degrees centigrade, and Guy Callendar, who, over forty years later attributed a global temperature rise from 1934 to 1938 to a rise in C02.  Unlike Szasz or Laing, neither have been celebrated in global warming circles, probably because, as Darwall writes, both men thought rising C02 levels were a happy development, contributing to plant growth and staving off a rapid return to an ice age and “deadly glaciers.”   ......No one points up the absurdity of the entire enterprise as well as MIT emeritus professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen.  “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21^st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

The Strategic Threat from Net-zero Emissions

 American Thinker

In any event, net-zero emissions are unnecessary. Climatologists perpetrated a grave error of physics in 1984 when they borrowed feedback method from control theory in engineering physics without understanding it. They forgot the Sun was shining. They added the large solar feedback response to, and miscounted it as part of, the actually minuscule feedback response to the small direct warming by greenhouse gases. Thus, they overstated CO₂-driven warming fourfold. After correction, global warming will continue to be, as it has long been, small, slow, harmless, and net-beneficial. Not a cent need or should be spent on attempts – futile in any event – to abate it.

Had it not been for the West’s capitulation to Communist propagandists paid by Russia and China to peddle the official global warming narrative and profiteering by the ineffable strategic immaturity, scientific illiteracy and economic innumeracy of our current generation of politicians, trembling in fear of being unpersoned, the West would never have given Putin the means to rebuild his forces. But it is we who elect the politicians. Irresponsibly, we chose a close-to-Communist administration led by a fumbling geriatric in the United States and an etiolated, clapped-out, effete, no-longer-Conservative administration led by a notorious and all-too-exploitable sexual incontinent in Britain."

 

The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles

 American Thinker

America may be headed for a new type of energy crisis. While fracking technology still gives us relative energy independence, there is a distinct possibility that an electricity energy crisis awaits us. What if the demand for electricity significantly exceeds the supply over the next decade? We’d have soaring prices and rolling brownouts. That crisis could easily be triggered by the electric vehicles (EVs) Biden’s administration is pushing.

By his Executive Order and an associated Action Plan, Biden’s administration calls for 50% of all new vehicles sold in America by 2030 to be EVs. That means an additional 50 million new EVs on the road in the next nine years, all in an effort to lower Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, namely CO2. .....

Here’s the bottom line: There isn’t nearly enough electrical power available or in the pipeline to fuel 50 million new EVs by 2030. That would require an additional 150 billion kWh’s per year of deliverable electricity. Even the largest power plants only deliver about 8 billion kWh’s per year.

To achieve the administration’s climate change policy goals for EVs, America must build and commission about 20 large new fossil fuel-powered plants or several dozen large new wind and solar farms. That’s impossible by 2030 because large power plants take years to plan, build and bring online. Which means 2030 will either collapse the energy grid or result in a lot of cars that won’t go."

 

An Obama photograph proves the lies of ‘climate change’ and COVID

 American Thinker

 

The cult of Climate Change tells us that, unless we abandon all fossil fuels, the oceans will rise and every coastal community will be destroyed. When Obama bought his coastal Martha’s Vineyard house it was pretty clear that he didn’t believe a word of this narrative. This was rather peculiar considering the vast amounts of taxpayer money he funneled to green energy initiatives as part of the 2009 “stimulus” spending following the recession.

Heck, going back further, that first beachfront purchase was even more peculiar when you consider the speech Obama gave when accepting the Democrat party nomination in 2008:"

The Great Climate Rip-Off

 American Thinker

Is the climate changing?  Yes.  Is mankind contributing to the change in climate?  Yes.  Should major national policy respond to this change?  No!

Climate changes continuously, both warming and cooling.  There is nothing new in this and probably nothing to get excited about.  Man inevitably modifies the climate.  The only questions are by how much and in which way.  Historically, man has modified the landscape sufficiently as to make a noticeable impact on the climate.  The essential question we must address is, how much are we, today, impacting the climate, and is that impact harmful?

The answer is we don't know!  My suspicion is that we have had only a modest, and probably benign, influence. 

Given that we don't know, it is seriously bad policy to imperil our future in an attempt to control the climate.  It also smacks of hubris to believe we have that much control over Mother Nature."

 

Stanford Professor’s Plan to Save the World

 American Thinker

The goal of 100% elimination of CO2 emissions makes no sense, not even for true believers in global warming. About half of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels is reabsorbed by the Earth. To stop increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions is enough.

Climate change a.k.a. global warming is junk science. But because it is a treasure chest for academics and political activists, it is promoted as sound science.   .....Advocating impractical, radical solutions for imaginary problems is not necessarily a negative for career success. Mark Jacobson not only has a new house and two Tesla cars, he is director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy program. He travels and grants interviews. He is featured in many YouTube videos."

 

The Profound Junk Science of Climate

 American Thinker

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.   .......Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists.  Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented?"

Arctic sea ice refuses to melt…there’s more ice today in some Arctic regions than 100 years ago.

 NoTricksZone

Diving deep into the newspaper archives, Tony also discovered old articles dating 100 years ago and noted in his post last month that the Arctic back then had been warming rapidly and the area of Svalbard had even been ice free.

“But there is lots of ice around Svalbard now,” Tony shows:   ......

Unfortunately Twitter has stopped Tony from presenting these embarrassing facts and deleted his account. But you can follow him at: https://gab.com/TonyHeller

When you only listen to the media, then you’ll wind wind up worrying about climate change. But when you look at the historical record and facts and compare them to today, then you’ll see things are pretty normal."

 

Tyranny in the Name of Climate Change

 American Thinker

The problem with Mittiga’s paper is that he doesn’t offer up a single reference or shred of evidence that a “climate crisis” actually exists. It appears he simply assumes it to be fact-based on the frequency of political discussions that have embraced the term for several years.

If a “climate crisis” actually existed, there would be human impact data to support the claim. Yet, Mittiga cites no such evidence.   ........If the global “climate crisis” was causing public safety to suffer, we’d surely see an increase in global deaths related to supposed climate-driven events. To determine if this is true, we turn to data collected by the most trusted global database on events that create mortality, the International Disaster Database.   .......

 

The New Climate of Panic Among the Panic-Mongers

 American Thinker

A new climate panic is gripping the far-Left profiteers of doom. Those few of Them who are climate scientists have made fame and fortune by telling us the world is toast unless the once-free West (though responsible for only a fifth of the world’s sins of emission) commits economic hara-kiri. The cost of placating climate Communism is already in the quadrillions.....

Joe Biden vs. the Tornados

 American Thinker

Speaking in Wilmington, Delaware on Saturday, President Joe Biden blamed the recent deadly tornado outbreak in Kentucky on “climate change.” Biden stated, “The fact is we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming and obviously it has some impact here.”  

Biden’s statement is laughably inept and easily disproved. All one has to do is look past the opinions, pronouncements, and hand waving and concentrate on what science and data actually say about the issues.

First, the top five deadliest tornadoes in America all occurred between 1840 and 1936. The Great Natchez Tornado on May 7, 1840, killed 317 people and was the second-deadliest tornado in U.S. history. The deadliest was the March 18, 1925, Tri-State Tornado, which was also the longest-tracked tornado in U.S. history. The massive F5 tornado traveled 219 mi (352 km) across Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, killing 695 people. 

Second, the last half of the 65-year U.S. tornado record had 40 percent fewer strong-to-violent tornadoes (EF3 rated or greater) than the first half. To claim that climate change is causing severe tornadoes is speculation, and directly opposite data publicly available from the National Weather Service (NWS).

Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville points out, “To claim that global warming is causing more tornadoes is worse than speculative; it is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.”

 

Trillions for 1.5 degree Celsius

 American Thinker

 "How on Earth do people agree to have weather taxed? 

A Millennial once asked how anyone could be against climate change because it isn't even political.  He had a point; climate change is weather.  But if a political party finds an avenue to tax weather, it becomes political.

.....The money is not the most evil plot of the climate change schemers.  Also on the website is the goal of phasing out fossil fuels.  The organic, straight from the ground coal, oil, and gas that provide us with life-sustaining energy, are the only things saving many from freezing to death.  The Millennials will soon understand what they have wrought on our lives in the name of saving the Earth.  And they will learn why many of us never supported "climate change."  It was always political and always about the money. "

IPCC Climate Models Keep Failing Because They Don’t Respect Physics

 Daily Sceptic

It may come as a surprise to some that “The Science”, as expounded in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers that inform conference participants, is not uncritically accepted by all scientists in the field, and that widely different views are held by a substantial cadre of experienced and eminent researchers. Moreover, a multitude of peer-reviewed papers contradict many aspects of the IPCC’s alarmist narrative. Furthermore, a coherent theory about the impact of changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is starting to emerge, one that is built up from the underlying physics, rather than extracted from fanciful computer simulations. My aim here is to highlight some of the relevant papers and to inform any motivated layman who wishes to explore outside the dogmatic strictures of the mainstream narrative."

COP26 Ends In Humiliating Failure

WUWT 

.....One further blow to those demanding western money has been the neutering of their Loss and Damage agenda. This is the ludicrous claim that all weather disasters are due to global warming, and that rich countries should therefore pay poor ones every time there is a bit of bad weather.

That was too much for even Joe Biden to accept, as it would leave the West on the hook for ever. The Glasgow Pact has effectively kicked this into touch, just promising more talks at some time in the future...

The end of the road.

In my view, we have seen the beginning of the end for the UN’s climate agenda.

There will no doubt be many more COPs to come. And there will be annual warnings from Prince Charles that we have 12 more months to save the planet.

But the writing is now on the wall. Developing countries around the world are standing up and refusing to cut back on fossil fuels, because they know they have no alternative if they want to grown their economies and give their people a better life.

They have got off the Climate Train.

So should we.

 

Early Arctic Freeze Threatens to Strand Ships.

WUWT 

Two icebreakers are on the way to rescue ice-locked ships on Northern Sea Route

Some 20 ships are either stuck or struggling to sail, as waters in the East Siberia Sea froze earlier than in recent years

.By Atle Staalesen, The Independent Barents Observer -November 10, 202178