Alan Carlin: Unilateral US Decarbonization Could Have Serious Economic Consequences

Credit: chicagotribune.com

As the energy policies of various countries sink ever further into the realms of fantasy over the imagined role of minor trace gases in the atmosphere, what will the US do – or not do?

The current unilateral US decarbonization proposals by various Democrats promoting the Green New Deal (GND) climate schemes suffer from two particularly crucial assumptions that they have made, says Alan Carlin.

One is the extremely doubtful assumption that CO2 levels determine temperatures as opposed to temperatures determining CO2 levels. The assumption being made is that it is the atmospheric CO2 level that is the critical determinant of temperatures.

If this is wrong, as I believe it is, any dollar spent on decarbonization will provide no benefits in terms of global temperatures.

Response to Roy Spencer Regarding His Support of Flat Earth

.
.
Readers can comment on this disagreement/misunderstanding/debate here at The Talkshop and/or at Joe Postma’s own website (link below).

Roy Spencer’s post that kicked it off is here.

[UPDATE: follow-up video to the one shown below – here.]

Climate of Sophistry

Roy Spencer published an article today stating that I am incorrectly ranting about the fraud of flat Earth theory making its way into modern physics via climate science.  I analyze his statement and expose that climate science truly is indeed flat Earth theory: it is baked into the mathematics!

View original post

CO2 Exonerated

.
.
Man-made climate alarm? No – nothing to see, move along please.

Science Matters

Vijay Jayaraj makes the case for carbon emissions in relation to the question: Will My Carbon Footprint Benefit or Harm the Environment? May 28, 2019 at Cornwall Alliance. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images. (Follow the title link to the article for many supporting reference links)

My cousin in California is excited about buying a Tesla. “It is environmentally friendly” he says. Maybe you agree. My friends in India, too, are excited about buying electric cars. They think doing so will help them prevent global warming.

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

Almost every environmental policy now makes reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the only way to “go green.” Advocates have even persuaded school children to strike against fossil fuels.

But as a climate scientist, I’ve researched the pros and cons of CO2. What have I found? That our CO2 emissions will actually benefit the planet, not harm…

View original post 567 more words

Feel Free To Exhale

.
.
Once more: CO2 is not a pollutant.

PA Pundits - International

By Craig Rucker ~

Global warming campaigners aren’t very good at being green.

There’s their bird and bat chopping wind turbines, lifeless fields covered over by solar panel silicone, and generating electricity by grinding trees into pellets and burning them as “renewable” biomass.

Then there’s their demonization of CO2, the gas you just exhaled.

CO2 is the gas of life.  Plants are green because they use chlorophyll to convert CO2 and water into glucose and oxygen.  That’s where food comes from.

CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen posted a thoughtful meditation on the benefits of CO2 at CFACT.org:

What if manmade CO2 isn’t the villain deep-thinking elites say it is? What if rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are instead fighting the scourge of malnutrition in the world’s poorest regions? A new White Paper, “What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security,” published by the CO2 Coalition points out that…

View original post 192 more words

Alan Carlin: The weird reality of world climate policy

Maybe one day enough people will discover that, as the author says: ‘The major effect of decarbonization is higher energy costs and lower reliability of energy supplies, particularly electricity.’ Buying a climate is not a realistic or sensible notion.

Climate policies vary greatly by country says Alan Carlin.

For convenience I will characterize a move towards greater government-imposed “decarbonization” as a move to the left; and I will call less such decarbonization or fewer climate government regulations or fewer market-distorting subsidies to be a move towards the right.

The current optimal climate policy is to take no current actions unless and until it is clearly shown that adverse changes in global temperatures are occurring and it is worthwhile in terms of benefits and costs to take effective actions to reduce global temperatures.

Since this has never been shown, no action is justified until it is.

Carbon Is Not A Synonym For Carbon Dioxide

.
.
As the author says: Deceit is the name of the game. To further the aims of propagandists with a political agenda, the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide gets branded as ‘pollution’ despite being essential and beneficial to plants, trees etc.

PA Pundits - International

By Dr. Jay Lehr ~

From the very day that Al Gore signed his name to the well known book, An Inconvenient Truth, the general population was told that carbon emissions were going to destroy our planet. Gore, more or less, coined the term “carbon footprint” (while always hiding the enormity of his own footprint). Gore and his cohorts were never actually talking about carbon. They were talking about carbon dioxide.

Initially they understood that most people recognize that they exhale carbon dioxide and plants absorb it in order to live. Not a dark thought. So in a universally evil desire to scare the populace, they seized on using the term carbon as a synonym for carbon dioxide knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust none of which were warm and fuzzy. Carbon is a solid. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas…

View original post 361 more words

Big Green, Inc. : The money fuelling the environmental left

H/T The GWPF.
A database listing $4.2 billion worth of grants represents a small fraction of the total financial investment and is just the tip of the iceberg, says the Institute for Energy Research.

Today’s environmental movement is fueled by a group of interconnected, left-leaning foundations that are seeking to disrupt the development of America’s energy resources.

In order to understand how these groups work together and where the environmental movement’s funding originates, IER developed Big Green, Inc., a database that tracks environmental grants stemming from 14 foundations and directed to over 1,900 grassroots activists groups and totaling more than $4.2 billion.

Our key findings include:

Attenborough to present ‘Climate Change – The facts’ on BBC TV next week

Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy

Project climate fear goes into overdrive on the BBC. The fact is, there isn’t a known way to measure how much – if at all – any changes in climate might be due to human-caused emissions of trace gases into the atmosphere. This is sometimes called the attribution problem – assuming there is a problem. Brace for another attempt to put lipstick on the ‘man-made global warming’ pig, as warmists state their case with little or no right of reply for dissenters, as per BBC non-impartial climate policy.

The BBC is finally putting global warming in TV’s spotlight in an hour-long film, but is it too little, too late from the corporation? – asks New Scientist.

The involvement of this influential star on BBC1, the corporation’s biggest channel, in a prime 9 pm slot has raised expectations that the film could significantly shift attitudes and spur action. Perhaps it could do for climate change what 2017’s Blue Planet II did for plastics.

Climate Forecasting: The Big Gap – by The GWPF

Some might not agree with the claim here that ‘The basics of climate change are well known’, but the author spotlights the shortcomings of climate models that almost invariably over-predict warming that fails to occur – which strongly suggests a faulty basis for understanding climate patterns. Even the newest model shows signs of repeating these long-known errors.

There is a gap in climate predictions, says Dr. David Whitehouse.

It is between the annual and decadal.

I was once told by a very eminent climate scientist that he didn’t care what the observations of the real world were, he believed in models, and only models, and they were enough to work out what is going on.

But I wonder?

Why climate predictions are so difficult

.
.
So climate sensitivity… is likely somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. This result has not changed until today, about 40 years later. And that’s exactly the problem.
– – –
Maybe the problem lies in thinking that that is the problem.

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

An insightful interview with Bjorn Stevens.

View original post 1,104 more words

It’s about time to review the evidence for man-made global warming

Scales of Justice
[image credit: Wikipedia]

Unless there are accepted ways of testing for attribution of climate effects (e.g. human-caused, natural variability or a measureable mixture), who can be sure they know the truth? Reliance on climate models, known to be strongly biased towards levels of warming that are not observed, can’t be the way forward.

Some seem to think man-made global warming is proven. Others believe there’s no evidence for it.

Neither is correct, argues John McLean at American Thinker.

Evidence exists, but, as people familiar with courts of law will know, what’s submitted as evidence is not automatically proof.

Learning a Bit about CO2 and Mass Hysteria

.
.
Prof. William Happer discusses climate matters with an interviewer in this video.

American Elephants

William Happer is one of our most renowned  and esteemed physicists, a professor emeritus from Princeton University. He decidedly does not agree with the current panic about the horrors of “climate change.”He says, and explains why CO², carbon dioxide, doesn’t have much of anything to do with warming, and we really need more of it — not less. CO² is food for plants. The slight increase we have had is greening the earth. You can see it from space.

This conversation with Dr. Happer is completely fascinating and worth your time. Share it with your kids and friends and family.

You have surely heard the current crop of Democrat candidates hoping to run for the presidency against Donald Trump, speaking out on the notion that they will work to save us from the horrors of climate change and only disagreeing on how long we have left before it is all…

View original post 111 more words

Henrik Svensmark: FORCE MAJEURE The Sun’s Role in Climate Change

.
.
The author writes in his 40-page document: ‘This report is not meant to be an exhaustive representation of all the published papers related to a solar influence on Earth’s climate, but aims to give a clear presentation of the current knowledge on the link between solar activity and climate.’

Where does cosmic ray variation fit into the ‘big picture’ of solar influences on the Earth?

The Next Grand Minimum

I am still studying this paper but wanted to share and get your feedback

Executive Summary

Over the last twenty years there has been good progress in understanding the solar influ- ence on climate. In particular, many scientific studies have shown that changes in solar activ- ity have impacted climate over the whole Holocene period (approximately the last 10,000 years). A well-known example is the existence of high solar activity during the Medieval Warm Period, around the year 1000 AD, and the subsequent low levels of solar activity during the cold period, now called The Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD). An important scientific task has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that over the eleven- year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth’s system is of the order of 1.0–1.5 W/m2. This is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what would be…

View original post 218 more words

Climate Crisis? Four Major Metrics That Say Otherwise

Credit: planetsave.com

Joe Bastardi argues that loud claims of a climate about to spin out of control are out of tune with various actual observations.

I have long advocated that climatologists take a course on long-range forecasting so they can better understand the inherent errors in trying to predict the weather or climate, says Joe Bastardi at Patriot Post.

In the debate over the fate of the planet, where one side is always pushing hysteria, the weather is plainly not cooperating with the missive.

Forecasters take climatology classes and are now being taught the one-sided climate narrative, but in general, climatologists do not have to learn how to forecast.

What are the opponents of Donald Trump’s climate review committee afraid of?

Credit: nationalreview.com

Dr Roy Spencer tries to strike a note of sanity amidst the latest bout of doom-laden climate hysteria doing the rounds via cynical manipulation of the minds of school kids. What is accelerating is the bluster of alarmists, who lack credible empirical evidence of ‘human-caused’ as opposed to natural climate variation.

On March 5, 58 senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel to take a critical look at the science underpinning climate change claims.

Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the “science is settled”, writes Roy Spencer in The Washington Times.

But if the science is settled, what are they afraid of? Wouldn’t a review of the science come to the same conclusion as the supposed consensus of climate scientists?

Leading climate researcher calls for ban on domestic flights in Germany to save emissions

Image credit: emeraldmedia.co.uk

How about a ban on endless international climate conferences that lead to hundreds of flights – including many long-haul – but produce little of value, ‘to save emissions’? In fact the ’20 flights in a lifetime’ proposed here would probably have that effect anyway. The report ends with an apparent claim that particulates in the air are a ‘climate problem’.

Leading German climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber has called for a substantial shift in strategy for the tourism industry to make sure that its carbon footprint does not contribute to the sector’s possible demise.

“Tourism bites the hand that feeds it if it contributes to climate change,” the former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) said at the ITB international tourism fair in Berlin.

If beaches around the world are flooded due to a global rise in temperature of 4 or 5 degrees Celsius, “there will be no more beach tourism,” Schellnhuber said.

The sun is quieter than normal, but don’t panic – says CBC News

Quiet sun [image credit: NASA]

In which we are informed that the Maunder Minimum was ‘an incident’, warming is due to ‘climate change’, and solar cycle 25 may not start until 2020.

Some fear that we could be heading to another Little Ice Age, but scientists say that’s unlikely, reports CBC News.

The sun is quiet … very quiet. In February, for the first time since August 2008, the sun went an entire month without any sunspots.

What does this mean for Earth?

Perspective Needed in Climate Debate

.
.
Unfortunately the IPCC shows little interest in perspective, preferring to trumpet absurd 8.5°C warming scenarios.

PA Pundits - International

Joe Bastardi  ~   

 

I went to school with a lot of great forecasters. One of them was Scott Chesner, who is an on-air meteorologist in Tyler, Texas. Scott tweeted something this week that I thought was quite profound regarding the current generation’s “consensus” on climate:

“One problem with global warming hysteria is ‘perspective.’ The warmer global temps of recent yrs. are relatively meaningless as we only have detailed records for~200 yrs. out of the Earth’s age of 4.5 billion yrs. That=30 sec. out of a person’s 80 yr. life!”

As you know, I am a big satellite-era proponent as far as temperatures are concerned. We have simply seen too much adjustment to older temperature records, and that has to at least raise questions. In almost every single case, temperatures are adjusted down in years before the satellite era.

This has some merit, given most errors on thermometers…

View original post 953 more words

As Energy Prices Rise Sharply, Dutch Turn Climate Sceptical

The conclusion here might be that those with their ears (or noses?) to the ground smell a rat, while those with their heads in the clouds see nothing wrong. Or is it mainly the cost factor?

The number of Dutch people who are worried about climate change decreased significantly over the past months, says The GWPF.

While the group who thinks that addressing greenhouse gas emissions is going too far is growing since the government announced their climate plans, according to a survey by Peter Kanne of I&O Research, AD reports.

Climate scare never about honest science reporting

The climate propaganda game goes on daily, ignoring any inconvenient realities.

The media communicates transparently false and provocatively sensationalized climate claims without vetting them, accuses Larry Bell @ CFACT.

Numbers of my exceedingly well-informed friends — including highly distinguished current and former faculty at prominent universities — lament transparently false and provocatively sensationalized climate-related media claims.

They wonder, for example, why major print and broadcast reports fail to note that, other than two El Niños (which have nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases), no statistically significant global warming has occurred since the time most of today’s college sophomore students were born.