A conversation … or a lecture?

poorWe must “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home,” Pope Francis recently told the US Congress, frequently quoting from his Laudato Si encyclical. “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge … and its human roots concern and affect us all.”

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the pontiff seems more interested in a lecture than a conversation on climate change, energy and economic development, and improving the lives of Earth’s poorest families.

The pope’s advisors believe humans are destroying our planet and dangerously changing its climate. Instead of seeking dialogue with those who disagree with them, they denounce and try to silence contrarian voices. They dominated the Vatican’s April 2015 summit, while experts who question claims that climate change is manmade or dangerous were not invited or permitted to speak, or even ask questions during the summit; nor was their input considered during the encyclical’s preparation.

Many of those advisors (Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Schellnhuber, Peter Wadhams, Naomi Oreskes and others) hold views that can best be described as extreme: on energy use, climate change, population control, and how much poor nations should be “permitted” to develop. They are deeply involved in and profit greatly from a $1.5-trillion government-funded climate crisis industry that owes its continued existence to perpetuating the manmade global warming narrative and silencing those they vilify as “climate deniers.”  

They have little knowledge of the enormous complexities of Earth’s climate system ‚Äì and little concern about the impacts their policy prescriptions have on US or EU working classes, or Third World poor. Those people may be protected against climate risks created by computer models; but their livelihoods, living standards, upward mobility, health and welfare are gravely impaired by policies imposed in the name of preventing climate and weather events that are no different, more frequent or more extreme than those which have affected and afflicted humans throughout our presence on this miraculous planet.

Yet, an official document issued by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences after the climate summit declared that “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality,” its “decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity,” and we now have the knowledge, technological ability and financial means to prevent manmade climate change. The document’s title demands “transformative solutions.”

The Laudato Si (“Praise Be to You”) encyclical continues in a similar vein. The Earth “is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth,” it declares. “Thousands of species are being lost” every year. “If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.”

Right after calling for a conversation, Pope Francis told Congress, “Now is the time for courageous actions,” to “avert the most serious effect of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.”

None of these statements ‚Äì nor proclamations and decrees from the White House and EPA ‚Äì suggests that any of these church leaders, climate activists or government officials want anything remotely resembling a conversation. Furthermore, history and reality flatly contradict their assertions about climate disasters.  

Coal, oil and natural gas began replacing wood, whale oil, water wheels, horses and human labor less than two centuries ago. Since then, billions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty, terminal disease, borderline starvation and early death. Average global life expectancy has soared from barely 30 (48 in the richest nations) in 1900 – to 71 today. American welfare families now live better than kings did in 1900.

Over just the last 25 years, again thanks mostly to carbon-based fuels, almost 1.5 billion people finally received the incredible blessings of electricity. And yet, 1.3 billion (equal to the United States, Canada, Mexico and Europe) still rely entirely on wood, charcoal and animal dung for heating and cooking. Every year, 4-6 million of them (mostly women and young children) die from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.

Climate activists nevertheless continue to campaign against coal and gas-fueled power plants in energy-deprived Africa and Asia – while other environmentalists rail against hydroelectric and nuclear power, against GMO crops that would survive droughts and feed millions, and against pesticides and the spatial mosquito repellant DDT that could eradicate malaria, slash poverty rates and save millions of lives.

Radio host Thom Hartmann told me 1.5 million Syrian refugees were heading to Europe because of a drought resulting from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. He went into high decibel mode when I said his claim was absurd ‚Äì that they were fleeing genocidal ISIS butchers who are cutting off children’s heads.

In Britain, 1,700 workers are about to lose their jobs at the Redcar steel plant, along with 4,000 supply chain workers and contractors and many more people in communities that relied on those jobs ‚Äì because climate concerns force factories to pay a ¬£8 ($12) surcharge on their electricity bills for every ton of steel produced. In the USA, EPA’s climate, ozone, water and other regulations are already costing thousands of jobs, and impairing the welfare of numerous families, for marginal or delusional health and climate benefits.

This is not “preferential treatment for the poor.” It is war on women, children, workers and the poor. It protects people against dangers that exist only in climate change computer models and press releases ‚Äì while eliminating jobs, sending families to welfare lines, and perpetuating energy deprivation, disease and malnutrition that kill millions of people every year.

Coal-fired power plants certainly pollute Chinese and Indian cities. But they produce critically needed electricity and greatly improve living standards. Readily available emission control technologies will be added when their citizens demand it and growing economies make the systems more affordable.

These hard realities make climate change a critical moral and social justice issue. So it seems fair to ask why Pope Francis appears unwilling to have a real conversation about these human rights issues – and about the most fundamental issue of all: whether humans are actually causing a climate crisis.

Weather experts cannot provide accurate forecasts seven weeks or even seven days in advance. Predicting the number of hurricanes before the season begins, or even in the midst of a season, is a hugely daunting task. Even as its intensity began to build, and even as the storm began pounding the Bahamas, specialists could not project Hurricane Joaquin’s ultimate force, trajectory or possible US landfall. Why would we trust models that assume carbon dioxide causes of climate change and ignore numerous natural forces?

And why do we believe assertions that hurricanes and other storms will increase in number, intensity and duration because of CO2? Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, and yet this year marks the first time since 1914 that no hurricanes formed anywhere in the Western Atlantic, Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico through September 22. And as of October 4, it has been 517 weeks since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the continental United States. That’s a record dating back at least to 1900.

There is likewise no evidence that a single species has disappeared because of manmade climate change.

Finally, Pope Francis also decries “material greed” and worries about our “na√Øve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power,” under the “prevailing [capitalist] economic system.” In so doing, he fails to address the political greed that drives many politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists. He seems to trust in the goodness of those who wield immense political power over what we think, say and do … and over the livelihoods, living standards and very lives of millions and billions of people ‚Äì too often with little or no accountability for the consequences of their decisions.

So absolutely, let us have a real, open, robust conversation about these issues. And let us include everyone in it, because the energy, environmental and human rights challenges concern and affect us all.


­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Continue Reading 4 Comments

Bank of England Governor Under Fire Over Over Climate Alarmism

carneyBank of England boss Mark Carney was under fire last night after warning that climate change could trigger a financial crisis. Critics said the Governor’s ‘alarmist’ comments went outside his remit and accused him of ‘politicising’ the job. The banker, whose wife Diana is a prominent green campaigner, described global warming as ‘the tragedy on the horizon’ for the world economy. Critics dismissed his views, with the Financial Times saying Mr Carney’s intervention ‘comes dangerously close to taking sides’. –Hugo Duncan, Daily Mail, 2 October 2015

The future is closer than you think. This planet could become a stranded asset once the Martian microbes of doom reach us. This is a serious matter. Britain’s small businesses will find it far harder to sell their goods and services once the cosmos is ruled by Martians reaching us from our next-door neighbour in the solar system. The insurance industry is far from prepared for that eventuality. This is a macroprudential issue if ever I saw one. ‚ÄìMystic Mark Carney, Financial Times, 1 October 2015

Wading into the climate change debate, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, has signalled that there is almost no area of public discourse that can be considered off limits. What next? The war in Syria? Come to think of it, why not put the Bank of England in charge of everything? There was something faintly reckless and naive about the Governor’s intervention. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole of modernity is based on hydrocarbons. Without coal, oil and gas, we’d still be in an age of limited life expectancy, subsistence farming and riding to market on horse and cart. However much we might wish it, this dependence is not going to change for a long time to come. Mr Carney’s intervention was no doubt well meaning, but he should stick to the day job. –Jeremy Warner, The Daily Telegraph, 1 October 2015

The International Energy Agency, which is the most highly regarded forecaster in this sector, forecast that over the next 25 years fossil fuel demand ‚Äì so far from collapsing ‚Äì is likely to increase. That’s their central forecast. So, the first question is what does the Bank of England know that the International Energy Agency doesn’t know about the energy sector? The other is, although the economy is now doing very much better, there are a whole lot of remaining problems in the financial sector. Wouldn’t it be better if you focused your attention on those instead of engaging in green claptrap? ‚ÄìNigel Lawson questions Mark Carney, House of Lords 10 March 2015

India on Thursday submitted its ‘climate action plan’ to a UN body at Bonn in Germany, telling the world that the country would fight the climate change by taking energy efficiency route and reducing its ’emission intensity’ (carbon emission per unit of GDP) substantially as well as increasing the share of clean energy by huge 40% in its total energy mix by the year 2030. The country, however, clarified that “India’s INDC do not bind it to any sector specific mitigation obligation or action, including in agriculture sector. The successful implementation of INDC is contingent upon an ambitious global agreement including additional means of implementation to be provided by developed country parties, technology transfer and capacity building”. –Vishwa Mohan, Times of India, 2 October 2015

Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to Dr. Jagadish Shukla, a professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University who founded the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES). Chairman Smith: “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.” In light of the non-profit’s decision to remove the controversial letter from its website, Smith directs IGES to preserve “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009, that can be reasonably anticipated to be subject to a request for production by the Committee.” —Space Ref, 1 October 2015 

Continue Reading 11 Comments

WATCH “GasHoax”: NEW short film by Phelim McAleer debunks anti-fracking lies

(h/t amirlach) GasHoax is a new short film by Phelim McAleer (FrackNation, Gosnell) that takes on one of the leaders of the anti-fracking movement. WATCH it here:

{youtube}ZGlTs55ywZg{/youtube}

It’s a response to another documentary — Josh Fox’s second anti-fracking movie Gasworks — that’s being released today as well.

McAleer’s new short film highlights how many of Fox’s claims about fracking have already been proven false — and it criticizes journalists for continuing to report them despite the inaccuracies in Fox’s previous documentary, Gasland.

Source

Continue Reading 10 Comments

New Obama EPA Air Standards Put 4 Million Jobs At Risk

ginaEPA Chief McCarthyThe old saying that liberals love jobs but hate employers is borne out as President Obama implements new air standards. Industry will bear the brunt, but consumers and blue-collar workers will feel a pinch, too.

A study sponsored by NERA Economic Consulting, a nonpartisan research group, found that about 4 million jobs would be jeopardized by the new rules over the next 25 years — equal to putting every worker in Ohio out of work.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates GDP losses would be $140 billion a year lower through 2040.

This is madness. The growth rate is already too low to create the jobs needed and pay raises Americans want. This plan would drive GDP growth now at a measly 2% to 1.3%, close to recession territory.

More than 200 major business groups have pleaded with Obama to stop, or at least delay, the new rules until the economy is sturdier. Makes sense, but Obama scoffed at them and sided with his radical green friends.

These hefty costs might be justified if they were going to significantly improve air quality and enhance Americans’ health. But the ozone is already heavily regulated.

The current standard for ground-level ozone is set at 75 parts per billion — among the world’s most stringent; the new rules call for 65-70 parts per billion. If states don’t comply with the EPA dictates, they lose federal highway dollars that belong to them in the first place.

And for what? Air quality in America has vastly improved. Since 1980, air pollutants have fallen by 62% and ozone emissions by a third. EPA needs to learn the law of diminishing returns — that further reductions in emissions get extremely expensive for tiny social gains.

There’s a hidden agenda here that Obama and his EPA won’t admit. This isn’t about cleaning the air we breathe; it’s another knife in the back of energy producers by adding dramatically to the cost of oil, gas, coal and electricity in order to force “green” energy alternatives on the economy.

Obama told us his energy policies would “necessarily” raise electricity and gasoline prices, and he’s delivering on that promise. But wasn’t green energy supposed to create jobs, not destroy them by the millions?

This is the third in a trifecta of hypercostly regulation imposed on our energy producers in just three months. The first was aimed at coal plants and the second at natural gas production. The Obama left just doesn’t stop.

Let’s hope voters remember this when Democrats pontificate about how much they care about America’s working class, how they want higher wages and how outraged they are that U.S. companies are outsourcing jobs to China, India and Mexico.

The way this president’s going, we won’t have any industry left when he vacates the White House.

Source

Continue Reading 5 Comments

The ‘Entire’ Atlantic Ocean is Cooling, contrary to media reports

Figure 1.) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly maps that illustrate recent Atlantic Ocean cooling.

Figure 1. Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly maps that illustrate recent Atlantic Ocean cooling.

Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling.

That’s a problem.

These variances in temperature trends are not fitting previous climate model predictions and talking points released to the media. To counter this problem and almost, as predictably as rain in springtime, climate scientists favoring the theory of man-made global warming are flooding the media with new, and this time supposedly very reliable, explanations that are generated from their latest super-computer climate models. Their explanations, or better yet, their rationalizations for two of the three fluid temperature trends, Pacific Ocean warming and the atmospheric warming “pause”, have been discussed in previous CCD posts.

Continue Reading 147 Comments

New Global Cooling Process Discovered As Paris Climate Deal Looms

tropos1As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn’t as much urgency about the matter as had been thought. A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea ‚Äì a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it. The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assimilate. –Lewis Page, The Register, 30 September 2015

Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory. Though the cooling effects of isoprene are well known, what is new is the discovery that the oceans are producing much more of it than has been accounted for in the alarmists’ climate models. Climate skeptics have, of course, long argued that the models used by alarmists to predict future climate change are fatally flawed because they exaggerate the influence of man-made carbon dioxide and fail to take into account other unknown or ill-understood factors. “Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a [complex] system ‚Äì and that they should never have been trusted in the first place,” says Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. –James Delingpole, Breitbart London, 1 October 2015

The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models. —Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, 30 September 2015

For years, scientists and activists have predicted the Arctic would be ice-free during the summers and winter sea ice levels would continue to decline. But what they didn’t count on was sea ice remaining too thick for ships to regularly travel through. The first-ever study measuring sea ice thickness in the Northwest Passage has found Arctic sea ice is still too thick for ships to safely travel through it year-round. Scientists found that “even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 30 September 2015

The Conservative British government response to the climate crisis in the lead up to the Paris Summit is to argue in public that it’s the market that should lead the changes required. The government’s attitude, as expressed in a number of recent much criticised attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency is emboldening climate sceptics in the country such as Benny Peiser, who runs the cunningly named Global Warming Policy Foundation, and who issued a statement this week calling for energy-intensive industries such as iron and steel to be relieved of carbon taxes. This is an effort by him to influence the new consultation. –David Thorpe, The Fifth Estate, 1 October 2015

Continue Reading 32 Comments

Global Cooling Discovery May Scupper Paris Climate Talks

climate debt1Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory.

According to a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), the oceans are producing unexpectedly large quantities of isoprene ‚Äì a volatile organic compound (VOC) ‚Äì which is known to have a cooling effect on climate.

Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

The oceans not only take up heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are also sources of various gaseous compounds, thereby affecting the global climate. A key role is played by the so-called surface microlayer (SML),  especially at low wind speed. In these few micrometers thin layer different organic substances such as dissolved organic matter, fat and amino acids, proteins, lipids are accumulating as well as trace metals, dust and microorganisms.

Though the cooling effects of isoprene are well known, what is new is the discovery that the oceans are producing much more of it than has been accounted for in the alarmists’ climate models. (H/T Lewis Page; The Register)

The computer models assume that the total quantity of isoprene produced by trees, plants and plankton amounts to 1.9 megatons per year. But what researchers have discovered is a process whereby isoprene is also produced in far greater quantities abiotically (ie not from plant or animal life) from the action of sunlight on chemicals in the ocean, possibly as much as 3.5 megatons more per year.

“We were able for the first time trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor  to abiotic sources, so far  global calculations consider only biological sources,” explains Dr. Christian George from IRCELYON.

Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are  emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year. But the team of Lyon and Leipzig estimates that the newly discovered photochemical pathway alone contribute 0.2 to 3.5 megatons per year additionally and could explain the recent disagreements. “The existence of the organic films at the ocean surface due to biological activities therefore influences the exchange processes between air and sea in a unexpected strong way. The photochemical processes at this interface could be a very significant source of isoprene”, summarizes Prof. Hartmut Herrmann from TROPOS.

Climate skeptics have, of course, long argued that the models used by alarmists to predict future climate change are fatally flawed because they exaggerate the influence of man-made carbon dioxide and fail to take into account other unknown or ill-understood factors.

This discovery presents further proof that the skeptics are right: the reason that all that predicted “global warming” has failed to materialize is that it has been countered by the planet’s natural cooling effects.

“Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a chaotic system ‚Äì and that they should never have been trusted in the first place,” says Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The news could scarcely have come at a worse time for the global climate alarmist community which has been ramping up the scaremongering message in the run up to the latest round of UN climate talks in Paris this December.

Everyone from the Pope to the Prince of Wales to the Governor of the Bank of England has been roped into pushing the UN’s alarmist agenda.

What this new study shows is that in the unlikely event of any agreement being reached on “climate change” by world leaders in Paris, it will do so in defiance of “the Science” and not because of it.

Source

Continue Reading 3 Comments

Britain Under Pressure To Scrap Green Taxes As Steel Plant Closure Sparks Outburst

steel declineThe Government is coming under increasing pressure to scrap green charges that contributed to the closure of the Redcar plant. The Teesside site, which has produced steel for 160 years, will be mothballed with the loss of 1,700 jobs, its Thai owners SSI UK announced yesterday. Another 4,000 jobs are expected to be lost among contractors on the site and in the supply chain. Yesterday trade body UK Steel called on ministers to remove hefty green charges that steel plant owners are forced to pay on top of their electricity bills. –Peter Campbell, Daily Mail, 29 September 2015

The Global Warming Policy Forum is calling on the Government to scrap Britain’s unilateral Carbon Floor Price which is contributing to the crisis of UK steel and other energy intensive industries. The GWPF has been consistently warning about the rising policy cost of electricity prices which are expected to increase by 47% by 2020 for large industrial energy consumers. The UK’s extra large users of electricity are already paying nearly twice as much for power as the EU average. —Global Warming Policy Forum, 30 September 2015

The Governor of the Bank of England has entered the controversial world of climate change – telling the BBC that, if there is no action now, global warming could become one of the biggest risks to economic stability in the future. The Governor said that the vast majority of oil and gas reserves already discovered could now be “stranded” if new rules on carbon emissions are enforced by governments. The oil and gas would be unusable. ‚Äì Kamal Ahmed, BBC News, 30 September 2015

The energy business is entirely familiar with the concept of stranded assets. Now, however, a new concept has been introduced: the idea that some assets, specifically hydrocarbons, will inevitably be stranded and left undeveloped as the world reduces its hydrocarbon consumption in order to avoid the risks of climate change. I believe [this assumption] is completely unrealistic. This is a fairly dismal conclusion but when it comes to something as potentially serious as climate change it is best to be absolutely realistic. Campaigns about disinvestment create convenient enemies but solve nothing. –Nick Butler, Financial Times, 28 September 2015

The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has once again been trying to use his position to bully the insurance industry into supporting the green movement. His speech last night at Lloyds of London was fascinating – a blend of pseudoscience, green activism and big state interventionism the likes of which one rarely finds outside DECC and Defra. As far as I can see, Carney’s big idea was that more should be done “to develop consistent, comparable, reliable and clear disclosure around the carbon intensity of different assets”. This really comes across as quite otherworldly. As was noted in the FT a few days ago, the stranded assets argument is a myth. Moreover, the insurance industry does not price risk based on what [climate models] say the world is going to look like in a hundred years’ time. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 30 September 2015

The list of countries where fracking could unlock oil and gas reserves grew this year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its newest “World Shale Resource Assessment” this year, adding Chad, Kazakhstan, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates to more than 40 countries with shale reserves. This year’s survey found the world had 7,576 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of ‘unproved technically recoverable’ shale gas reserves. This number has grown since the first survey, in 2011, which estimated 6,622 TCF of the resource. —State Impact Pennsylvania, 25 September 2015

In 1980, the economist Julian Simon challenged doom-mongering biologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet that the prices of any five metals would be lower in 10 years’ time. He won, and made his point: over the long run, technological progress means commodity prices are likely to fall in real terms. From the early 2000s, many investors forgot that lesson. Falling commodity prices are a cheering reminder that, in a phrase Simon used as the title of his 1981 book, human inspiration is “the ultimate resource”. –Editorial, Financial Times, 31 August 2015

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Apocalypse Watch: 504 Days And No ‘Climate Chaos’

Laurent FabiusLaurent FabiusThe world has just missed its last chance to avoid “climate chaos,” if the prediction made by the French foreign minister holds up. It’s been 504 days since Laurent Fabius declared we had only 500 days to save the Earth from catastrophe.

“We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos,” Fabius said on May 13, 2014. “And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject, and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success in this very important matter.”

Ironically, the United Nations climate summit set for Paris this November will take place 565 days after Fabius declared there were only 500 days to avert “climate chaos.” There was another UN summit that took place in Lima, Peru last year, but it was not expected to yield any global warming treaty.

Fabius’ 500-day warning was even embraced by the White House last year. When asked about the dire prediction in a press conference, then-Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed to a government report which he argued “made clear in the view of the science that climate change is upon us and the effects and impacts of climate change are being felt today.”

The National Climate Assessment, the report Carney touted, argued that “frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s” and that “[w]inter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and have shifted northward since the 1950s,” according to CNS News. The report also warned of increased flooding and droughts as warming increases.

But 504 days out from Fabius’ dire warning, it’s hard to conclude the world is undergoing “climate chaos.” For one thing, the U.S. is in the middle of a decade-long hurricane drought — no Category 3 or higher storm has made landfall in the country for the last 10 years.

In fact, globally this year’s hurricane season has been weak. In early September when hurricane season is supposed to peak there were no “tropical storm, depressions, or hurricanes anywhere on Earth,” according to the science blog Watts Up With That. There are, however, lots of wildfires raging across western U.S. states.

Yet even as Fabius’ prediction of “climate chaos” falls flat, others are already issuing dire warnings about what will happen if countries don’t immediately being phasing out fossil fuels.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Parisians Have A Car-Free Sunday: Did They Solve Global Warming?

parisThe advances of mankind were celebrated Sunday when cars were banned from the center of Paris for seven hours in the middle of the day. One cyclist who decided to joust with cars in the streets that were not closed to autos rather than pedal peacefully in the no-car zone told the Guardian that the day was “about giving people a dream, showing us what a city could look like without cars, a type of utopia.”

One person’s utopia might be another’s Hades, but that matters little to those who want to force their vision of utopia on everyone else. They so believe in their concepts of paradise that they have no problem using coercion to draw everyone into their fantasies.

Meanwhile, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who had the big idea of closing off busy city the streets, said the car-free day allowed Parisians “to take back their daily living space and experience the city in a different way.”

The car-free exercise alone was enough to put silliness on full display. But that wasn’t sufficient for Hidalgo, who, like so many others, was irritatingly smug about the entire affair. She had to go on record as saying Sunday’s carnival showed that “Paris can operate without cars.” Yes, in Paris they are truly insane on the Seine.

Hidalgo actually wanted to make the entire city off-limits to cars, not just the center. But just because she didn’t get her way this year, it doesn’t mean she won’t try again the next.

We won’t argue with those such as Hidalgo who say Paris has a pollution problem. But we do take issue with their “solution.” Rather that set back more than a century of human progress, they should instead encourage even more progress, the sort of which that will clean up the offending emissions — carbon dioxide not included — without sacrificing the many benefits that cars have brought.

Some, of course, believe we’d be better off without cars. And they would happily outlaw them if they could. But they’d achieve nothing. As the New York Times noted Monday, a new study says that if all the countries that have pledged to cut their greenhouse emissions meet their goals, it “would reduce the warming of the planet at century’s end to about 6.3 degrees.” That would be less than the 8.1-degrees increased expected “if emissions continue on their present course” but would still enough to “produce catastrophes ranging from food shortages to widespread extinctions of plant and animal life.”

Why bother, then, if nothing is saved?

Well, there are two reasons to perpetuate the global warming scare: One, self-righteous attention hounds need to appear more virtuous than the “deniers.” Two, there are still anti-capitalism, anti-liberty ambitions to be carried out by the force of government(s) in the name of saving the planet.

We finish with the words of the Pirate’s Cove blogger, whom we thank for bringing this car-free Sunday to our attention.

“Do these warmists know they can give up their own fossil-fueled travel for every day? Oh, wait,” he says, “they just want to force Other People to comply.”

Source

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Climate alarmists want us prosecuted under RICO

They haven’t employed the thumb screws, rack or auto-da-fe that churches and states once used to interrogate, silence and eliminate heretics and witches. However, global warming alarmists are well practiced in the modern equivalents, to protect their $1.5-trillion Climate Crisis Industry.

They see only what they want to see, and publicize only what they want us to see. They refuse to debate anyone who questions the nature, severity or reality of “manmade climate change dangers” that are the foundation of their demands that we slash fossil fuel use, lower our living standards, and accept global government planning of economies and massive climate “adaptation and reparation” payments.

Continue Reading 7 Comments

Climate Murder Conspiracy Complaint Dismissed

WadhamsA Cambridge professor who claimed that assassins may have murdered three British scientists investigating the impact of global warming has had a complaint against The Times dismissed by the press regulator. Peter Wadhams said in an interview that he feared he might also have been targeted himself. When his comments were published byThe Times, the academic complained that he had been misquoted and that the newspaper had breached a duty of confidentiality towards him. An investigation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation has found that Professor Wadhams did make the claims reported and has cleared the newspaper of breaching the editors’ code of practice. –David Brown, The Times, 28 September 2015

Peter Wadhams is something of a favourite at [Bishop Hill], his researches into the paranormal, his physics-free sea-ice predictions and his concerns about assassination having provided readers with much entertainment over the years. The last of these claims led to an official complaint to the Press Regulator, but it seems that Prof Wadhams’ complaint has been no more successful than his doom-laden predictions about the Arctic. Prof Wadhams is an advisor to Pope Francis. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 28 September 2015

Why did no one speak out against this idiocy? Well, of course, a few did — people such as former chancellor Nigel Lawson, the Tory MP Peter Lilley, and journalists Christopher Booker and Richard North. But for years these sceptical voices have been drowned out by the yells of hypocritical politicians, greedy corporations, green zealots and a gullible public that ‘something must be done’ to deal with the supposed menace of man-made carbon dioxide. The great dash for diesel was a huge, expensive con inflicted on us by people who should have known better — and indeed did know better — but were so dazzled by the climate change scare that they could not see the bigger picture. It isn’t the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last. –James Delingpole, The Great Diesel Scandal, Daily Mail, 9 August 2014

The Pope makes valuable contributions on religious matter. But he has no business banging on about climate change. That has nothing to do with faith. It’s about science and provable facts. That science is disputed, some of it discredited. The Pope’s believe in it is irrelevant. Stick to religion, Your Holiness. —Editorial, The Sun, 25 September 2015

Pope Francis is generally popular around the world, but when he highlights the global effects of climate change Friday at the United Nations General Assembly, he may get a lukewarm reception from many Americans and Europeans. Concern about climate change is relatively low in the United States and Europe. A median of 42% among both Europeans and Americans reports being very concerned about the issue. And in the U.S., partisan differences are stark. A majority of Democrats (62%) say they are very concerned about climate change, compared with just 20% of Republicans. –Jill Carle, Pew Research Center, 25 September 2015

You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you: While Arctic ice varies a lot seasonally, there was a slightly increasing trend [in recent years], particularly in the last five years. The value for 2015 is for the record so far; the final number will be known at year end. –Ron Clutz, Science Matters, 26 September 2015

The “rush for diesel” might seem an unmatchably counterproductive idiocy on the part of the EU member states, as they sought to prove themselves the saviours of the earth. In fact, it is merely one of a number of catastrophic components in the climate-change policy makers’ hall of infamy. The inability to deal with the crises afflicting the European Union is blamed by the European Commission on member states failing to act as one. Yet unity behind a terrible policy is worse than any disagreement: and in no cause has the EU been more destructively united than in the battle against the alleged existential threat to the planet known as climate change. –Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 27 September 2015

Continue Reading 4 Comments