A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the U.S. climate has been changing very gradually, and mostly in a benign way.
The paper, by British climate writer Paul Homewood, examines official US weather sources and finds almost nothing to justify alarm.
“The temperature has risen a little,” says Homewood, “but temperature extremes are still a long way off the levels seen in the 1930s. And there has been a reduction in cold spells and climate-related deaths, so in many ways, the US climate has become less extreme compared to previous ages.”
It is the same story for rainfall. There has been an increase overall, but the wettest year on record was nearly 50 years ago. Droughts were mostly far worse in the 1930s.
“It’s hard to find anything in the records of recent weather in the US that should give anyone any cause for alarm,” says Homewood.
“It’s mostly rather reassuring. From heat to cold to storms and tornadoes, there is no trend that is out of the ordinary.”
Wildfires have likely dumped more than 90 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the environment — more than the total emissions required to power the entire state, a pair of atmospheric scientists told The Washington Post Thursday.
Burning 90 million metric tons of carbon emissions over the course of a month is the equivalent of powering 23 coal-fired power stations for one year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies calculator.
The Daily Caller News Foundation used the EPA calculator to determine the total, which is based on estimates from Niels Andela, an atmospheric scientist at Cardiff University in Wales who relayed his estimation to the Post.
The DCNF’s calculation, like the estimate conducted by Andela, does not take into account the acreage and type of vegetation burned throughout the summer.
“Given that 2020 is really a record-setting year for California, it’s going to be quite off-the-charts compared to the observational period we have,” Andela told The Post.
The estimate of 91.2 million tons is preliminary given that he does not have a robust set of data, he said, adding, “That would be my expectation.”
Guido van der Werf, a wildfire emissions expert at Vrije University in Amsterdam, believes Andela’s estimate of 90 million metric tons is rough but notes that the wildfires will pump a record amount of carbon into the air.
“What is pretty certain is that this year beats the previous record in the satellite record (starting in 1997) … by a large margin,” van der Werf told the Post. Andela and van der Werf used satellite data measuring heat from the fires to make their estimates, the Post reported.
Wildfires continue burning in parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, CNN reported. Fires have killed more than 33 people in West Coast states since August, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
They have also culminated in more than half-a-million people evacuating Oregon, a number representing roughly 10% of the state’s overall population, according to CNN.
Roughly 100 massive fires blazed through the West Saturday, including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday.
All told, the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states. More than 3.3 million acres burned so far this season in California.
California’s power plants, which are subject to the state’s decade-long cap-and-trade program along with other green energy mandates, are typically responsible for spewing 62 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air in 2017, The Post reported, citing data from the California Air Resources Board. The wildfire season has obliterated that number, one forest preservation expert argues.
“When you look at what California has done with its cap-and-trade program, and other states’ efforts to address emissions, all the gains we’ve been seeing, frankly, literally went up in smoke this year,” Travis Joseph, head of the American Forest Resource Council, told The Post.
His group is based in Oregon and represents mills, manufacturers, and the timber industry in the Western states.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Reuters is pushing an insane idea that eco-extremist activist Greta Thunberg could get the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a story headlined, “A Nobel for Thunberg? In the age of climate change and virus, it is possible,” Reuters’ Gwladys Fouche spouted off that “[t]his year’s Nobel Peace Prize could go to green campaigner Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement to highlight the link between environmental damage and the threat to peace and security, some experts say.”
This reads very different from when the same writer took the news that President Donald Trump had been nominated for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and downplayed the achievement:
Trump has been unable to negotiate a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, however, and a peace plan he proposed in January that heavily favoured the Israelis has not advanced in any significant way.
In her latest story, Fouche praised Thunberg:
Asle Sveen, a historian and author of several books about the prize, said Thunberg would be a strong candidate for this year’s award, her second nomination in as many years, with the U.S. West Coast wildfires and rising temperatures in the Arctic ‘leaving people in no doubt’ about global warming. ‘Not a single person has done more to get the world to focus on climate change than her,’ Sveen told Reuters, [emphasis added.]
The bias was especially evident in a subsection that was headlined in capital letters and bold font: “NOT TRUMP.”
The subsection listed other potential Nobel recipients for 2020. Reuters griped: “[Trump] is unlikely to win, Sveen and Smith agreed, not least for his dismantling of the international treaties to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a cause dear to Nobel committees.” [Emphasis added.]
Fouche didn’t bother to mention that one of those “treaties” Trump pulled out of, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, reportedly had been repeatedly violated by Russia.
“The Russians, in contrast, have been cheating for more than a decade. In 2008, they began testing a ground-based cruise missile system. In 2017, the U.S. government acknowledged that Russia had deployed what is known as the ‘9M729 missile’ against NATO positions in Europe.”
But instead of providing context behind why Trump pulled out of certain treaties, Fouche just mindlessly parroted the insults of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute director Dan Smith: “‘[Trump] is divisive and seems to not take a clear stance against the violence the right-wing perpetrates in the U.S.,’ said Smith.”
But elevating a teen extremist like Thunberg has been typical of the liberal media. In May, CNN had ridiculously included Thunberg on an expert panel in a town hall to discuss the novel Coronavirus.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Reuters and demand it stops promoting Thunberg’s nonsensical climate radicalism.
Read more at NewsBusters
Ongoing forest fires in California are mostly a function of poor forest management, particularly insufficient controlled burns to clear away accumulated fuelwood, explained Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of False Alarm, offering his remarks on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.
“It has fairly little to do with climate change, and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven’t managed our forest well,” said Lomborg of California wildfires. “We haven’t done prescribed burning. We haven’t ensured that these fires won’t burn out of control.”
Lomborg added, “We’ve just simply allowed fuelwood to build up to cause almost uncontrollable fires in California.”
Prescribed burnings are necessary to reduce the risk of uncontrollable forest fires, Lomborg stated. “If we did prescribed burning, we could, in a few years, reduce the fire risk dramatically and actually get people’s lives back to — pretty close — to normal.”
https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/894790741&color=ff5500&hide_related=true&show_comments=false&show_teaser=falseBreitbart · Breitbart News Daily – Bjorn Lomborg – September 17, 2020
“Fires are mostly there because we’ve had fire suppression for more than a hundred years.”
Lomborg explained how California has used fire extinguishment in lieu of prescribed burns for over a century.
“Fundamentally, we have suppressed fires for more than a hundred years,” Lomborg said. “That obviously makes good sense that you’d rather not have fires than fires, but what happens is you build up lots and lots of fuelwood that is basically going to give you much hotter, much fiercer fires later on.”
Lomborg noted that California’s suppression of forest fires and abdication of prescribed burns led to a build-up of dry kindling in the state’s forests.
“From the 1950s to about 2000, California only saw about 250,000 acres of forest burn every year, so it was a dramatic reduction,” Lomborg remarked.
“It builds up all this fuelwood. There’s now five times as much fuelwood in the under storage of most California forests. You can’t keep that up. Eventually, these fires will break out, and that’s what we’re seeing now.”
Lomborg said the average area consumed by forest fires over the past ten years in California over the last ten years “is almost a million acres.”
He added, “It has fairly little to do with climate change, and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven’t managed our forests well.”
“We haven’t done prescribed burning; we haven’t ensured that these fires won’t burn out of control,” Lomborg determined.
Lomborg challenged claims that today’s Golden State fires are “unprecedented.”
“These fires are big, but we have to get a sense of proportion,” Lomborg stated. “We have good statistics all the way back to before 1800, and back in the 1700s, California used to burn much much more than what it’s doing right now. We estimate that it burned somewhere between four and 12 million acres — remember, the biggest burn of this year is 2.3 million acres — so more than twice as much and possibly even six times as much.”
The U.S. Forest Service describes controlled burns on its website. The agency explains, “After many years of fire exclusion, an ecosystem that needs periodic fire becomes unhealthy. Trees are stressed by overcrowding; fire-dependent species disappear; and flammable fuels build up and become hazardous.”
“More prescribed fires mean fewer extreme wildfires,” declares the U.S. Forest Service.
Scientific American cited Daniel Swain, an assistant researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment & Sustainability, who claimed that “climate change” is a driver of today’s California wildfires.
It also shared a competing view from Jon Keeley, a senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center.
Keeley said, “We ought to be much more concerned with ignition sources than a one- to two-degree change in temperature.”
He echoed Lomborg’s analysis in identifying California’s focus on putting out forest fires for about a century instead of using controlled burning to remove flammable dead vegetation.
Noah Diffenbaugh, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Earth, Energy, and Environment Sciences told the CBC: “We now have very strong evidence from those years of research that global warming is, in fact, increasing the odds of unprecedented extremes.”
Read more at Breitbart
Reid shifted her fawning over Fonda’s climate activism to questioning Fonda on how to use the wildfires to get people thinking about implementing the GND.
Reid asked: “How do you get from knowing what [the GND] is and talking about it in theory — even with the fires burning — to get people to focus on this and actually get people to want to implement it?”
Fonda then took a detour into the hysterical:
“They do. They are — They’re getting focused. I mean, it’s hard not to when your state’s on fire. Not only is the state on fire, birds are falling out of the air — dive-bombing dead into the ground because of the bad air!”
So Americans have to foot a multitrillion-dollar proposal because, according to Fonda, “birds are dive-bombing dead”?
Watch the segment below:
According to Fonda, “Talking about it is important because if you don’t talk about it, you can’t care about it. And if you don’t care, you won’t act. We need to act. And the main thing that we have to act about is getting rid of fossil fuels.”
She continued: “[L]istening to the experts says we have to cut fossil fuel emissions in half in 10 years. Now that’s really, really hard. And it’s not going to happen unless there are unprecedented numbers of people demanding it no matter who is elected in November.”
Fonda then shifted to incoherent babbling about the importance of the November elections:
“November is important because — you know — one of the things that happens during [an] election: you choose your opponent. By opponent, I mean, the person that you’re going to have to go up against when you want other things to happen, like equal pay for equal work between men and women.”
Fonda proceeded to rant that “it’s not just a climate crisis. Our society — the fabric of our society is unraveling.”
She then pushed an insane idea that the GND can solve “all” our society’s woes at once: “The great thing about the Green New Deal is it gives us a way to do it all at once, but we have to get rid of fossil fuels. That’s the main thing.”
To finish off the segment, Fonda praised Reid for her new show. In a cringe response, Reid fangirled Hanoi Jane: “OK, I officially retire. I retire. That’s it. I’m done. I’m not going to do any more TV. Jane Fonda knows who I am!”
Hanoi Jane’s climate propaganda was brought to you by advertisers like John Deere, Citibank, and Allstate. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such eco-extremist content.
Read more at NewsBusters
The problem of solar panel waste is now becoming evident. As environmental journalist Emily Folk admits in Renewable Energy Magazine, “when talking about renewable energy, the topic of waste does not often appear.”
She attributes this to the supposed “pressures of climate change” and alleged “urgency to find alternative energy sources,” saying people may thus be hesitant to discuss “possible negative impacts of renewable energy.”
Ms. Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management. Yet she laments, “Solar presents a particular problem. There is growing evidence that broken panels release toxic pollutants … [and] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable, especially since they are difficult to recycle.”
This is the likely reason that (except in Washington state), there are no U.S. mandates for solar recycling. A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries that have little electricity and weak environmental protections, to be reused or landfilled.
The near-total absence of end-of-life procedures for solar panels is likely a byproduct of the belief (and repeated, unsupported assertion) that renewable energy is “clean” and “green.”
Indeed, Mississippi Sierra Club state director Louie Miller recently claimed that unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “Sunshine is a free fuel.” Well, sunshine is certainly free and clean. However, there is a monumental caveat.
Harnessing sunshine (and wind) to serve humanity is not free – or clean, green, renewable, or sustainable.
The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act mandates that new surface coal mines include plans and set aside funds for full reclamationof mine properties.
The law also sets standards for restoring abandoned mine lands. There is nothing akin to this for solar facilities and wastes.
Similarly, the 1980 Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) created a tax and trust fund to pay for preventing and fixing actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment. Again, still nothing for solar.
The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act prioritizes deep geologic repositories for safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste.
Unfortunately, 25 years after being designated as the disposal site, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has never opened because of conflicts among politicians, locals, anti-nuclear activists, government officials, and the nuclear industry; the U.S. still stores its nuclear waste at 75 scattered sites, including some near New York City, New Orleans, and Chicago.
But for solar no steps have been taken.
While coal, nuclear, and petrochemical companies must come up with detailed, costly plans for dealing with real or potential negative consequences of their operations, solar (and wind) companies have been “rewarded” with massive subsidies and absolutely no disposal standards or requirements.
No government grants require these solar companies to set aside money to dispose of, store or recycle wastes generated during manufacturing or after massive solar “farms” have ceased functioning and been torn down.
Solar (and wind) customers are likewise not charged for waste cleanup, disposal, or reuse and recycling. This and the massive subsidies distort and hide the true costs of solar power.
But the reality is starting to catch up. Disposal (or recycling) costs will have to be paid, ultimately by consumers. The more solar panels we have (likely billions within a few years), the higher those costs will be.
Consumers in states like California that have committed to heavy reliance on solar (and wind) energy (and already have the nation’s highest energy bills) will have to pay even more.
California is also facing a secondary problem from the proliferation of subsidized industrial solar installations.
A 2015 study jointly by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state’s solar development is occurring on former cropland, where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity – rather than letting it become a wildlife habitat.
As Big Solar also moves into natural areas, California is losing even more habitat and scenic land, while the integrity of state and national parks suffers from the nearby glare of countless solar panels and towering transmission lines to distant cities.
The Stanford study highlights another problem: localized higher temperatures. It found it will take an area the size of South Carolina filled with solar arrays to meet California’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. [It would take at least eight South Carolinas if the California mandate were extended nationwide.]
Other research has found that these large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a significant solar heat island effect. Temperatures around one solar power plant were 5.4°-7.2°F (3°-4°C) warmer than nearby wildlands.
Imagine such manmade “global warming” across 20 million acres (South Carolina) or 160 million acres (Texas), to meet California or U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals!
Australia is already coping with this unwelcome reality. Not until 2018 did Aussie environment ministers mandate fast-track development of new product stewardship schemes for photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, like those television and computer manufacturers and retailers have had to comply with since 2011.
Total Environment Centre director Jeff Angel admitted that setting standards for life-of-product management for solar panels was “long overdue,” and that the 30-year delay in imposing standards revealed a “fundamental weakness” in Australia’s waste policies.
He further noted that while solar panels contain hazardous substances, Aussies are “sending hundreds of thousands of e-waste items to landfills” and creating significant pollution problems. And Australia has less than a tenth of the U.S. population!
Since 2002, the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has required that the original producers of e-wastes guarantee and pay for taking back and recycling their wastes, so that end-user consumers aren’t surprised by additional disposal costs.
However, PV solar panel waste was not included in this mandate until July 2012 – and “some uncertainty remains” about the cutoff date for such wastes because the directive has yet to be implemented in national laws.
Producer financing of PV waste treatment thus cannot be applied to older solar panels. So who will pay? And how much?
Ms. Folk and others look to waste-to-energy plants, and indeed the EU does send much of its solar panel waste to incinerators – which many environmentalists oppose.
Landfilling is not a viable option in the U.S., because toxins could leach out. Unscrupulous companies ship solar panel waste to developing nations, but that is a stopgap solution that is environmentally irresponsible.
Tao Meng, the lead author of a new study, says “the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue” – by nearly 10-to-1, especially when including transportation costs.
Chemicals must be used to remove silver and lead from silicon modules before they can be safely placed in landfills, Meng notes.
The problem of solar panel waste will continue to grow as more panels reach their end of life.
Four years ago the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide – and that total will explode to 78 million metric tons by 2050!
So when you read that solar energy is already cheaper than natural gas, don’t be fooled. They are omitting the pollution and disposal costs, as well as habitat losses, solar heat islands, and the need for backup power generation or batteries – to lowball the true costs of solar.
We need some honest math now before it’s too late to turn back.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; The BBC is continuing to push their narrative that opposition to climate change is idealogical, and that scientists who express doubts about extreme climate claims have been corrupted by their political beliefs or by funding from industry.
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
By Phoebe Keane
As climate change becomes a focus of the US election, energy companies stand accused of trying to downplay their contribution to global warming. In June, Minnesota’s Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, among others, for launching a “campaign of deception” which deliberately tried to undermine the science supporting global warming. So what’s behind these claims? And what links them to how the tobacco industry tried to dismiss the harms of smoking decades earlier?
To understand what’s happening today, we need to go back nearly 40 years.
Marty Hoffert leaned closer to his computer screen. He couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. It was 1981, and he was working in an area of science considered niche.
“We were just a group of geeks with some great computers,” he says now, recalling that moment.
But his findings were alarming.
“I created a model that showed the Earth would be warming very significantly. And the warming would introduce climatic changes that would be unprecedented in human history. That blew my mind.”
But he noticed a clash between Exxon’s own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that “currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate”.
“They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups,” said Hoffert.
…Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
The article continues on with the usual tired narratives about Exxon, tobacco, industry funding, and the author’s concerns that some scientists have political views the author appears to dislike.
But what I love about Phoebe’s opening statements is how neatly she inadvertently encapsulates all that I believe is wrong with alarmist climate predictions.
“We were just a group of geeks with some great computers”
Untold billions wasted, millions of people needlessly frightened, because of the fearful prognostications of a bunch of geeks playing computer games, geeks who created a set of models which arguably have never demonstrated useful predictive skill.
Only climate science appears to accept the output of broken, poorly performing, error ridden computer models at face value. Everyone else prefers to thoroughly test their computer models before they get excited by the output.