Total Pageviews

Sunday, May 9, 2021

Why 12 articles posted on one day ?

I was having internet connectivity problems at random times for a few days -- $#@%# confusers. But my internet connection was temporarily working this morning, so I posted all 12 articles that I had ready to go for Sunday and Monday. You can read the Monday articles on Sunday -- that's like time travel.  I'll go out and buy a new modem and router today, which will be connected no later than Monday morning. 
The first posts Monday morning will be on my other blogs:

It's cold this year = never mind, that's just weather ?


"On Earth Day in Ottawa we woke up to the deepest snow cover we’ve seen on April 22 since records began in the chilly 1950s.

... Tied for deepest.   With 2020.

And across Europe and elsewhere low or even record low temperatures are being recorded while in much of the United States it’s hard to see the thermometer for all the snow.

The Washington Post is reporting that “A cold April is breaking records and delivering rare snowfall so deep into spring.”

If the headline were “A hot April is breaking records” and if the story said 80 million Americans were under heat alerts

instead of “At least 80 million Americans were under frost or freeze alerts from the National Weather Service,

with temperatures some 25 degrees below normal in spots” the Post would have treated it as vindication of the Earth Day gab-fests on stopping global warming.

But at some point someone’s going to have to admit that climate change is more complicated than a linear relationship between rising CO2 and everything melting, right?

Perhaps now would be a good time.

Because the phenomenon is, how shall we put it, global.

Alaska set several records while Saudi Arabia also saw snow… and presumably many of its inhabitants wondered what it even was.

Frost has devastated France’s wine grapes and prompted the declaration of an “agricultural disaster” by their Agriculture Minister on April 8,

while across the channel they’ve had the coldest spring in eight years.

And if you think eight years is nothing, across the Rhine Germany is seeing its coldest April since the First World War,

its second-coldest since Bismarck was Chancellor (and since records began)

and its snowiest since the Berlin Wall fell.

... weather fluctuates.
Which means it is possible that a long-term secular warming trend could have a cyclical pattern laid atop it leading to cold periods inside a warming period.

But the people who kept saying five of the hottest years ever happened in the last three or whatever

it was have willfully trampled such subtlety under foot, insisting that it just keeps getting hotter so the debate is over.

Which surely means now it is time for them to admit that, even if their theory is right, the evidence requires them to make some modifications in both its substance and its harshly dogmatic tone.

Doesn’t it? "

Robert L. Bradley Jr. of the American Institute for Economic Research recently told an anecdote about Julian Simon, the libertarian and wild-eyed optimist who won a very famous bet with doomsayer Paul Ehrlich over resource depletion.

“At an environmental forum, Julian Simon once asked: ‘How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?’

After a roomful of hands shot up, Simon then asked:

‘Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?’

Encountering silence, he followed up:

‘Is there any evidence I could give you – anything at all – that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?’

After more silence, Simon answered:

‘Well, excuse me. I’m not dressed for church.’”

... it’s very fair to put Simon’s question to climate alarmists now:

What evidence would persuade you that there is not a linear relationship between human CO2 emissions and global temperature?

If the answer is silence ... "

China's elusive CO2 reduction target


"If greenhouse gases worry you, surely it’s natural to focus on the world’s leading emitter.

Especially if it were also increasing its emissions rapidly.

Which ... means ... the People’s Republic of China.

Where, the South China Morning Post recently wrote, “China’s carbon reduction target looks elusive as banks keep throwing cash at coal mines and power plants, undercutting Xi Jinping’s plan to slash fossil fuels”.

And while the first part is true, the claim that Xi Jinping has a plan to slash fossil fuels is bizarre.

As is the notion that China’s banks are defying Xi Jinping to trash the environment.

What part of communist dictatorship don’t you understand?

Among other things, the PRC has various elaborate mechanisms in place to import coal from Australia

despite the ostensible ban, from mislabeling imports to buying the stuff from other countries that then buy from Australia.

Such things do not happen without permission from on high, not to say instructions.

... Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng recently told The Associated Press “For a big country with 1.4 billion people, these goals are not easily delivered.

 Some countries are asking China to do more on climate change.

I am afraid this is not very realistic.”

... whatever their ideological and other failings,

the Chinese leadership seem to have a better grasp of energy economics and indeed of science, climate and otherwise, than Western leaders who, for instance, wear a mask to Zoom.

But they are not alone.

Mexico’s president is also shunning renewables for that lumpy black stuff ...

... Not that Andrés Manuel López Obrador is a bad person as the press normally judges such things,

being a left-of-centre representative of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, an anti-corruption breakaway from the oxymoronically named Institutional Revolutionary Party.

But sometimes necessity is the mother of realism and his people need energy.

As is true of Indonesia.

And the Philippines, promising to stop building coal plants as soon as it builds a bunch of them.

... Prosperity may insulate us from the dictates of necessity and the consequences of stupidity for a while.

But it can’t do it forever.

Even National Geographic’s super-climate-woke “KIDS AND FAMILY Editor in Chief” Rachel Buchholz recently admitted that

“Let’s face it: Adulting and supporting your kid’s eco-consciousness don’t always go hand-in-hand.

Electric cars and solar panels are out of reach for many families, and this past year has pretty much necessitated an increase in online shopping.”

If a denier said it, they’d be lectured about valuing money more than the planet.

But what if the German government did?

Because in the land of the wandering Energiewende, as Pierre Gosselin translates and reports, the sanctimonious Jan. 1 2021 phaseout of coal lasted just eight days because it got cold and dark in a hurry.

In a lovely touch, German authorities reclassified four such plants as “system-relevant”.

... The New York Times actually managed to blame the Indian government’s reluctance to promise Biden and Kerry the carbon moon on Trump not, say, the fact that some 200 million of its inhabitants lack electricity.

... Brazil is evidently in a snit about rainforests or something.

Anything other than the obvious:

Fossil fuels have underpinned the vast improvement in human material conditions over the last 250 years,

and in much of the world those effects have only really kicked in in the last 50,

and they’re not about to go back to freezing and starving

just because some warm, comfy, private-jet-taking Western politicians and celebrities don’t know where stuff comes from and think there’s a runaway crisis that most scientists don’t believe exists."

Inconvenient facts: "Stupid Alps"


" ... Google “warming in the Alps” and you’ll get funeral oration for the European ski industry because temperatures are soaring, snow is disappearing and winter as we know it is ending.

But what do the data show?

A detailed study of winter temperatures at summit locations across the Alps over the past 50 years comes up empty.

Overall temperature has risen only 0.7°C, ... which is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

... The author of the study remarks “There is an astonishing contrast between official measurements and public opinion.”

... To be fair, if some parts of the planet are warming faster than others, then it is logically necessary that others should be warming more slowly.

But as we have noted, journalists and activists always say their own spot is heating up like a barbecue.

Thus, for instance, “At the scale of the European Alps, over the course of the 20th century, temperatures have risen by 2°C (3.6°F).

This rise is greater than the French average of +1.4°C (2.5°F) and double the increase recorded in the northern hemisphere.”

Which comes from CREA Mont Blanc, aka the Research Center for Alpine Ecosystems.

We actually wrote the first half of this paragraph before Googling “warming in the Alps” confident we’d run into the “faster than average” claim at the first hit.

And remember the real test of a theory is its capacity to predict, in this case that an outfit in the Alps would say they were warming faster than average.

That same search turned up “How Climate Change is Affecting the Alps” by an outfit called “Run the Alps”.

It said “While temperatures have risen by 2.5°F (1.4°C) in France over the 20th century, they have risen by 3.6°F (2°C) in the European Alps.

Warming is amplified in mountainous regions because as snow cover melts, it reveals dark rocks which absorb more of the sun’s rays.

Year-on-year warming is becoming the trend with sixteen of the seventeen last years being the hottest on record.”

That piece added that “The effect of climate change on precipitation varies regionally.

Globally, precipitation amounts have not changed much, but in the Alps, we are experiencing increasing instances of drought and less snow cover.”

Although oddly CREA Mont Blanc said “Although global precipitation patterns have not changed significantly over the course of the 20th century, considerable regional and seasonal changes have been observed.

Since 1960, winter precipitation has significantly diminished in the south of France, while an increase has been recorded in the north.

In the Alps however, located at the crossroads between the Mediterranean and Atlantic weather systems, the differences are extremely localized.”

A bit of a contradiction there.

But let’s not get distracted by details.

... From 1960 to 2017, the Alpine snow season shortened by 38 days – starting an average of 12 days later and ending 26 days earlier than normal.

Europe experienced its warmest-ever winter in the 2015-16 season, with snow cover in the southern French Alps just 20% of its typical depth.

Last December was the driest in 150 years of record keeping, and the flakes that did manage to fall didn’t stay around long.”

The piece being undated, it’s not entirely clear when “last December” was.

But in it the future is as clear as it is bleak: “The snow line… is about 3,900 ft., which is a historic high in some areas.

But worse lies ahead as scientists predict melt even at nearly 10,000 ft. by the end of the century.”

... Planetski reported on Dec. 7, 2020 “Historic levels of snow falls in parts of the Alps”.

Weather is, of course, variable, and so is precipitation.

But if the winter temperature isn’t changing at all in the European Alps, and CREA Mont Blanc says changes in precipitation are “extremely localized” then what’s this business about runaway warming wrecking the ski industry?

Something called “Style Attitude” may say “The data provided by Météo France on the measurement stations of Grenoble, Chamonix, Chambéry and Bourg-Saint-Maurice all go in the same direction, that of a warming trend in winters.

A particularly visible situation since the 1990s.”

But if self-described “researcher on the future of skiing” Günther Aigner is right, it’s not happening in the Swiss, German or Austrian Alps.

So not much of a trend, and not to blame for anything."

The Interconnectors war: France threatens to cut off (British island) Jersey's electricity over a fishing dispute, revealing Britain's reliance on Europe for electricity

"The fishing row which saw France threaten to cut off Jersey's power has exposed the 'very dangerous' threat of being too reliant on a foreign supplier for electricity, an expert said yesterday.

Britain risks becoming an 'import junkie' by depending too heavily on the Continent for its electricity needs, it was claimed.

Tony Lodge, a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, said the UK is setting itself up for 'almighty trouble' by the end of the decade.

He warned that Britain is offshoring its energy security and emissions to Europe, leaving it vulnerable if the Continent's surplus of power is reduced. ...

On Tuesday French maritime minister Annick Girardin said Paris would cut off electricity to Jersey – which gets 95 per cent of its power supply from France – if the dispute was not resolved.

Tony Lodge, a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies ... said this had 'inadvertently exposed' the 'very dangerous' threat of being too reliant on a foreign supplier.

He said: 'We have slowly off-shored our ability to generate all of the electricity we need ...

We followed European Union diktat when we were in the EU to close a lot of coal and oil power stations early, and we haven't replaced them at home.

'What we have done is set up inter-connectors – undersea cables import power when we need it from the EU.'

He warned: 'We are going to become import junkies.'

... Mr Lodge said when there are cold snaps or power station closures in Europe, electricity generation on the Continent could become tight.

'The availability of surplus electricity in Europe is a key factor in spare flows and surplus flows that make it to the UK,' he explained.

He urged the Government to build more power stations in Britain so it can generate electricity on demand.

He said: 'Renewables are fine... because of course electricity demand doesn't always match when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.

So we need to balance that much better.' Mr Lodge said Britain has several plans under way to increase reliance on power from Europe.

... a Whitehall source sought to downplay the claims that the UK may in future take a more cautious view of France as an energy partner.

Britain imports around 8 per cent of its power from foreign nations and Northern Ireland via underwater cables – due to rise to 25 per cent.

Last night a Government spokesman said: 'The UK has a robust domestic energy supply from diverse sources, which we are confident will ensure security of supply in all scenarios.'

... Shipments to UK supermarkets of the new potatoes and other fresh produce depend on the daily ferry to Portsmouth.

Likewise, supermarkets on Jersey would suffer shortages of bread, fruit, fresh meat and vegetables, which arrive twice a day by ship.

Chief executive of the Jersey Co-op stores, Mark Cox, said its shelves would be 'bare within two days' if the port was blocked.

Why are the fishermen angry?

French fishermen need a licence to fish in Jersey's waters under the Brexit deal.

Until last week French boats were allowed to work under the previous rules.

Now fishermen are complaining that boats which had operated in the waters for years are having their access restricted.

What changed?

The fishermen had to prove they worked in Jersey's waters previously to keep doing so, but argued they were facing more curbs.

Jersey's government said of the 41 French boats that applied for licences last Friday, 17 did not provide the evidence.

How does this relate to Brexit?

When the UK left the EU it also left the Common Fisheries Policy and ended the Bay of Granville fishing agreement, which shared out fishing rights in Jersey's waters.

But Brussels believes that Jersey is ignoring the terms of the trade deal and that French trawlers are facing 'additional conditions' to operating, in breach of the agreement.

... up to 100 French fisherman were threatening to blockade Jersey's St Helier harbour.

In the event they only staged a protest outside the port yesterday.

How has Britain responded?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson sent two Navy gunships to 'monitor' the situation in Jersey on Wednesday night and called for an urgent de-escalation in tensions.

How could it be resolved?

The Government believes the best way to end the row is through the dispute resolution mechanism in the Brexit deal.

So far, the EU has not triggered this.

This was childish, dangerous and (just like every other French sea skirmish) doomed to fail

French aggression over disputed fishing waters around the Channel Islands is childish, irrational, petulant and dangerous.

.. We ought to be long clear of all that old history, but by being so obstreperous the French and their navy are harking back to the Napoleonic era.

It's tempting to be trite and point out that clashes between British and French fleets never do end in their favour.

The Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 remains one of the most emphatic victories in our island history, one that helped shape the world today.

... The French are making extreme threats and naval encounters can escalate with alarming speed.

... Yesterday's protest saw more than 60 small Normandy vessels gathering around the bay – with some actually entering the harbour of St Helier – taking up position for a blockade that dispersed after several hours.

... All this, in a dispute over delays to paperwork for fishing licences.

I am astonished by the hysterical French over-reaction.

Make no mistake, these are British territorial waters.

The citizens of the Channel Islands are British.

Protecting them is more than our right – it is our duty, and the Prime Minister was right to send in a couple of Fishery Protection ships, HMS Tamar and HMS Severn.

The response of the government in Paris, to despatch two gendarmerie patrol boats, PCG Athos and PCG Themis, was one more arrogant provocation.

In simple terms, one country cannot just send its armed ships into the territorial seas of another nation and leave them there.

It is a gross breach of the UN Convention of the laws at sea.

In the aftermath of Brexit, Jersey is applying the rules of the treaties.

The French have taken exception to this.

... What is so alarming is how eager French president Emmanuel Macron and his ministers have been to stir up trouble.

The most incendiary threat so far has been their less-than-veiled warning that Jersey's electricity supply lies under French control.

Almost all the island's power is transmitted via underwater cables from the Norman mainland.

Shutting off electricity to a foreign country is nothing short of international gangsterism.

... Without electricity, Jersey's hospitals and many other vital services would be impaired.

So far, the Prime Minister has acted with the right balance of muscle and restraint. Tamar and Severn were sent in to 'monitor', not to fight.

Of course they are equipped with heavy cannons and machine guns, but there would be no question of opening fire, except in self-defence if they came under fire themselves.

In the event, the flotilla of French fishing boats turned tail and headed back to their home ports yesterday afternoon.

The French warships also withdrew and, in response, No 10 announced that the Tamar and the Severn would leave the area 'given that the situation is resolved for now'. "

"A ‘red team’ view of climate science"


"A new book is a must-read for anyone concerned about the increasingly radical measures nations are being pressured to adopt in response to the so-called climate crisis.

Are these measures really justified from a scientific standpoint?

Does the supposed menace of a human-caused climate apocalypse correspond to reality?

The book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters”, is written by Steven Koonin,

a physicist and professor at New York University who served as undersecretary for science in the US Department of Energy during the Barack Obama administration.

Koonin is also a member and one-time chairman of JASON, an independent organization of scientists that advises the US government on sensitive and pressing science and technology issues.   

I received and read an advance copy of the volume and interviewed Dr Koonin ...

I can highly recommend Koonin’s book:
It is fascinating and informative reading, and hopefully will improve the climate for honest and open discussion.

Koonin has been calling for the appointment of a so-called “red team” – an independent group of qualified scientists –

to carry out a rigorous critique of the scientific validity of the assessments and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 4-yearly US National Climate Assessment (NCA).

The book thus might be read as a foretaste of what a red team might turn up.

Apart from its sometimes devastating conclusions, the volume provides certainly one of the most readable and fascinating accounts available to a non-technical reader about the challenges of climate science, present knowledge of ongoing climate change and potential options for dealing with it.

As the book’s title suggests, present-day climate science is far from being able to give definitive answers to key questions relevant to policymaking.

This is not a popular thing to say, since people like to have black-and-white certainty.

Science, however, is not truth; it is only a search for truth.

A very difficult search, in this case, given the mind-boggling complexity of the Earth’s climate system.

I find particularly valuable the way Koonin explains, in simple, non-technical language, the problems of computer-based climate forecasting and the reasons for the poor reliability of today’s climate models.

... Koonin can in no way be dismissed as a “climate denier.”

On the contrary, most of what he writes is consistent with the official reports of the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment — but with an important reservation:

a number of the most essential facts and conclusions are buried in the body of the voluminous assessment reports,

and not reflected in the summaries provided to the press and decision-makers.

Koonin documents how this circumstance, together with public statements by some climate scientists,

has given a seriously misleading impression about the actual results of climate research.

The assessment reports themselves are publicly available, of course, but one has the impression that few people actually read them carefully, at least not in the manner Koonin has.

... the author demonstrates that the IPCC assessments provide no basis whatsoever for the widely propagated notion that climate change is leading to a global catastrophe.

Among other things, Koonin cites a conclusion from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report,

summarizing some 20 published estimates,

 according to which a global temperature rise of 3°C by the year 2100 would negatively impact the global economy by about 3%  measured in “equivalent income loss.”

Koonin also quotes the following key passage:

“For most  economic  sectors,  the  impact  of  climate  change  will  be  small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high  agreement).

Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development

will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”

Where is the climate apocalypse?

From the official assessments cited in Koonin’s book, one can only conclude that mankind faces incomparably greater dangers and potential losses from developments of a completely different sort —

such as large-scale military conflicts, possible use of nuclear weapons, deadly pandemics, socioeconomic instability and spread of extremist ideologies, international financial crises and others.

...  Renewable energy sources such as wind power may create more environmental problems than they solve.

I was so dumbfounded to learn that the IPCC Assessment Report had provided such a low estimate of global economic losses from climate warming – hardly mentioned in the media – that I decided to do my own little investigation.

I took the “worst-case” scenario referred to in the literature as RCP 8.5, meaning no measures are taken to limit CO2 emissions, high population growth and a huge expansion of coal power.

How much loss would the US economy, for example, suffer from the resulting global warming?   

According to the latest US National Climate Assessment, the global average temperature increase by the year 2100 for scenario RCP8.5 is projected to lie in the range 2.5 – 4.7°C. 

Applying the relevant correlation table from the NCA-cited 2017 study,   
   “Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States”, I came up with an estimated loss to the US economy of between 2-5% of GDP in “direct economic damages” due to the effects of global warming.

Not tomorrow, but 80 years from now, in 2100.

However one might twist and turn, this can hardly be regarded as a disaster of apocalyptic dimensions.

Needless to say, these figures are only as good as the climate projections themselves.

In separate chapters Koonin addresses, with much interesting detail, some other consequences of climate change, including rising sea levels, frequency of storms and other extreme weather, floods and drought, etc.

In each case, there is no hint of an oncoming global catastrophe — neither in the projections nor in the actual data.

Instead, we can expect a gradual change of the sort that human societies have successfully adapted to for thousands of years.

Koonin’s 2017 public call for the creation of a “red team” already struck a raw nerve in the climate science community, and resulted in considerable push-back.

It was argued, for example, that additional probing would be superfluous since scientific publications on climate are already subject to peer criticism and peer review, as they are in every other field of science.

The latter is true, of course, but when it comes to spending trillions of dollars and adopting measures that will seriously affect the economies of nations around the world, a different, more critical sort of examination is needed.

In Koonin’s view, this would ideally be provided by a so-called “red team exercise”:

an “adversary” group of scientists is charged with rigorously questioning an assessment or proposed course of action

while an opposing group, a “blue team”, has the opportunity to rebut their findings.  

As Koonin remarks in his book:

“Red Team exercises are commonly used to inform high-consequence decisions such as testing national intelligence findings or validating complex engineering projects like aircraft or spacecraft;

they’re also common in cyber-security. Red Teams catch errors or gaps, identify blind spots, and often help to avoid catastrophic failures.”
The climate crisis could be made worse by wrong-headed policies and prescriptions.

I cannot help being reminded of the investigation of the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle explosion by Richard Feynman

– one of America’s greatest scientists and a colleague and hero of Koonin during his time at the California Institute of Technology.

An exceptionally brilliant and independent-minded person, Feynman was uniquely able — as an outsider — to uncover the physical causes, technical difficulties, errors and misjudgments which had led to the Challenger disaster.

This kind of rigorous examination would hardly have been imaginable from inside the official US space agency NASA at that time.

... Koonin suggests that a first red team review might consist of close public scrutiny of the forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report of IPCC, or the next US National Climate Assessment, expected in 2023.

Members of the climate science community have plainly been reluctant to speak up against what has been falsely represented as the consensus view.

Koonin devotes a chapter to the problems of miscommunication and misrepresentation of climate science by examining the role of media, politicians, scientific institutes and scientists themselves.

He remarks, “my direct experiences, along with some universal truths about humans, suggest not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests.”

The final chapters of the book are devoted to a detailed discussion of the options available for dealing with global warming and its consequences.

Koonin considers the goal of drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis,

within the timeframe envisaged in the Paris agreement for example, to be quite unrealistic,

given among other things in view of the vast and rapidly growing energy demand of developing nations in the coming decades. 

Although he supports the use and further development of low-carbon and carbon-free technologies, including nuclear power,

transforming the entire world energy system will take a very long time.

Koonin argues that the main response to global warming will be simply to adapt to the changing climate.

... he recommends we must prepare for future eventualities, push climate research forward and explore the possibility – as an ultimate last resort – to actively “geo-engineer” a cooling of the climate.

Solar geoengineering is one potential path to reducing climate change.

The latter option, often referred to as “solar geo-engineering“ has been under serious investigation for some time ...

In the book, Koonin tells of his own involvement in the area, including co-authorship of a ground-breaking study in 2009.

It is well established that the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere has a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures.

This effect is regularly observed following volcanic eruptions.

It turns out, that artificially injecting the amounts of aerosols needed to achieve significant global cooling is entirely within the reach of present-day technology.

... it would even be relatively easy.

Naturally, one would want to know how such an intervention might affect the climate system globally and on regional levels.

That is a task for climate science.

I am sure nobody would object to carrying out a red team exercise before undertaking such a project."

"Oh, that modeling problem"


"In an article on the Eocene, a period in the Earth’s history relatively free of political controversy due to its having ended about 33.9 mya,

Wikipedia blurts out something hidden in plain sight: “An issue arises, however, when trying to model the Eocene and reproduce the results that are found with the proxy data.”

That “issue” being that, as usual, models meant to predict the future cannot even reproduce the past.

“The models, while accurately predicting the tropics, tend to produce significantly cooler temperatures of up to 20 °C (36 °F) colder than the actual determined temperature at the poles.

This error has been classified as the ‘equable climate problem’.”

Or the “Whoa Nelly our models are busted” problem.

The Eocene, by the way, is not totally free of controversy because nothing climate-related is.

... But the issue with the Eocene is that late in that epoch the planet started cooling.

Despite high levels of CO2.

Wikipedia of course ties the cooling neatly to CO2 dropping.

“At the end of the Eocene Optimum, carbon dioxide began decreasing due to increased siliceous plankton productivity and marine carbon burial.

At the beginning of the middle Eocene an event that may have triggered or helped with the draw down of carbon dioxide was the Azolla event at around 49 million years ago.

With the equable climate during the early Eocene, warm temperatures in the arctic allowed for the growth of azolla, which is a floating aquatic fern, on the Arctic Ocean.

Compared to current carbon dioxide levels, these azolla grew rapidly in the enhanced carbon dioxide levels found in the early Eocene.

As these azolla sank into the Arctic Ocean, they became buried and sequestered their carbon into the seabed.
This event could have led to a draw down of atmospheric carbon dioxide of up to 470 ppm.”

Could have.

 But even if it did, it sounds like a good example not of runaway climate change

but of a build-in negative feedback stabilizing mechanism involving the carbon cycle, if those hadn’t been cancelled.

But as the article also says, when the Eocene yielded to the Oligocene “around 34 million years ago” it seems fairly clear that atmospheric CO2 was “around 750-800 ppm”.

Uh, isn’t that level catastrophic warming territory?

The science being settled, more research is clearly needed. Including into the “Whoa Nelly problem”

that climate models are created to say CO2 causes warming so they say it no matter what really happens."

"Liberal Fascism: Facebook throttles a WSJ book review on climate science."


"Amazon this year started its foray into politicized book-banning, pulling a three-year-old book on transgender policy by a conservative think-tanker from its web store.

Facebook doesn’t sell books, but it can suppress their distribution when they conflict with a political agenda.

The social-media giant now appears to be throttling a Wall Street Journal review of a book on climate science by physicist Steven Koonin, the former top scientist at the Obama Energy Department and provost of the California Institute of Technology.

Facebook uses so-called fact-checkers to tell it which news articles to suppress.

The project has gone far beyond curbing viral hoaxes or dangerous misinformation and aims to limit scientific debate.

... The company now targets the Journal’s book review based on a gazillion-word post on a site called Climate Feedback with the headline, “Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ‘Unsettled.’”

The fact-check attacks Mr. Koonin’s book for saying the “net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”

Minimal is in the eyes of the beholder, but the U.S. National Climate Assessment predicted America’s climate costs in 2090 at about $500 billion per year—a fraction of the recent Covid stimulus in an economy that could be four times as large.

The fact-check on the statement that “global crop yields are rising, not falling” retorts that “while global crop yields are rising, this does not constitute evidence that climate change is not adversely affecting agriculture.”

OK, but that’s an argument, not a fact-check.

By the way, would articles that imply declining crop yields be slapped with warning labels?

We doubt it.

The censorship only goes in one direction.

Climate Feedback’s comment on a line from the review about “the number and severity of droughts” does not identify any falsehood,

but instead claims, “it doesn’t really make sense to make blanket statements regarding overall global drought trends.”

Maybe it doesn’t make sense for Facebook to restrict the reach of legitimate scientific argument and competing interpretations of data.

Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and left-wing interests

 have been pressing Facebook to implement more censorship of climate-related discussion,

which can help soften opposition to the Democratic majority’s Green New Deal priorities.

The damages of such tech abuses to democracy are far-reaching."

"Science needs more whistleblowers and more questioning science crisis, fraud, whistleblowers, science journalists"

"In a superb article science journalist Martin Enserink details how dozens of papers linking the impact of carbon dioxide emissions to unsettling changes in fish behaviour have fallen under suspicion. 

These papers, originally published by Philip Munday, formerly of James Cook University in Australis, were highly influential,

indeed lauded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a key example of how human CO2 emissions are affecting the marine environment.

However, over the past year or so a small group of ocean researchers have looked into the data upon which the original papers were based and found what they say are troubling inconsistencies that cast doubt on the findings.

In January 2020 an extensive paper published in Nature by the investigators found no evidence of the seemingly dramatic effects claimed, and they raise allegations of misconduct.

As well as questions relating to the science concerned the affair highlights problems in the culture of science and the reporting of science.

Does the pressure to publish in prominent journals (in this case Science and Nature Climate Change) mean that the proper protocols of scientific research are neglected?

... what does it say about a journal’s policy of peer review and acceptance?

All of the major journals want to publish the best research and actively seek publicity when they do, which is especially true when a journal relies on advertising for revenue.

There is a positive feedback loop between scientists and their institution.

All seek to benefit from the ensuing publicity and prestige.

In this case the question has been raised if journals are too keen on eye-catching research at the expense of quality.

It also exposes the risks of whistle blowing as the scientists who have raised the alarm about the ocean acidification research have themselves come in for criticism,

with allegations that airing dirty laundry is better done in private and not publicly.

In my view an outdated viewpoint in today’s society where disinformation spreads and sticks.

Perhaps in this respect current science practices are in trouble.

On the one hand a single publication in a science journal is never a final statement of the state of science;

it’s always provisional and used to be akin to a proper scientist saying:,

here is what I have done, now feel free to criticise it.

On the other hand are the journals doing enough fact checking and scrutiny as part of their gatekeeping practices?

The fact that in this particular case researchers in adjacent lines of research were easily able to spot major flaws suggest not, and I suspect it applies to other fields as well.

Science journalism is also to be examined.

How often do journalists just reproduce a press release, failing to seek out any additional viewpoints than that expressed in the release?

How often are critical viewpoints sought as opposed to going to a familiar expert who will always say the same thing?

Are science journalists too closely connected with the network of science institutions and too submissive to scientists?

Most of them are certainly reluctant to upset some of them, fearing intimidation by campaigners ora twitter pile-on if they stray from what is seen as an acceptable course.

Science is never a straight line.

Not everything can be dragooned into the same narrative.

If science journalists are more cheerleaders than critical writers, they not only trivialise the complexity of nature but devalue the credibility of science itself.

There are awkward questions to be asked in every field.

Which journalist, and which scientist for that matter, believes that everything that’s published in an academic journal, and that everything we’re being told by scientists, is true?

Doing and reporting science is not like trying to write a few words like that found on a greetings card.

How many scientists and journalists have a list of questions, a few doubts, an impression of inconsistencies they have put to the back of their mind?

Science is different from other activities. It is ultimately self-correcting, though sometimes on long timescales.

What we are seeing today is a bad science experiment,

seeing what happens when it is mixed more than ever before with politics, public money, publicity, the desire for influence, and institutional bias.

It’s my view that science journalists should be shaking this tree in a scientifically literate way, not trying to climb it."

"Sorry, CBS, NOAA’s “U.S. Climate Normals,” Report Misrepresents the Science"


"CBS News’ story covering of the Biden administration’s new U.S Climate Normals report says government data show

the United States is warming at an unusually rapid rate due to human induced climate change,

causing more frequent and severe extreme weather events.

This story, as with the government report it is based upon, is long on alarm but short on facts.

Data from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

show temperatures in the United States aren’t rising at an unusually rapid rate.

In addition, incidences of extreme weather events are neither more frequent nor more severe than in the past.

“Just a quick glance at the new U.S. Climate Normals maps published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Tuesday

is enough for most climate scientists to say, ‘I told you so,’” writes CBS in an article, titled “NOAA’s “new normal” climate report is anything but normal.”

“While the new normals are just 10 years removed from the earlier set, the changes are still significant.

In that time the nation has warmed an average of half a degree Fahrenheit,” CBS continues.

“That may not sound like much, but small changes in the normals mean much larger changes in the extremes like extremes like heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods and hurricanes.”

NOAA’s new report may claim temperatures are rising across the United States, and weather is getting more extreme, but its own data and data from the IPCC say otherwise.

... Temperatures, contrary to NOAA’s claim that temperatures are rising rapidly, thermometer readings in the United States report current temperatures are similar to the temperatures recorded 80 years ago.

Also, NOAA’s own U.S. Climate Reference Network, an extremely accurate network of temperature stations throughout the United States requiring no corrective adjustments,

shows no significant warming has occurred in the United States since it was established in 2005.

Data from the IPCC and NOAA also demonstrate there has been no measurable increase in the number or severity of droughts, hurricanes or floods, since the early part of the 19th century.

Also, data from the IPCC and NOAA show the incidences of heat waves and wildfires in the United States and globally have actually declined during the recent period of modest warming.

Had CBS compared the publicly available data against the alarming soundbites contained in the Biden administration’s new U.S. Climate Normals report,

it could have easily discovered the report misrepresents what data show.

A news organization committed to pursuing the truth, wherever it leads, would have looked beneath the surface of the report at the underlying data.

Such an investigation would have revealed temperatures aren’t rising unnaturally, and weather extremes aren’t increasing.

That’s the good news CBS should have reported."

"The Dutch report Thundersnow, as German Cities record their First May Snowfall in Half a Century"


"Summer is just around the corner, yet it’s snowing ACROSS Europe.

It snowed in the Dutch province of Brabant yesterday, May 7.

In fact, heavy thundersnow was reported: “A unique combination in May,” reads a recent article.

Holland’s cold spell, which has been going on for almost two months now, has been severe.

The nation as a whole just suffered its coldest April since 1986 ...
 — average temps finished some 3.2C below the climatological norm of 9.9C.

April’s historic chill also delivered a total of 10 snow days, which made for the most snow recorded in the Netherlands in April since 1977 ...

And the snow has continued into May, too — an incredibly rare phenomenon.

“It’s May 7 … and it is snowing!

What’s going on?” exclaimed one Brabant local on social media.

Another tweeted: “Welcome to May 7!

Considerable snow just in the east of Brabant…”

The snow settled on the ground, “which is very rare nowadays in the third spring month,” continues

“People can’t believe their eyes.”

With an average temperature of just 6C (42.8F), April 2021 was Germany’s coldest April since that of 1977.

The country’s average reading finished a whopping 3C below the 1991-2020 climatological norm, and even 2.3C below the previously-used 1981-2010 baseline.

And now in May, as is the case in many other European nations, the cold is lingering.

According to reports, rare May snow is hitting regions such as Potsdam — the cities’ first May flakes since 1969.

Snowfall is also being observed in Berlin — and after a quick ERA5 analysis, it is revealed that in the past 70 years, May snow has only fallen in the German capital on three occasions: in 1991, in 1978, and back in 1970."

"Years of Failed Arctic Sea Ice Predictions"


"Over the past few decades, geographers, oceanographers, geophysicists, glaciologists, climatologists, geo-engineers, and Al Gore, have shown great interest in Arctic Ocean sea ice extent.

Many of these experts envisaged an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

... every one of these forecasts has been proven hopelessly wrong,

yet most of the scientists behind them have retained their positions and credibility within their respective fields.

This is an indication of how deep the narrative runs.

‘Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice,’ reported the BBC back in 2007.

‘Their latest modeling indicates that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.’

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Department of Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2013.

Maslowski added that his prediction was on the conservative side, too:

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007.

So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

The BBC boasted that Maslowski used ‘supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes.’

... Also back in 2007, we had NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally’s prediction:

“The Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

Zwally was quoted in many publications at the time:

“The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming.

Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died.

 It is time to start getting out of the coal mines,” he said.

In 2008, University of Manitoba professor David Barber prophesied:

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].

This is a very dramatic change in the High Arctic climate system.”

British AGW rag The Independent ran the ‘Exclusive’ story:

‘It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year,’ reads the opening paragraph, which is all you get to see unless you pay… which I didn’t.

In reality, the 2008 summer minimum turned out to have more ice than in 2007.

In 2010, Mark Sereezer, the newly appointed senior scientist at the US government’s Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. was famously quoted as saying: “the Arctic is screaming.”

Geographer Serreze, who now holds the job as NSIDC director, warned that global warming will render the Arctic ice free by the summer of 2030 —

a claim picked up by the likes of the, but one that shows no indications of materializing.

... Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) reveal levels were within the average range

In 2012, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge (UK), Professor Peter Wadhams, foretold of a complete collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016 — predictably leapt on by

‘As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a ‘global disaster’ is now unfolding in northern latitudes,’ reads the article’s subheading.

‘One of the world’s leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years,’ continued the piece.

‘In what he calls a “global disaster” now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded,

Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for “urgent” consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures:

“Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades time,

and we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geo-engineering ideas that have been put forward.”‘

Once again though, real-world observations ended-up leaving a modern climate researcher with egg on their face,

because far from reaching the forecast record lows, the year 2016 actually saw the quickest Arctic refreeze ever recorded,

with the sea ice extent advancing 405,000 m2 (1.05 million km2) in just three weeks.

The DMI actually noted that that rate of refreezing was the fastest since its daily records began in 1987.

That contradicting reality didn’t stop Professor Wadhams cashing in on his scaremongering, however.

His book “A Farewell To Ice,” in which he again repeated the assertion that the polar region would ice-free within just a few years,

was published in 2016 to the predictably-blind critical acclaim of AGW propaganda rags such as The Guardian.

There are hundreds-more dire Sea Ice predictions that have either expired or are soon to expire,

but the mainstream media is yet to offer a single retraction; in fact, many of the failures are still up online, for all to see.

Let us not forget that overstuffed doormat of a man Al Gore in all this:

This is the danger when politics, and the funding it brings, drives science, instead of the age-old standards of ideas, logic, testing, and real-world observations.

The above list of fails is a sad indictment of modern science, yet the researches involved have all retained their positions and credibility — how?

Because Global Warming is a powerful political tool.

It will prop you up and support you if you follow the rules, but it will tear you down the minute you dare to question it.

AGW is being used as propaganda to enforce literally whatever those string-pulling elites deem fit.

And unfortunately, the masses are too distracted, far too busy slaving away at 9-5’s (in order to keep their heads above water–ironically), to stop and observe these now decades-worth of scientific discrepancies.

The catastrophe is always “X” amount of years away, and when that “X”-date does uneventfully come and go, the doomsday deadline quietly gets pushed on, to scam the next generation.

AOC says we now have 10 years left to avert the end of the world.

I wonder what new power-hungry know-nothing know-it-all politician we’ll be hearing from in 2031, when AOC’s prediction ... passes us by. "

"This time it's different"


"Nothing gets your attention when it comes to the environment like a dead coral reef except perhaps a tumbling walrus or a starving polar bear.

So we’re told a mass extinction of coral is brewing, along with other photogenic things like manta rays, as our nasty climate change drives species from the equator.

And we don’t mean later.

“Our recent study found the ocean around the equator has already become too hot for many species to survive, and that global warming is responsible.”

And “When the same thing happened 252 million years ago, 90% of all marine species died.”

... wait a minute.

In fact wait several million years.

The authors “looked at distribution records for nearly 50,000 marine species collected since 1955 and found a growing dip over time in this bell shape.”

Namely that from 1955 to 1974, there were more species at the equator than elsewhere except for there not being; the real peak was around 30° N.

But from 1975-1994 there were big peaks at around 30° N and S and a dip in the middle, a pattern that became considerably less pronounced from 1995-2015.

So the pattern they point to doesn’t really exist.

Especially since we have no real idea how many species there are on the planet now, let alone millions of years ago.

Or where they were 50 years go.

The dogmatic tone of the piece, with lines like “as our oceans warm, species have tracked their preferred temperatures by moving towards the poles”,

vastly exaggerates the comprehensiveness and exactness of the sample as well as misrepresenting the pattern of what they do have.

And not only with the claim that “the equator has already become too hot for many species to survive”

because if they can’t survive they die and we defy them to list the many species that, unable to survive, have perished from heat since 1974.

It also insults common sense to say “Although the warming at the equator of 0.6°C over the past 50 years is relatively modest compared with warming at higher latitudes,

tropical species have to move further to remain in their thermal niche compared with species elsewhere.”

If a temperature change that small could trigger mass extinctions, we’d have had a bunch of them during the Holocene alone, never mind since 252 mya.

Which they sort of claim. “At the end of the Permian geological period about 252 million years ago, global temperatures warmed by 10°C over 30,000-60,000 years as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from volcano eruptions in Siberia.”

CO2. Of course.

... But who’s predicting a 10°C temperature increase now, let alone claiming it already happened?

The authors also point hair-raisingly to the Eemian mass extinction in which “during the rapid warming around 125,000 years ago,

there was a similar swift movement of reef corals away from the tropics, as documented in the fossil record.

The result was a pattern similar to the one we describe, although there was no associated mass extinction.”

... No mass extinction.

Still, there’s a pattern here, namely that we’re all going to die from CO2.

What about the Ordovician–Silurian mass extinction around 450 to 440 mya?

The authors don’t mention it, although Wikipedia chips in that “In May 2020, studies suggested the cause of the mass extinction was due to global warming, related to volcanism, and anoxia, and not due, as considered earlier, to cooling and glaciation.”

See, warming is bad for life a priori and so no cooling for you.

The Late Devonian?


The Triassic-Jurassic?


The Cretaceous-Paleogene?

Well, that one is still about the asteroid though National Geographic assures us “it’s the exception.

The single biggest driver of mass extinctions appears to be major changes in Earth’s carbon cycle…”

So while Wikipedia commendably observes that the fossil record is pretty patchy when it comes to mass extinctions,

the crucial point isn’t what happened when or why,

it’s that we’re all going to die and it’s our fault."

Saturday, May 8, 2021

Weekend climate rap -- What are the climate computer games really for?

The average climate model simulation (prediction, projection, BS, etc.) represents the government bureaucrat climate science consensus.  

Computer game 'predictions' ARE the personal opinions of the computer owners / programmers.

The 'prediction' is whatever he or she wants to predict.

The computer calculates based on assumptions.

And the assumptions can be changed to get the desired prediction.

The desired prediction is what the government bureaucrat scientists are paid to predict -- rapid, potentially dangerous in the long run, global warming.

Anyone who believes these models are intended to make ACCURATE global average temperature predictions is very gullible.  

These computer games have had about 40 years to be refined, and become more accurate.

In fact, it appears new CMIP6 models will be even less accurate than the old CMIP5, models, based on what is known about CMIP6 models so far.

I will make a bold prediction (bold because I'd don't like to make predictions, but this is an easy one) -- CMIP7 models will predict even faster global warming than CMIP6 models did.

These models have nothing to do with real science.

Real science requires fairly accurate predictions, that get better over time.

These computer games started with inaccurate predictions, and have never improved over many decades.

So what purpose do climate computer games serve?

Their purpose is political.

They serve as props to support repeated predictions of a coming climate crisis.

I believe those predictions started in 1957, with oceanographer Roger Revelle, back in the old days when scientists had uncertainty.

So why predict a coming climate crisis that never happens ... getting louder, and more hysterical, every year?


When people fear a crisis, whether real (COVID) or imaginary (climate emergency), they turn toward their government for help.

Scared citizens allow their government to seize more power, and tell them how to live.

A leftist leader or bureaucrat ALWAYS wants to do that -- having a crisis makes it much easier -- never let a crisis go to waste, they say.

The models are props that appear scientific, and support the generation of climate change fear.

Most people who have lived through mild, harmless global warming for the past 45 years, since the mid-1970s, have been convinced that future global warming will be completely different than past global warming -- rapid and dangerous.

The models help with that persuasion.

They models are doing what they are intended to do.

Accurate predictions are NOT their intended purpose.

If accuracy was important, the Russian INM model would be celebrated
(it over predicts global warming less than other models), and other models would be generally ignored.

Models appear to be bad science, but are  good leftist politics.  
(I'm not sure "good" and "leftist" should be used in the same sentence).

Richard Greene,  
Ye Editor, and climate rapper "Heavy R"
Bingham Farms, Michigan
TBW (Trained By Wife)

Brand new today, on my other blogs


"2020 Urban Crime Data: 
 If you hate the police, they'll stop looking for crime and just wait until you call them, and this is what happens = a crime explosion in major cities !"


"Financial data and economic news 
 for the week ending May 7, 2021"

"Climate Science Is 'Unsettled,' Says Obama Science Director"


"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, by physicist Steven E. Koonin, Ph.D."

... Of the multiple books and documentaries poking holes in the apocalyptic climate alarm narrative released in the past year, Unsettled may be the most critical of all, because of who its author is.

Koonin was involved in the development of the early computer models used in science and wrote one of the first books describing how computer models were developed, how they function, and their strengths and limits when used in science.

The book is still widely used in college classrooms today. Koonin has written more than 200 academic papers and articles, which have been cited more than 14,000 times, according to Google Scholar.

Koonin’s research and writings on climate science and energy led former President Barack Obama to appoint him Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy.

Koonin’s portfolio included the government’s climate research program, and Koonin was the lead author of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Strategic Plan (2011).

Koonin is the ultimate climate insider. Climate hypers cannot plausibly portray him as fringe scientist working outside the mainstream or legitimately label him a “climate denier.”

Koonin’s research indicates the climate is changing and humans have influenced some of that change.

Almost everything else people have been led to believe about climate change is unsettled, reports Koonin.

  ...  ‘The Science,’ we’re told, is settled. How many times have you heard it?

    Humans have already broken the earth’s climate.

Temperatures are rising, sea level is surging, ice is disappearing, and heat waves, storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires are an ever-worsening scourge on the world.

Greenhouse gas emissions are causing all of this.

And unless they’re eliminated promptly by radical changes to society and its energy systems, “The Science” says Earth is doomed.

    Well . . . not quite.

Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it.

But beyond that ... “I do not think ‘The Science’ says what you think it says.”

Unsettled is presented in two parts:
“The Science” and “The Response.”

“The Science” comprises eleven chapters. The first two discuss what we know about how the climate works (hint: its less than you’ve been led to believe), and the extent to which humans are contributing to climate change (also less than you might think).

The third chapter discusses how climate models have been developed and the ways in which their results are “muddled,” in Koonin’s words, instead of being definitive and trustworthy.

Koonin shows models often contradict one another and fail to match observed changes in temperature and climate.

This chapter also begins the book’s examination of how various interested parties suppress and misrepresent good climate research in order to persuade the public we face a climate crisis.

This latter point is a running theme Koonin highlights by citing specific examples throughout the book.

Chapters Five through Nine examine various negative effects purportedly being caused or exacerbated by human-caused climate change.

This set of chapters is fairly summed up by the title of Chapter Nine: “Apocalypses That Ain’t.”

 Among the findings Koonin discloses are:

    The late[st] generation of models is actually more uncertain than the earlier one[s].

    Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900 and the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.

    Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.
    Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.

    The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.

... The last two chapters of section one examine who “broke” climate science, and how and why,

and then discuss how the science, along with how it is represented and reported, can be improved.

For me personally, these chapters are in many ways the most disturbing and interesting of the book,

because they detail the ways by which the scientific enterprise itself is being perverted, to the detriment of both science and political decision making.

Science is a process, a method of discovering new truths and explaining currently unexplained or poorly understood phenomena.

As Koonin’s book shows in detail, many of those involved in climate research and reporting have abandoned science—the process of discovering data and evidence and assembling facts—for “The Science,”

a massive effort to persuade people to believe something that is not true, for normative or political reasons.

Koonin’s suggestion that the federal government institute a “Red Team/Blue Team” exercise

to examine and discuss the weak spots in various government climate reports before they are published

has been met with hostility by many politically connected scientists and powerful government leaders.

Prominent Democrat senators such as Edward Markey (MA), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Cory Booker (NJ), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Diane Feinstein (CA) have supported legislation

to outlaw scientific debate about what is known and unknown about climate change

by “prohibit[ing] the use of funds to Federal agencies to establish a panel, task force, advisory committee, or other effort to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, and for other purposes.”

You read that right.

Politicians who regularly demand people “follow the science” on climate change have tried to ban the use of the scientific method to discover what climate science tells us.

Of this, Koonin writes,

    I confess to being shocked. … [Enshrining a certain scientific viewpoint as an inviolable consensus is hardly the role of government (at least in a democracy).

And as a student of history, I found the bill uncomfortably reminiscent of a 1546 decree by the Council of Trent that attempted to suppress challenges to Church doctrine.

In section two of Unsettled, “The Response,” Koonin explores why political diktats to curtail fossil fuel use sharply are likely to fail and produce outcomes as bad as or worse than the harms they are meant to prevent.

Koonin suggests the wisest response to climate change, the response most likely to mitigate any harms while generating beneficial outcomes, is something societies have historically embraced in response to changing climate and sociopolitical conditions: flexible adaptation.

Koonin definitively shows that much more is unsettled than is settled in climate science, economics, and policy. Koonin’s book deserves the praise it is receiving, and it merits wide readership.

If it gets the audience it deserves, there will be one more thing unsettled: the narrative that we face a climate crisis so certain and so dire that only a radical government-controlled reshaping of the economy, people’s personal lives, and consumption patterns can solve it."

"Added CO2 Has Led To 14% More Vegetation Over Past 100 Years!"


" ... Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.

... a recent German study by Merbach et al  ... Over the past 100 years, there has been increased global vegetation growth.

“The global vegetation cover increased approximately 11- 14%, of which 70% can be attributed to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere,” reports Die kalte Sonne on the findings.

Another result:
“Since 1982, the inventory of trees has increased more than 7%”.

Crop yields will rise by up to 15% by 2050

... As the diagram above shows, crops such as soy bean (Soja), wheat (Weizen), rice (Reis) and corn (Mais) will surge as CO2 concentration rises to 550 ppm by 2050 ...

“ ... From 1990 to 2015 in Germany, crop yields for wheat, barley, corn and potatoes rose more than 30%,

which the researchers attribute in part to the higher CO2 concentrations,” Die kalte Sonne reports.

... The study appeared in the Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment at the end of 2020."

UK Auto Industry: "Manufacturers call for petrol and diesel car ban to be delayed - 'Tough and demanding'"


"Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has revealed car makers told him 2035 would be a more “realistic” target for the implementation of the ban.

According to Mr Shapps, manufacturers said an extended deadline worth extra financial support would help further “drive the acceleration of zero-emission vehicles”.

Firms hope “price parity” between electric models and traditional petrol cars can be achieved by this date, which would convince drivers to switch en masse.

The comments are understood to have come at a meeting with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) back in March.

Mr Shapps said: “Many of the manufacturers felt the DfT needed to set an end date for sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines, with many suggesting a realistic phase-out date could be 2035.

“Combined with incentives and tax support, they thought that such a deadline would help drive the acceleration of zero-emission vehicles until the time when price parity is achieved with petrol models.”

The proposed petrol and diesel car ban could now be delayed

Manufacturers have made clear to the DfT the need for investment in more charging infrastructure.

The development of batteries was also highlighted as a must for a thriving electric car market.

The Department for Transport has now invited car manifacturers to present their plans to phase out petrol and diesel models.

This is part of their ambition to work more closely with car firms as they transition to fully electric gets even closer."

Mr Shapps said manufacturers support for phasing out the models was “simply overwhelming” and urged the Government and firms to “work closer together”.

Mr Shapps added: “We didn’t set such a bold ambitious target without careful consideration.

“We know they are tough and demanding on industry.

“And yet, it was to the huge credit of UK car makers that their support for phasing out petrol and diesel sales by 2030 was simply overwhelming.

“But if we’re going to be successful in navigating this historic journey and making the car industry a global leader in green manufacturing then we need to work closer together than ever before.”

However, COP26 President Alok Sharma backed plans to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030 at a climate event yesterday.

He said this would “match the ambition” of other nations such as Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Mr Sharma said it was critical manufacturers looked to “speed up” the transition and pushed for action between Government and businesses.

He said: “We know that action from governments and business reinforce one another.

“So, as we look to speed-up the transition to green transport, we need action from both groups.

“And we must speed it up, because, today, road transport is responsible for 10 percent of global emissions.

“To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need all new car sales to be zero-emission by 2040. Earlier in the most advanced markets.

“And a faster transition can benefit us all. Thanks to economies of scale reducing costs.” "

"Why aren't the truth czars at Facebook canceling those who spread disinformation on oil and climate change?"


"Why is most of the Arctic ice still there with all the doom-and-gloom predictions over the last 100 years? 

You know the ones: that global warming would cause the ice to melt rapidly and coastal cities to be destroyed?

At the end of April 2021, Arctic Sea ice was 5,340,000 square miles.

This was 158,000 square miles above the record low and 328,000 square miles below the 1981–2010 average. 

It is more than 94% of the average, which is not even close to being gone,

as is continuously predicted when leftists seek to scare the public with repeated warnings that coastal cities will soon be gone. 

And we are told the science is settled? 

I looked at only the following made-up doom-and-gloom predictions from the New York Times and Washington Post, as they were used by other news outlets as sources. 

Why do so many of their articles end up not being true?

Here are a few from a hundred years' worth, collected by the website

    The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions -
    New York Times - February 24, 1895

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot ...

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone ...

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. -
       Washington Post 11/2/1922

    A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," -
       New York Times - May 30, 1947

    Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages.

Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters.       New York Times August 29, 1954

    Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times - February 20, 1969

    Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends ….
     Washington Post January 11, 1970

    The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.
     New York Times - July 18, 1970

    A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed

….Various climatologists issued a statement that "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade," If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" will result. New York Times
         December 29, 1974

    "Scientists ponder why World's Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable
       New York Times May 21, 1975

    Greenhouse Effect Culprit May Be Family Car; New Ice Age by 1995?

...As the tropical oceans heat up (due to increased greenhouse gases), more of their moisture is evaporated to form clouds.

The increasing pole-tropic wind systems move some of these additional clouds toward the poles, resulting in increased winter rainfall, longer and colder winters and the gradual buildup of the polar ice sheets.

This phenomenon has come to be widely recognized by climatologists in recent years.

What most of them do not recognize is that this process may be the engine that drives the 100,000-year cycle of major ice ages, for which there is no other plausible explanation ...

we may be less than seven years away, and our climate may continue to deteriorate rapidly until life on earth becomes all but unsupportable

... New York Times - Larry Ephron , Director of the Institute for a Future
                July 15, 1988

    "But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996.

For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown."
     Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund  New York Times - January 2000

Everyone should remember that while the media, scientists, educators, politicians, and others were constantly switching from an existential threat of warming

to an existential threat of cooling,

that crude oil use was exponentially rising,

the population was exploding,

and CO2 was increasing rapidly. 

Therefore, there is no correlation among the variables.

Why would anyone seek to destroy industries that have helped billions of people improve their quality and length of life and employ tens of millions of people when there are no scientific data to support the destruction? 

The only reason I can think of is that politicians and others want the people to become subservient to the powerful government run by radical leftists who are consumed with having power.

Will the media ever ask questions and report facts, or will they just keep repeating talking points and dire predictions, like wooden puppets,

while the Biden administration seeks to destroy the U.S. economy and leave us vulnerable to our enemies like China, Russia, and Iran?

It is easy with the internet to do research on the climate,

so the question is, why don't journalists do any unless they don't care about anything but power for the government run by Democrats?

The left constantly says it is OK to censor free speech because you aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. 

Then everyone who yells "existential threat of climate change" should be censored, because all these people are essentially yelling "fire" with no evidence.

Shouldn't Kamala and others who are intentionally lying by blaming the border crisis on climate change be censored by social media outlets if they care about disinformation? 

Why would parents send their unaccompanied children to a country they have been told is one of the biggest villains in contributing to the existential threat of climate change if that is why they are sending them? 

Would they send their children to the country that Kamala and others are saying has been racist for over 400 years?

The truth hasn't mattered to most of the media for a long time, and long before Trump.

They spend most of their time campaigning for and contributing to Democrat candidates as they lobby for their radical leftist agenda."