Total Pageviews

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Tuesday morning climate rap

 No one denies climate change.

And climate change "skeptics" are not  a united group, with one common belief. 

Without having survey data, I would guess that most skeptics assume humans have some effect on the climate.

Skeptics do not believe in runaway global warming, fueled by an imaginary water vapor positive feedback, that triples the expected global warming from CO2 alone.

A positive feedback like that that would have ended almost all life on this planet millions of years ago, if it really existed.

So the main difference between skeptics and climate alarmists, is that alarmists are believers, while skeptics demand evidence and proof, which does not exist.

Climate alarmists always "see" climate doom ahead, and this illogical fear appears to have started with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957, based on my research.

Skeptics point to actual global warming since the mid-1970s, and note that it was mild and harmless.


Actual global warming in the past 45 years was nothing like the rapid, dangerous warming that climate alarmists have been predicting for the past 64 years.

It is human nature to fear that there is danger "around every corner" -- that instinct is what kept cavemen alive.

The fear of the future climate worries many people so much that they fail to enjoy the best climate on our planet for humans, animals and plants, since the 1600s.

They are not smart people.

They are climate alarmists.

"Skeptics" are too busy enjoying our wonderful climate, to worry about an  imaginary climate crisis -- they are smart people.

The correct answer to the many questions about the future climate is:

"No one knows, and no one has ever demonstrated any ability to make correct long term climate predictions. It will get warmer, unless it gets colder".

"Early-Season Snow Blasts Australia, "Worst Frosts in Decades" Ravage Europe with "Agricultural Disaster" declared in France, as Rare April Snow and Record Cold Hits UK"

Source:

"The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with the great conjunction, historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow (among other forcings).

A powerful Antarctic front is bringing early-season snow to Australia’s southeast.

The cold invaded Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia on Saturday, and gained further territory on Sunday, bringing freezing conditions, low-level snow, and the first frost of the year to many in the east.

Across vast regions, “temperatures are four to eight degrees (Celsius) below average for this time,” Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Jackson Browne told Daily Mail Australia,

who’s agency is describing the ongoing conditions as an “Antarctic blast.”

Tasmania’s Cradle Mountain saw substantial snowfall, down to around 600 meters (1,970 feet):

While across the state of Victoria, snow accumulated below 900 metres (2,950 feet).

Places like Mt Buller and Mt Baw Baw were reporting impressive mid-April totals, with 22cm (9 inches) building as of Sunday afternoon–with the snow still falling:

... European winemakers are counting the cost after hard frosts ravaged the continent, reports the Guardian

— and with further crop-crippling cold on the way, and grape harvests look set to be “decimated” across some of the best-known and most-prestigious wine producing regions in the world.

The French government has declared an “agricultural disaster,”

and is readying an emergency rescue package after rare freezing temperatures have caused some of the worst damage in decades to crops and vines.

“It breaks like glass because there’s no water inside,” said Dominique Guignard, a winemaker in the Graves area near Bordeaux, as he rubbed the first shoots on his vines.

“It’s completely dried out, there’s no life inside.”

Many industry experts say the damage from temperatures of as low as -6C (21.2F) was the worst in decades, partly because the frost followed unseasonably warm weather last week

–yet another example of the “swing between extremes” witnessed during times of low solar activity

“It’s a national phenomenon,” said Jérôme Despey, the secretary general of the FNSEA farming union and a winemaker in the Hérault region.

“You can go back in history, there have been [freezing] episodes in 1991, 1997, 2003 but in my opinion it is beyond all of them.”

In the Rhône Valley, the head of the local wine producers’ body, Philippe Pellaton, said it would be

“the smallest harvest of the last 40 years”, with losses of 80-90% compared with normal.

Winemakers are “shattered, desperate”, he said.


And those “frost fires” will remain lit across many regions into the second and even third week of April, with further blasts of Arctic cold inbound ...

Europe’s historic April chill is being matched by rare spring snowfall.

The southern UK, for example, including London, is logging substantial spring flurries today, April 12:

Furthermore, the UK saw a low temperature of -9.4C (15F) on Monday, April 12 (at Tulloch Bridge in the Highlands)–the coldest ever recorded for the date in books going back to the 1800s

–this morning’s temp tied with the previous all-time daily record set back in 1958.

Oh, and with a mean CET of 5.7C to April 11 (and so before this mornings record cold), England was on for its 16th coldest April since records began 362 years ago, back in 1659, and its chilliest since the 5.5C of April, 1922.

Britain is currently suffering extreme cold for the time of year, a reality the UK Met Office routinely calls an impossibility under the fantasy doctrine and sham-tastic stratagem that is the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis

It’s long-time we ditched the notion that our planet is warming at all, let alone catastrophically.

The latest UAH data, for March, revealed that Earth’s average temperature is now below the 30-year baseline;

however, there are powerful forces propping up AGW –one of the most pernicious yet intangible being pride– and mere facts won’t ever be enough to bring it down.

... Take John Kerry ...

The man has recently been named Special Presidential Envoy for Climate by the Biden Administration,

but has one of the most embarrassing track-records when it comes to climatic predictions

–we’re talking an ‘Al Gore’ level of embarrassment.

Back in 2009, Kerry announced that the Arctic would have its first ice-free summer in 2014.

He said the following back in 2009 when referring to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK):

“I wish he were really up to state of the art with respect to the science on global climate change.

You have sea ice which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed.

In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer.”

The whole thing is a scam ...

And the same-old proponents of the same-old lies keep getting rehired to push the same-old agenda.

Reject the dogma."

"Lessons In Woke "Science" "

 Source:

"Over time, I have had many posts on the scientific method here ...

You posit a falsifiable hypothesis.

Then you collect and examine the evidence.

If the evidence contradicts your hypothesis you must abandon it and move on.

Really, that’s the whole thing.

Then there is woke “science,” most visible these days in the arenas of response to the Covid-19 virus and of climate change.

Here the principles are a little different.

In woke “science” there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

In place of that, we have the official orthodox consensus view.

The official orthodox consensus view has been arrived at by all the smartest people, because it just seems like it must be right.

The official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted, particularly by the little people like you.

 on the official orthodox consensus view, those in power can take away all your freedom (COVID) and/or transform the entire economy (climate).

After all, it’s the “science.”

But what if evidence seems to contradict the official orthodox consensus view?

... official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted.

Today’s news brings a couple of extreme examples of that, one on the virus front, and the other relating to climate.

Both of these are from Europe, so you may not have seen them.

... to the subject of climate change.

As you may have read, last week brought record-breaking cold to much of Europe which, given that we are well into April, caused substantial damage to crops in their early stages of Spring growth.

Actually, it’s likely that you didn’t read about that at all.

That’s because the U.S. mainstream media mostly only report on record warmth, not record cold.

As an example, I can’t find any mention of the subject of Europe’s cold snap in the New York Times (although I do find an article in the Washington Post).

But, particularly given the extensive crop damage, let alone the readership personally experiencing the bitter cold temperatures, the European press can’t avoid reporting on the subject.

Doesn’t this extreme cold kind of undermine the official orthodox consensus view that the climate is rapidly getting warmer?

Here is the story from France’s Le Figaro, April 9 (my translation):

A bout of severe frost struck numerous crops this week in France.

Temperatures plummeted, in some places, below 0 degrees C (32 F) at a speed never seen since 1947 for the month of April.

Quick, somebody needs to explain how that is consistent with “global warming.”

Le Figaro calls in one Thierry Castel, identified as a “climatology researcher.”

Here’s his explanation:

This is well linked [to global warming].

... Meanwhile, the UAH guys report another substantial drop in world atmospheric temperature in March 2021.

The global temperature anomaly for the month is -0.01 deg C (as against the 30 year average of 1991-2020).

That brings us back down to about the same temperature we had back in 1988. 



Needless to say, Le Figaro was way too polite to confront M. Castel with this information.

Here is the latest UAH chart of global temperatures, going back to 1979:


On the virus front, we consider the case of Germany.

For some reason, Germany has been relatively lightly hit by the virus, at least so far.

According to the latest from Worldometers, Germany has had 940 deaths per million population to date.

 compares, for example to 2,593 deaths per million in Czechia (worst of all countries), 1,864 in the UK, and 1,732 in the U.S.

But starting in about mid-March, Germany has seen a renewed “surge” of cases.

... on March 23 German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a new three-week “lockdown” of the strictest variety, which included the forced closing of most stores from April 1 - 5. ...

The German government is looking to impose even stricter lockdown measures.

Liberty has been suspended indefinitely in Europe.

The problem here is that if the proposition that lockdowns work were a falsifiable hypothesis, it would have been falsified by now.

The most striking data come from here in the U.S., where strict lockdown states like New York (2642 deaths per million as of today), New Jersey (2800), Illinois (1878) and Michigan (1759) continue to get shown up by wide open places like Florida (1584) and Texas (1705).

Try to find any actual data for the efficacy of lock downs, and you can’t.

That is, except for their efficacy in generating an unemployment rate of 13% in New York City versus 4.8% in Florida.

But Germany, like the blue U.S. states, operates by the alternative principles of woke “science.” "

The Hydrogen Hoax -- "Green" Hydrogen Costs About 10 Times More Than Natural Gas


 Source:

"Want to make a small fortune?

Then start with a very large one and use it to turn wind and solar power into hydrogen gas.


Renewables obsessed governments around the world are now talking up hydrogen gas as if they’d just discovered the secret plans for a perpetual motion machine.

It takes a staggering degree of ignorance – not least of the laws of physics and economics

– to believe that converting chaotically intermittent wind and solar into hydrogen gas makes sense.

The majority of hydrogen available on the market (around 95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification

with only a tiny fraction produced by way of biomass gasification or the electrolysis of water or solar thermochemistry.

Steam-methane reforming, the current leading technology for producing hydrogen in large quantities,

extracts hydrogen from methane, usually in the form of natural gas;

the process releases carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.

... Another method of creating hydrogen is electrolysis, which involves chewing up enormous volumes electricity that gets passed through a volume of water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

The big plus attached to this method is said to be that burning hydrogen gas does not release carbon dioxide gas.

Renewable energy rent seekers have seized on the concept of producing hydrogen gas using wind and solar as a way of converting useless, unpredictable and unreliable electricity

into something that can be used as and when consumers need it; rather than something that depends on the whims of mother nature.

If producing industrial volumes of hydrogen using electricity were even vaguely economic, then the obvious way of doing so would be to use coal-fired power; the cheapest and most reliable power source, of all.

But that’s not the point and purpose of the great hydrogen hoax.

This is about corporate greed and rent seeking.

The rules of physics (not least thermodynamics) means that, whatever the power source, more energy will be expended

than will ever be returned from the process of turning electricity into hydrogen gas, storing and distributing it.

Which means it will not result in a net energy benefit.

The storage and distribution of hydrogen gas is not without its challenges.

Attempting to contain the gas in large volumes comes with the threat of industrial scale explosions, thanks to its the low ignition point and highly combustible nature, and also because it tends to leak easily from tanks.

 More than a few hydrogen storage facilities and filling stations have exploded – as to which, see below the image from Norway where one went up with one hell of a bang.

... we’ll take a look at the ludicrous cost of producing hydrogen using wind and solar power generated electricity.


Hydrogen Supply Evidence Base–BEIS
Paul Homewood
19 March 2021


This was what they (UK's BEIS) sent me:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hydrogen-supply-chain-evidence-base

I have selected three pages regarding electrolysis:

Beginning with the capital costs on the first page, and assuming the PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane), which I believe is the most likely system, base costs currently are £750/KW.

... Capacity of 5 GW would produce 42 TWh of hydrogen (@96% load).

UK’s total primary energy consumption is 2320 TWh, so the new hydrogen capacity would be tiny in comparison.

To build enough to supply a tenth of our energy needs, say, would cost about £20bn, though costs would be expected to come down with economies of scale. (These figures ... don’t include storage or distribution costs.)

We are also given the electrical efficiency, which is 55 KW per kg of hydrogen currently.

The energy density of hydrogen, however, is 33.3 Kwh per kg, which means that the electrolysis process only works at 60% efficiency.

... 40% of the energy input is wasted.

... they look at a standalone wind farm.

This has the advantage of not paying for electricity distribution, but the disadvantage of intermittent operation.

Note that this example is based on the lower 2025 CAPEX costs.

We know from the first table that you need 52 KWh to produce 1 KG of hydrogen (2025 assumptions).

Assuming wind power costs of £50/MWh, electricity input would cost £2.60/kg.

This translates to £78.08/MWh.

To that we can add:

    Fixed OPEX for PEM
= £914,000 pa.
Annual output of hydrogen is 87600 MWh
= £10.43/MWh

    Variable OPEX
= £0.0077/KWH
= £7.70.MWh

    Storage
= £255,000 pa
= £2.91/MWh

In total then, the operating costs
of hydrogen work out at £99.12/MWh.

This does not include CAPEX.

When this is added in,
according to Element Energy,
the total cost rises to £137/MWh

We can compare this with the price of gas:

The current wholesale price of natural gas is around 40p therm.

The conversion rate of 29.3 KWh per therm means a price of £13.60/MWh.

The cost of hydrogen via electrolysis will be ten times as much as gas.


... let’s compare all of this with what the CCC estimated for steam reforming costs:

Put simply, hydrogen made via electrolysis costs about three times as much as steam reforming, which itself is triple the cost of gas.

None of this should in any way be surprising.

We know that electricity costs much more than gas.

We also now know that you throw away nearly half of the electricity used in electrolysis, and also have to spend money building and running electrolysis plants.

Yet some people still think hydrogen is a good idea !

Well, it seemed like a good idea… until physics caught up with it!"

Claims Of Climate Change Crop Reductions ... While Production Sets New Records

 Source:

"The media this week are breathlessly promoting a paper by researchers at Curtin University in Australia that says climate change is harming food production.

In reality, crop data show food production is rising dramatically in recent decades under ideal crop conditions.


A Science Daily article, titled “Study calls for urgent climate change action to secure global food supply,” is typical of the media’s coverage of the bogus paper.

The Science Daily article says, “New Curtin University-led research has found …

climate change has had a detrimental impact on health and food production for the past 50 years and far more needs to be done to overcome its adverse effects.”

The fact that climate change has harmed food production would come as news to United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

FAO reports crop production is setting new records almost every year during the past few decades ...

As reported in Climate Realism ... for crop after crop, in country after country, records for annual yield and production are set almost yearly.

The reasons for booming crop production are well documented in the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change volume, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.

Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land suitable for crop production.

Also, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life.

In addition, crops use water more efficiently when benefiting from more atmospheric carbon dioxide, losing less water to transpiration.

The benefits of more atmospheric carbon dioxide and a modestly warming world on hunger and malnutrition are equally clear.

Despite the addition of 3.2 billion people to the planet since 1968, poverty and hunger have plummeted at a faster rate than at any other time in human history.

Although 840 million people worldwide are still undernourished, the United Nations reports the number of hungry people has declined by two billion since 1990.

Research shows there is now 17 percent more food available per person than there was 30 years ago—all occurring during the period of purportedly dangerous climate change.

The research cited above is not hard to find.

The researchers at Curtain University and Science Daily ... were more interested in promoting climate alarm ... "

"CA bill would nail those who can least afford the most expensive energy in the U.S.A."

Source:

"California Senator Weiner has taken Governor Newsom’s recent Executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles and hydraulic fracturing one step further with his introduction of SB 467 ...

The bill is so broad and ambiguous that the results of its passage would lead to a total production ban in California and increase energy costs upon those that can least afford it.

With California already having the highest cost of fuels in the country, the wealthy and middle class have more tolerance for expensive energy,

but poverty kills and having legislatures pass legislation making energy more expensive on the less fortunate, will worsen poverty.

The Governor is proud of California, despite its dysfunctional energy policies making California the only state in the lower 48 states

that imports most of its crude oil from foreign countries almost halfway around the world.

California’s dependency on foreign suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today.

The imported crude oil costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs, careers, and business opportunities.

SB 467 will eliminate in-state production and require the State to increase its monthly imports resulting in expenditures approaching a whopping $90 million EVERY DAY for foreign countries to support the fifth largest economy in the world.

Newsom’s Executive order and Senator Weiner’s SB 467 are forcing increases in our dependency on foreign countries that have less environmental controls than California.

SB 467 further reduces oil production by requiring larger setbacks from existing oil production wells, forcing companies to shut down anything within 2,500 feet of a building.

Hopefully, when the bill goes before Senate Natural Resources Committee at a hearing on Tuesday April 13th, it will meet its demise.

The bill would result in ... all 40 million residents being completely reliant on petroleum produced from other parts of the world.

It has been a tough year for everyone during the pandemic, but more so on the lower income portion of the population.

... Jobs are fully back for the highest wage earners, but fewer than half the jobs lost this spring have returned for those making less than $20 an hour,

according to a new labor data analysis by John Friedman, an economics professor at Brown University and co-director of Opportunity Insights.

Exorbitant energy costs make California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging for the 18 million (45 percent of the 40 million Californians) that represent the Hispanic and African American  populations of the state.

The median income for Latino households in 2016 was $56,200,

$55,200 for African American households,

and $96,400 for white households.

... In 2019, 57 percent of Black families and 50 percent of Latino families with children were poor in terms of net worth, lacking enough financial resources to sustain their families for three months at a poverty level, finds new research from Duke University.

Governor Newsom’s recent Executive order directing the state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles,

will add more electrical charging demands onto a dysfunctional energy program that has already shuttered nine (9) in-state power plants in the last decade.

California, with 0.5 percent of the world’s population (40 million vs 8 billion) professes to be the leader of everything,

and through its dysfunctional energy policies imports more electricity than any other state – currently at 32 percent from the Northwest and Southwest 

and dysfunctionally HOPES that other states will be able to generate enough power to meet the demands of the state.

In addition to the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant and three natural gas power plants in very recent years, the state has five more to shutter in the cross hairs

– the last nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon and four more natural gas power plants.

The Governor wants to add more electrical charging demands onto an energy grid that would most likely contribute to more rolling blackouts in the coming years.

As much as Governor Newsom and Senator Weiner want to electrify everything with intermittent electricity, they have yet to comprehend that intermittent electricity cannot support:

    The fossil fuel energy needs for the non-nuclear military equipment of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry,

    Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that have been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually,

    Cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide, and

    The 53,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel (soon to be converted to diesel fuel to reduce sulfur emissions) moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.

... the goal to “electrify everything” is a de facto energy tax on low- and middle-income Californians that could add more instability to an already proven unstable state power grid.

... Governor Newsom’s recent Executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 and in-state production of energy will be devastating to the state’s economy and environment,

as the Governor wants to add more electrical charging demands onto a dysfunctional energy program and increase reliance on foreign oil.

California’s legislature ... continues to do everything possible to further INCREASE the costs for energy for its 40 million residents which does not bode well for the bottom half making less than $20 an hour."

"Pete Buttigieg’s fake climate change virtue"

 Source:

"The United States Secretary of Transportation, 39-year-old Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana

... really cares about global warming (aka, “climate change”) – and he wants you to know.


During his two months in office, Secretary Pete (formerly, “Mayor Pete”) has spread falsehoods about climate change.

He also recently committed a major gaffe, which in Washington terms means accidentally revealing the truth,

in this case, his pernicious Green transportation agenda for the country.

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden had a cabinet meeting at the White House, which means a battalion of black SUVs descended on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But not Pete Buttigieg (pronounced, “Boot-i-judge”).

He rode his bicycle to the White House!  

At least that is what he wanted the world to believe.

... Pete wants everyone to know he cares about the environment.

... Think about the startling contrast between him riding his bike and all those other elite cabinet member snobs who got driven in gas-hogging, oversized sport utility vehicles.

... Not since President Jimmy Carter, on Inauguration Day in 1977 when he walked from the Capitol to the White House, have we had such a virtuous man in Washington!

President Carter also turned down the White House thermostat and mimicked Mr. Rogers by wearing a cardigan sweater indoors.

Forty-four years later, we have youthful cabinet officer and swell guy, Sec. Pete, stealing a page from Jimmy Carter.

Back to reality.

Mr. Buttigieg is the youngest member of President Biden’s cabinet, and may be the youngest to hold such a position since Robert F. Kennedy became U.S. Attorney General in 1961 at age 35.

Pete Buttigieg is no Bobby Kennedy.

Sec. Pete is not even Jimmy Carter, a hapless and failed president on many fronts, but mostly sincere as a politician.

President Carter wrongly thought the world was soon running out of energy and believed in setting an example.

He was a genuinely modest man and intellectually brilliant; and another example that intellect alone does not make for a successful presidency.

The day Sec. Pete rode his bike to the White House, he started the journey from the Transportation Department in a large, luxury SUV.

A few blocks from the destination, he unloaded his bike from the vehicle and peddled to the meeting.

Thanks to ubiquitous cameras and video, Sec. Pete’s virtue-signaling publicity stunt was exposed.

No doubt he wanted to be seen riding his bicycle like a good environmentalist; what he didn’t count on was his set-up being filmed by a news outlet.

Sec. Pete’s climate fakery is nothing unique among global warming promoters.

Wealthy actors like Jane Fonda and Ted Dansen were regular participants in “Fire Drill Friday” climate protests where they were happily arrested for the cameras.

There is no indication either of them sacrifice any fossil-fueled creature comforts that wealth lavishly provides while they demand government action affecting everyone else to stop the climate’s trajectory.

Pete Buttigieg’s ephemeral bike trek is a glimpse of what is in store for America if the climate lunacy that defines the Biden administration prevails, including more bikes and trains, and the demise of gasoline vehicles.

The high-speed train fiasco in California is a salient example of the foolishness and futility of constructing more such white elephants.

Electric cars, as CFACT has amply documented, have numerous shortcomings and impracticalities as well.

President Biden nonetheless is proposing “bullet trains” traveling across America, and exponentially increasing electric cars as part of his $2.2 trillion Green New Deal, falsely labeled as an “infrastructure” plan.

The president has all but declared war on gasoline cars, trucks and SUVs.  

Sec. Pete fully embraces this war such that he willingly lied that the plan would create 19 million new jobs.

Chris Wallace rediscovered his journalistic roots and called him out on this jobs lie.

Sec. Pete ... told Congress last month that American transportation is “contributing to a pattern of extreme weather events.”

This vapid, unproven junk-science is propagated so often it is becoming a truism, even as it contravenes the reality of storm activity past and present — and common sense.

Car exhaust causes hurricanes (oops, a “leading contributor”)?

He may believe it; regardless, he wants us to believe such nonsense.

Secretary Buttigieg also extolled a “mileage tax” on drivers, then walked it back after a public backlash.

Such a gaffe indicates serious discussion in the Biden administration as another way to coerce the populace to its climate agenda;

in this case by making car travel—and the freedom that goes with it—prohibitively expensive to poor, working class and middle income Americans.

Pete Buttigieg’s silly bike-ride should fool no one.

The Biden administration’s command-and-control climate agenda should worry everyone."

Monday, April 12, 2021

Thank you for 132,000 page views ... plus a Monday climate rap

Climate alarmists point to:

 ... warming surface temperatures
(land and ocean)

increasing ocean heat content,

ice sheet mass loss, and

declining Arctic sea ice extent.

 

They completely forget, or never knew: All of those "indicators" of global warming have been in progress for the past 20,000 years.

That means natural causes of climate change are responsible for almost all of those years (the first 19,900 years, of the past 20,000 years) ...  NOT man made CO2 emissions.

The so called "indicators" of man made global warming are the same indicators of warming from natural causes.

Climate alarmists would have us believe natural causes of climate change suddenly stopped after 4.5 billion years, and at some point in the 20th century, man made CO2 took over as the "climate controller".

And all natural causes of climate change were suddenly just "noise", as the IPCC declared in 1995?

The effect of human activities on climate change are assumed, and repeatedly asserted -- that is junk science.

The only real science is lab experiments that demonstrate CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, that ought to hinder Earth's ability to cool itself -- mild, harmless global warming.

Since the mid-1970s, we have had mild harmless global warming.

Predictions of a coming climate crisis, that started in the late 1950s, are not real science, and have been wrong for the past 64 years.
 
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan 
BS
MBA
TBW (Trained By Wife)

Global fossil fuel use


 

"India ignores media preaching on “net zero carbon” "

"India is just one ”developing” nation that has recognized that the mad rush toward a “net zero carbon” economy does not serve the interests of its ordinary citizens.

With that realization, they are also waking up to the fact that serving the public interest necessitates major increases in affordable, reliable energy to power their burgeoning economies.

When first-world reporters write about the developing world’s ongoing love affair with fossil fuels, their reports are “not necessarily the news!”

... they editorialize in nearly every story about the “sad” reliance of India, China, African nations, and others on “the highest polluting resource” – coal.

... the diktat of the Paris climate accord that countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide) to “net zero” as quickly as possible.

Otherwise, they chirp in unison, the Earth will soon become a burning inferno from superheating caused by CO2 released from burning fossil fuels.

The “erudite” have decreed that ANY “climate change” will necessarily bring unspeakable horrors upon us all.

The zeal for climate stasis by those currently at the top of the pyramid is such that some have even proposed permanently darkening the sky (a highly risky endeavor that could wipe out all life on Earth) to stop the imagined heat from killing us!

But the elitists in Brussels and New York City have a big problem:

China, the world’s leader in CO2 emissions, and India, already No. 3 , are not kowtowing to their demands.

... Recognizing this awkward reality (that their power is limited), the elitists are now relying on the old adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Public shaming has worked well with first-world corporations, so why not use it worldwide?

... For India, the latest round of shaming has begun.

On March 17, Bloomberg Quint (Bloomberg’s Indian affiliate) reporters Archana Chaudhary, Akshat Rathi, and Rajesh Kumar Singh announced that, “Top Indian government officials are debating whether to set a goal to zero out its greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century.”

The Bloomberg trio further claimed that “Officials close to Prime Minister Narenda Modi” were drawing up plans to achieve the Net-Zero target by 2050 – a full decade ahead of China.

Even so, “Modi will also need to navigate potential pushback from inside his government” in order to achieve the targets demanded by such dignitaries as U.S. “Climate Envoy” John Forbes Kerry.

In a follow-up article six days later, Singh and Debjit Chakraborty cited a new report that proclaimed “India must phase out its coal-fired power plants” in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

And two days after that, Singh reminded us that India is “under growing pressure to improve its climate commitments, which have forced government officials to debate a possible net-zero emissions target.”

... he warned, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called investments in fossil fuels “a human disaster and bad economics.”

But Singh’s March 25 report was also full of “bad” news:

“India has set in motion the biggest ever auction of coal mines in the country despite the fossil fuel’s key role in contributing to global warming.”

The auction, which opens coal mining to private firms and thus dislodges the state monopoly over the domestic coal market, “sends mixed signals at a time when the world’s third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases needs to shed its dependence on coal.”

... Singh admitted that the Indian government sees private coal mining as a way to create jobs in an economy devastated by the COVID pandemic.

Coal mining projects, he conceded, will bring in new investments and boost socio-economic development in mining regions.

He even cited Tim Buckley of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, who acknowledged that “India can’t just stop using coal overnight…. It’s still a necessary evil for the country.”

There is just one little problem with the Bloomberg version of India’s “quest” for Net Zero.

That’s not their primary goal.

Vijay Jayaraj, Research Associate for Developing Countries at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, chided Singh and his Bloomberg colleagues for urging India to “banish” coal.

Noting that “No official sources have confirmed that New Delhi is devising a Net-Zero target for 2050,” Jayaraj derided “the anti-fossil lobby, which includes journalists,” for pressurizing developing countries into shutting down their fossil industry.”

India, according to Jayaraj, is building a fossil-fuel-dominated energy sector, and not a green one.

The country is desperately seeking to curtail inflation and secure additional oil imports at a time when “anti-fossil journalists have ushered in confusion by claiming that the Indian government is now aiming to achieve Net-Zero emissions by 2050.”

... Bloomberg did not respond when asked by Jayaraj just which “officials close to” Prime Minister Modi they were citing.

... India, unfazed by the sirens, is still going ahead with a second round of commercial coal mine auctions, with 67 sites up for bids.

The nation needs a constant increase in coal production is needed to support India’s growing number of coal-fired power plants.

The nation is currently constructing new coal plants with a total capacity of 36.6 gigawatts (GW), with another 29.3 GW in the pipeline.

India is also upping its reliance on ... crude oil, a very important commodity for the Indian economy.

The world’s third largest oil importer, whose trucking industry almost exclusively rolls on petroleum products, is now buying oil from Guyana and Brazil.

The post-COVID recovery is being slowed by rising oil prices, so diversification of supply is vital.

And, according to oil minister Dharmendra Pradhan, “Africa [too] has a central role” in aiding India’s quest to further diversity its sourcing of crude oil, liquefied natural gas, and other petroleum and energy products,

“largely due to its proximity and absence of any choke points in trans-shipments.”

These new oil markets in Africa and South America, Jayaraj reports, are crucial to India’s economy.

... India’s response to the virtue signaling of Bloomberg’s reporters was to push back deadlines by up to 3 years for coal-fired power plants to install Flue Gas De-sulphurization (FGD) units that cut emissions of sulfur dioxides.

Utilities that miss these new targets could continue operations after paying a penalty.

India’s power ministry explained that this action is intended to avoid immediate increases in electricity prices.

As Jayaraj concludes, India’s openness to new oil producers and its push to expedite coal-mining auctions are sending a clear signal. India’s leaders are more concerned about the economic well-being of their citizens than about pleasing stuffed-shirt billionaires and bureaucrats living in luxury thousands of miles away."

"What China's Five-Year Plan Says About Its Energy And Climate Strategy"

"Last month, China released its 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP) ... establishing broad-stroke economic targets for the country through 2025 ...

... it comes on the heels of Xi Jinping’s September 2020 pledge to make China carbon neutral by 2060.

Despite that pledge, the FYP and recent development trends within the country show that it is doubling down on coal as its main primary energy source.

The FYP sets 20 “main indicators of economic and social development.”

Four of the indicators pertain to energy and climate ...

The binding targets are that China will reduce its energy consumption per unit of GDP by 13.5 percent and that it will reduce its carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 18 percent in the five-year period.

 ... neither represents a meaningful change from present trends.

As China’s economy has diversified and become more information-centered, its energy intensity and carbon intensity have naturally decreased.

In fact, China’s carbon intensity fell by nearly 19 percent from 2015 to 2020, a more dramatic decline than the new FYP demands.

... by denoting its targets relative to GDP, China implicitly concedes that it will continue to increase its emissions in absolute terms.

Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air confirms ... that China’s carbon emissions will continue to climb through the period of the FYP.

The non-binding indicators on energy and climate are that China has set a minimum annual threshold for general energy production and that it will increase its forest coverage by 0.7 percent.

Forests serve as sinks and thus do reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

... the FYP also calls for a reduction in energy consumption from fossil fuels from 84 percent to around 80 percent by 2025.

... it does not include a specific goal for shrinking the percentage that coal contributes to its total energy use.

Coal currently provides more than 57 percent of China’s energy and 65 percent of its electricity.

... China accounts for more than half the world’s coal consumption and generates one-fifth of the world’s total carbon emissions through its use of coal alone.

... China is responsible for well over one-quarter of the world’s annual emissions, despite its population being less than one-fifth of the world total.

China’s FYP will permit the continued expansion of coal power across much of China.

... China has approximately 250 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity permitted or under construction, adding to its existing 1,095 gigawatts of coal capacity.

... China’s FYP and its continued coal development are consistent with the nationally determined contribution (NDC) China has committed as part of the Paris Agreement.

China’s NDC pledges that it will reduce carbon intensity and reduce absolute-term emissions after 2030.

An NDC essentially sets out what a country is doing to combat climate change ...

To date, China has not officially submitted an enhanced NDC to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the FYP proposes no update.

As I wrote for National Review:

    The NDC and the new FYP give China the flexibility to continue using low-cost coal electricity to expand its economic output and, one could argue, give it an incentive to increase emissions in absolute terms all the way up to its NDC deadline of 2030.

According to the Paris agreement watchdog group Climate Action Tracker, China could emit 30 percent more carbon dioxide in 2030 than it did in 2015 and still meet its Paris targets.

The 14th FYP makes this scenario more probable.

This view is being expressed across ideological lines, including from Climate Action Tracker, whose China lead, Swithin Lui, said, “In terms of the climate, initial indications from China’s 14th Five Year Plan are underwhelming and shows little sign of a concerted switch away from a future coal lock-in.” ?

"Memo to the fossil fuel industry: Wake up and fight!"

Source:

"The Biden Administration has invoked the “social cost of carbon” as the guiding principle for every department in the federal bureaucracy, from the Department of Education to the State Department to Transportation.

... The Administration has demanded the fossil fuel industry to surrender – to accept the elimination of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity by 2035 – as part of its “infrastructure plan.”

This directive ... is insane.

... How did it happen that fossil fuels – the one technological invention more than any other that has enabled modern society to thrive and flourish – has become hated and despised?

How could the byproduct of its combustion – CO2, an odorless, colorless, tasteless, invisible gas which is essential for plant growth and therefore essential for life on earth – become a pariah?

According to the woke mob, CO2 is the cause of an imminent “climate crisis.”

... Isn’t it strange that in the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth, when erupting volcanoes caused atmospheric CO2 to yo-yo up and down by thousands of parts per million, a similar Armageddon never occurred?

Only now, in the year 2021 AD, in the first year of the Biden Administration, does the Earth find itself in this predicament.

The theory ... is the Big Lie of our time.

The Environmental Protection Agency of the Obama Administration declared CO2 to be a “pollutant.”

... If that is true, then every member the human race is a polluter.

Each one of us exhales 2.5 pounds s of CO2 every day.

So does every one of the 6,000 species of mammals, the 18,000 species of birds, every species of fish, a million trillion zooplankton in the ocean – every living thing that ingests oxygen on the planet “emits” CO2 as a waste product.

The whole biosphere of Earth is, according to the EPA, a polluter.

All of this so-called “pollution” by the Earth’s biosphere dwarfs the tiny amounts that are emitted by the human combustion of fossil fuels.

Every molecule of human based CO2 looks and behaves chemically like every other molecule of CO2.

For us to believe that fossil fuel CO2 governs the climate, we must indict the whole biosphere of the Earth.

There is no science, nor facts, nor geologic history to back this theory up.

... International bureaucrats, such as the UN and the IPCC, find it if wonderfully convenient to justify their budgets and their very existence.

Western governmental bureaucracies, like NOAA, NASA, and Hadley Center, which manufacture ever more complicated, involved, and preposterous explanations for the theory’s validity, also are enamored of its ability to justify their budgets and purpose.

Liberals, millennials, and celebrities flock to it in order to virtue signal their support for “saving the planet.”

Academics climb on the bandwagon as desperate attempt to demonstrate their relevance.

Lost souls ... latch on to it as false god for a religion that is missing in their lives.

Intellectuals are ardent advocates as a demonstration of their superior intellect.

The theory is absolute catnip for politicians, who are constantly trying to manufacture some crisis which can only be solved by voting for them.

It provides the high ground for moral narcissists and ruling class elites.

It has become a funding bonanza for environmental groups.

China can’t stop laughing, all while it continues to build hundreds of new coal power plants.

Russia is also gleeful, as are the many other competitors and enemies of our country, which wish to see us fail and disintegrate.

Rarely has one baseless idea captured the minds and souls, and served the individual agendas, of so many diverse constituencies.

But the most blameworthy actor ... is the fossil fuel industry itself, and the utilities and automobile manufacturing companies which rely on their products.

The American Petroleum Institute could have stood up at the beginning and explained how terribly wrong and anti-scientific this theory actually is.

It could have launched a campaign to educate the public about the science, geologic history, and rational thinking which exposes the complete absurdity of defining CO2 as a pollutant.

Instead, they chose to appease the idealogues and zealots who support this sad and corrupt cause.

They chose actually to admit that CO2 is a harmful “emission,” and therefore, having ceded the truth and the high ground to climate bullies, retreated to the defensive position that natural gas is a fuel which “helps reduce emissions.”

Perhaps they thought this was ... a clever tactic which would earn them plaudits and “atta-boys” from the New York Times, from the UN, and from all the earnest liberals in their customer base.

... The sly and clever tactic has turned into a disaster.

And now, fossil fuel industry, you are stuck at Dunkirk, on the beaches of Normandy, surrounded by the enemy, with no more ground left for retreat.

The Biden Administration has demanded surrender – throw down your arms and get out of the transportation and electricity business.

You have no choice now.

You are going to have to your fight your way out.

You are going to have to tell the truth – and you know it’s the truth – and explain why CO2 is not a harmful pollutant:

why it is folly to think so; why this notion of “saving the planet” is a myth;

why fossil fuels will be an essential part of the next chapter in human history –

eradicating poverty, pestilence, and pollution in the undeveloped world.

Why abundant fossil fuels are the key to preventing the next war;

why fossil fuels and nuclear energy can supply all our needs for abundant, affordable, and reliable electricity as far as the eye can see.

Forget about some silly compromise, or ...  “carbon capture,” carbon taxes, or extending the date of execution from 2035 to 2045.

You have two choices: stand on principle – or surrender.

If it is the latter, history will judge you harshly, as it should.

Is that really how you really want to be remembered?

... Some of you will get picked off and crushed by the woke climate crowd.

Some of you will be ridiculed, ostracized, marched down main street in tar and feathers by earnest liberals, politicians, academics, and the media.

Some of you will be forced to retire to “spend more time with your families.”

But if you don’t stand up now, the entire industry will be slaughtered, and the rest of the world will suffer from your cowardice.

Edmund Burke said it best: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

It is evil for idealogues to deprive the poor of the benefits of fossil fuels.

... If you choose surrender, then you deserve what you get, but it is the world that will suffer the consequences of your defeatism.

Appeasement never works with idealogues and zealots.

And now, after painting yourself into a corner, you have nowhere else to turn.

The Biden Administration has demanded your unconditional surrender.

You can either sue for peace and suffer the ignominy of defeat or fight your way out.

The whole world is watching."

"Plastics Propaganda Contaminates Truth"

Source:

"A chemist from British Columbia gives a stunning lesson the plasticity of truth when it comes to plastics, pollution and propaganda.

Plasticity, according to Merriam-Webster, is the “capacity for being mold-ed or altered.”

There’s a lot of that around these days, especially when it comes to plastics, pollution and political correctness.

A wonderful anatomy of the problem ... comes from Blair King, a Chemist in Langley, British Columbia, Canada.

This fall the Canadian government hopes to get a single-use plastics ban enacted with a plan to get to zero-plastic waste by 2030.

... I keep seeing the same, oddly-specific numbers.

Here it is from the government of Canada web site:

“Every year, Canadians throw away 3 million tonnes of plastic waste, only 9% of which is recycled, meaning the vast majority of plastics end up in landfills and about 29,000 tonnes finds its way into our natural environment.”

... the number appears in the Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution which presents this text:

“Of the 4 667 kt of plastics that entered the Canadian market in 2016, an estimated 3 268 kt were discarded as waste (ECCC 2019a).

Of that plastic waste, an estimated 29 kt (or 1%) were discarded outside of the normal waste stream (i.e., not landfilled, recycled or incinerated) in 2016, through direct release to the environment or through dumps or leaks.

An estimated 9% of the remaining plastic waste was recycled, 86% was landfilled, and 4% was incinerated for energy recovery (ECCC 2019a).”

... in the bibliography, ECCC 2019a turns out to be a report commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada called Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Market and Waste: Summary Report to Environment and Climate Change Canada which includes this text:

“In the model, this fraction is included in the plastics in waste sent to disposal (D1).

 The second fraction of plastics littered is never collected and considered to be permanently lost into the environment.

This second fraction, also called plastics leaked into the environment (LEAK) is estimated in the model.

Global estimates of plastic leakage into the environment were prepared by Jambeck et al. in 2015.

In this study, the authors estimated that approximately 10,000 tonnes of plastic waste were mismanaged in coastal areas and nearly 29,000 tonnes across Canada.”

So, ECCC 2019a wasn’t a primary source, rather, the 29,000 tonnes number comes from an earlier work.

Moreover, it is combined with another claim I keep seeing in the press: “that approximately 10,000 tonnes of plastic waste were mismanaged in coastal areas.“

... that stat gets thrown around a lot as the amount that ends up in the oceans, but from this source it is clear that the number simply means materials lost in coastal communities.

Reading the report, we are informed that the primary source for the numbers is:

“Deloitte. (2019a). Economic study of the Canadian plastic industry, markets and waste-Task 1.Government of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada Internal Report.”

Well, that is unfortunate, the original source is an internal document.

Doing a series of searches it is clear that the original report is not readily available to the public.

... We are talking about a policy document that is serving as the basis for a multi-billion dollar policy decision yet the public is not given the opportunity to scrutinize the work and see if it appears reliable.

... I decided to try to derive how they got the 29,000 tonnes number.

The table block includes a reference to a peer-reviewed study from a reputable journal.

... Going to the cited article (Jambeck et al, 2015 Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean), we discover that Canada is never mentioned in this study.

That is odd since ECCC 2019a specifically says they based their value on that study.

How do they estimate Canadian values if the reference they use never mentions Canada?

Looking more closely, the authors in Jambeck et al do prepare an estimate of the percentage of total mismanaged plastic waste in the US (0.9%).

If we take the value from the ECCC Summary report of discarded plastics (3,268,000 metric tonnes) and multiply it by 0.9% you get 29,412 which rounds nicely to 29,000.

... the “fact” that has been broadcast high and low by our government is nothing of the sort.

It does not appear to be based on a careful examination of Canadian waste and product chains, rather it appears to be based on an estimate of how the Americans handle their waste.

The US estimate was just carried over to Canada with no apparent attempt to consider whether Canada is a comparable jurisdiction with respect to waste management..

... it gets even worse.

That other “fact” I keep encountering is the other half of that earlier quote that “approximately 10,000 tonnes of plastic waste were mismanaged in coastal areas.“

This doesn’t even have a pedigree as solid as the 29,000 tonnes value.

This 10,000 tonnes number is used all over the place as a “fact” but is reported in the original source as an “estimate”.

... it appears to be a rather poor estimate.

Going back to Jambeck et al. we discover that the US marine plastic estimate is based on an estimate of what percentage of the US population lives within 50 kms of the coast (in the US 40% of Americans live within 50 miles from the coast).

This explains why such a high percentage of their waste is estimated to end up as marine debris.

... simply carrying over this US estimate doesn’t work in Canada because fewer Canadians live near the coast.

... only about 25% of Canadians live in coastal zones.

But, according to the authors, these coastal Canadians are especially bad at handling plastic since by the report’s estimates 25% of Canadians are responsible for 34% (10,000/29,000 x 100%) of all the mismanaged plastics.

Clearly, the authors do not think highly of British Columbians or Maritimers.

... Somehow over a third of the waste is reported in coastal areas….in Canada?

We all know that Alberta, Saskatchewan, most of Ontario and most of Quebec is nowhere near a coast.

There is zero chance that a mismanaged straw in Saskatoon or Calgary is going to end up in the nasal cavity of a Pacific sea turtle.

The reality of oceans plastic is that it is mostly an issue caused by developing nations.

A recent study identified that 93% of the trash from 57 Rivers studied comes from only 10 rivers, with the biggest of those being the Yangtze.

So, if you really want to clean up ocean pollution, a reasonable way to do so would be to invest money in improving waste management programs in these identified jurisdictions.

... sadly, government policy is adapting itself to the lie."

"Offshore Wind Is Off the Charts Political Nonsense"

Source:

"Conclusion -- President Biden’s offshore wind development is a huge and expensive experiment.

Biden intends to spend around $3 trillion that will supposedly focus heavily on infrastructure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which Biden believes will produce American jobs.

But the jobs in offshore wind are mostly temporary construction jobs and the current offshore wind projects all involve European companies.

A truly free market would be constructing less expensive onshore technology, including American natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, and not prematurely retiring fossil fuel and nuclear plants, which Biden’s projects will do.

The Biden administration has announced plans to vastly expand the use of offshore wind power along the U.S. East Coast.

The plan sets a goal of deploying 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind turbines in coastal waters nationwide by 2030.

President Biden will accelerate permitting of wind projects off the Atlantic Coast (perhaps by shortening required scientific studies) and open up waters near New York and New Jersey for wind development.

The administration also plans to offer $3 billion in federal loan guarantees for offshore wind projects and invest in upgrading the nation’s ports to support wind construction.

... Some officials claim that offshore wind deployment would create 44,000 new jobs directly in the offshore wind sector through building and installing turbines, and 33,000 new indirect jobs.

... the currently planned direct jobs are mostly temporary construction jobs that involve European power companies, including the Danish developer Ørsted.

The efforts to build wind farms from North Carolina’s Outer Banks to Cape Cod off of Massachusetts are nearly a decade in the planning stage, with 17 current projects in development along the coast.

Only seven wind turbines are currently in U.S. waters (a small array near Block Island, R.I. and a turbine off the coast of Virginia), but over 1,500 are in the planning or development stages.

... states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions — including Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia — have committed to over 25,000 megawatts of offshore wind power capacity by 2035.

New York and New Jersey have committed to procuring a combined 16,500 megawatts of new offshore wind power by 2035.

The Biden administration designated an area of shallow water between Long Island and the New Jersey coast as a priority offshore wind area.

Auctions will be held for developers to bid on the right to apply for federal permits to construct wind projects in that area.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will publish a proposed sale notice and, after a formal comment period, will plan on lease sales in late 2021 or early 2022.

The ocean management bureau is also planning an environmental review of a 1,100 megawatt offshore wind farm proposed to be developed about 15 miles off the coast of Atlantic City, N.J., which has a goal of developing 7,500 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035.

... The Transportation Department ... announced $230 million funding for port authorities for the construction of storage areas and other projects to support wind development.

The biggest pot of money, $3 billion, is being made available through the Department of Energy’s loan program to partner with offshore wind and transmission developers.

In March, the Biden administration approved an environmental review for a large-scale offshore wind farm, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.

That wind farm consisting of 84 large wind turbines with 800 megawatts of electric generating capacity is slated to come online by 2023.

Vineyard Wind is one of 13 offshore wind projects along the East Coast that is under federal review.

The Interior Department estimated that as many as 2,000 turbines could be positioned in the Atlantic Ocean by 2030.

Commercial fishermen are opposed to the offshore wind farms.

Federal waters in the Atlantic are home to a variety of economically important fisheries, including sea scallops, squid and surf clams, many of which overlap with areas of expected offshore wind development.

Fishing groups have repeatedly raised concerns that their boats and trawlers will be forced to stay away from the wind turbines, the largest of which have rotor diameters the length of over 2 football fields.

That could limit the amount of seafood they can ultimately catch, potentially depriving coastal fishing communities of millions of dollars in revenue as well as their fishing culture.

Wind turbines in the ocean are much bigger than the on-land versions that dominate the landscape in places like the American Midwest.

... General Electric’s 12MW Haliade X, compares in size to some well-known structures.



The Haliade-X is manufactured in France.

U.S. fisheries are more strictly regulated than anywhere else in the world and cannot just change their gear and go fish elsewhere.

As part of the Vineyard Wind project, Massachusetts agreed to set aside $21 million to compensate fishermen for losses, though it remains unclear how that money will be spent.

... Marine scientists also indicated that there were many unanswered questions about how offshore wind construction might affect ocean ecosystems in the Atlantic Ocean that are already under stress.

Another area not yet studied is the impact of offshore wind farms on the power grid.

... At a conference of offshore wind industry leaders and experts in energy infrastructure hosted by the New Jersey Board of Utilities in late February, one utility executive indicated the power grid is “used to a west-east flow of energy” and “as we move into this new era, we’re going to encounter a very different set of problems.”

Although it is likely problems can be overcome, the solutions may prove extensive and expensive for the consumers and taxpayers paying for it.

Jones Act vessels are required to bring in monstrous wind turbines to be erected at offshore sites if they are arriving from U.S. ports.

The Jones Act is a 100-year-old federal law requiring all ships that deliver goods domestically to be built in the United States.

The offshore wind industry needs massive vessels that specialize in the installation of wind turbines, which must be built in the United States very quickly.

According to Biden, Virginia-based Dominion Energy is in the process of building a Jones Act vessel in Texas.

Even without the specialized installation vessel, the first wind farms that gain federal approval would probably use existing U.S.-flagged vessels that are not specifically designed to install turbines.

Offshore wind is an expensive undertaking, not just because of the new ships required and the expected problems with the power grid,

but because the technology is more expensive than competing technologies, so that a free market would not buy into offshore wind.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the levelized cost of offshore wind are over 3 times the levelized costs of onshore wind or natural gas combined cycle technology, and 1.7 times more than a coal plant or a nuclear plant."

"IER Releases Update to Big Green, Inc. Database"

Source:
 
"The Institute for Energy Research (IER) released another update to its Big Green, Inc. (BGI) database adding documentation of $476 million in grants moving between innocuous-sounding foundations and powerful special interests in Washington DC.   https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/big-green-inc/


In total, BGI has documented $5.7 billion fueling today’s green lobbying and grassroots pressure groups.

That figure only includes the giving history of seventeen major foundations and there are hundreds of foundations and organizations actively connected to the green movement.

This latest BGI update pulls from 2018 tax filings, only recently made available, revealing a disturbing trend among several foundations that the database tracks.

Among the latest round of grants, $14.25 million flowed from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to the Energy Foundation and ultimately to an organization called Energy Foundation China, just as tensions between the U.S. and China are mounting.

    The Energy Foundation received $21 million “for general operating support” from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, as well as grants totaling $14.25 million for “Energy Foundation China,” and $1,065,000 in “additional grants.”

Together, these grants amount to nearly half of the foundation’s $81,940,531 net assets at the end of 2018.

    The Energy Foundation appears to receive money from organizations like the Hewlett Foundation and passes it through to Energy Foundation China so that it doesn’t show on Hewlett’s tax documents directly.

    Energy Foundation China lists several other BGI organizations like the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the John. D and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation among its key funders.

These donations coincide with a major shift in policy direction by the Biden Administration away from America’s newfound energy independence (built on traditional energy sources) towards wind, solar, and electric vehicles, all of which are primarily manufactured in China and require Chinese-controlled rare earth minerals.

Numerous media outlets have highlighted the rush by the green lobby to push Congress to again extend the wind and solar tax credits for a 13th time, this time for 10 years.

The wind and solar industries claim they are now the cheapest form of electricity generation in the U.S. and the fastest-growing, yet they appear to be unable to survive without assistance from U.S. taxpayers.

There’s little doubt these tax credits would greatly benefit Chinese-owned or controlled companies.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was also a big beneficiary of BGI grants in 2018, receiving 11 grants totaling just shy of $4.7 million, including $500,000 for their own China energy program.

This is on top of a pledge by Jeff Bezos to provide the NRDC with $100 million. Bezos has committed $791 million to 16 environmental organizations as a part of his widely publicized $10 billion Earth Fund, despite the fact that Amazon’s carbon footprint grew by 15 percent in 2020.

Some have charged Bezos with trying to buy off the environmental community with their grants while doing very little in terms of active lobbying for climate regulations that would negatively impact their business.

... Upon the release of today’s BGI database update, IER President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

    “This latest update to the Big Green Inc. database is further evidence that the green left has more interest in protecting the interests of its funders and the global renewables industry than they do the environment.

Thanks primarily to America’s shale revolution, America has become energy-independent and at the same time has been leading the developed world in greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

And yet, the greens would prefer that we give up that newfound independence and instead rely on China for our future energy needs.

    If Congress were serious about transparency and the influence of special interest money in politics, Big Green Inc. is the first place they should be looking, especially the connections between left-leaning foundations, the Biden White House, and China.”

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2020 was the year America realized energy independence for the first time in 62 years, producing more than we consumed.

Thanks to the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, production in the oil and natural gas industry increased a combined 11 percent in 2019.

Total U.S. energy production increased by 5.7 percent in 2019 while U.S. energy demand decreased by 0.9 percent.

The United States produced 101.0 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy and consumed 100.2 quads last year.

Natural resources accounted for 80 percent of both energy consumption and production in 2019.

Big Green, Inc., a project of IER, catalogues the influence of the deep-pocketed left on energy policy in the United States.

... Three important takeaways from the information presented in Big Green, Inc.

    Environmental groups have crafted a narrative that depicts their efforts as a “David vs. Goliath” battle against those who would like to see U.S. energy policy move in a free-market direction.

This narrative is false.

Environmental groups outpace conservative and free-market groups both in terms of funding and organizational capacity.

    There is an overwhelming, well-coordinated and deeply funded sweeping influence of environmental activism and information within this database provides insight into how groups target the gate keeping institutions of our society.

As the database illuminates, environmental funding has been directed toward policymakers, journalists, academic institutions, the offices of elected officials, government organizations like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as international institutions such as the World Bank.

    This complicated system of financial transfers muddles efforts to reveal the sources of this funding, which has been linked to individuals who stand to benefit financially from the adoption of various environmental policies as well as foreign actors trying to influence energy policy within the U.S."

Off Topic Science -- COVID medications double blind test data used for FDA emergency approval

 % of test subjects
getting severe
COVID symptoms:


Placebo              0.04%  (4 of 10.000 people)
Pfizer Injection 0.005%  (1 of 20,000 people)

Placebo              0.22%  (2 of 1,000 people)
Moderna Injection 0%    (none)


Sunday, April 11, 2021

Thank you for 131,000 page views

Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
BS
MBA
TBW (Trained By Wife)

1988 temperature prediction of +4 to +9 degrees warming in 50 years --but 33 years later, in 2021, the actual temperature has barely increased since 1988 !!


"Leftists care nothing about 'facts' on climate."

 Source:

"I have been reading a book called Factfulness by Hans Rosling.  

It is a bestseller.


... Here are three, of the many, facts in the book:

Number 1:
The average life expectancy throughout the world stayed flat at around thirty for 8,000 years, until the 1800s.  

Then it more than doubled in less than 200 years to more than seventy today.  

What happened in the 1800s?  

We started using oil and coal and got electricity.  

Thousands of products that greatly improve our quality and length of life are derived from crude oil.


Number 2:
Women throughout the world are having fewer children.  

The author gave two reasons.  

The first is that many more children survive past the age of five than they did in the past.

The second is that as the economy and productivity improve, fewer children are needed to perform labor.

Think of farming in the U.S. in the 1800s, where around 90% of the people lived on farms.  

Today, the number is around one percent.  

The gas combustion engine, tractors, combines, and other oil-powered equipment have allowed the world to be fed with very few people doing the work.


Number 3:
The number of deaths from natural disasters went down by more than half in the last hundred years even while the population went up from around 1.8 billion to around 7.7 billion.

Very few people would guess this fact, considering that every day we are bombarded with talking points about the existential threat of climate change caused by humans and oil.  

Every time we get a major storm, a flood, a drought, or fires, we are told the lie that it is the worst it has ever been as they push the agenda for more government control and to stop using oil.

Here are some climate facts that we do not see in the media, on TV shows, in movies or in schools because they do not fit the agenda:

Climate Claim Fact Checks:

Heat Waves
— have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally.


Hurricanes

— the decade just ended as the second quietest for land-falling. hurricanes and land-falling major hurricanes in the U.S. since the 1850s.

Twenty twenty saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the quiet solar periods in the late 1800s and this century, but the global ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) index ranked 13th highest.  


Tornadoes
— the number of strong tornadoes has declined over the last half-century.  

More active months occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present.


Droughts and Floods
— there have been no statistically significant trends.


Wildfires
— decreasing since the very active 1800s.  

The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management.  

... public lands are (often) ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.

... Crude oil usage 
in 1880 — 55,000 barrels per day.  
2019 — 98 million barrels per day.
 That is up 1,781 times.


Sea levels appear to have risen less than one foot in the last 140 years.  

... CO2 content,
1880: around 280 parts per million.  
Today, over 400 PPM or up 40%.  

CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-pollutant gas that allows the world to be fed.  

Lithium, which the leftists promote, is a very flammable pollutant.

The population has increased from around 1.5 billion in 1880 to around 7.7 billion today, or up over 400%.

A little ice age ended around 1850.  

The Earth has had several lengthy warming and cooling periods where oil, coal, and humans could not have had any impact.

Scientists estimate that the Earth has warmed around one to two degrees (around 3%) Fahrenheit since 1880.

... As for Arctic ice:
It is around 5.3% lower than the average of 1981 to 2010.  

Some 95% left is a far cry from being gone, which is what we are constantly being told was going to happen in a short time.  

The measurements started in 1980.  

... Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2021 was 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles).

This was 350,000 squ6are kilometers (135,000 square miles) above the record minimum set in 2017 and 790,000 square kilometers (305,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average.

There is clearly no direct correlation among oil use, CO2, and population and temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity.

Why ... would we destroy industries and our quality and length of life based on computer models when the scientific facts don't justify the destruction?

Here is what the media reports to the public as it attempts to indoctrinate and push the agenda.
 

Children are especially susceptible to this propaganda.  

These are not scientific facts:

In 1922,

the Associated Press posted an article that said because of warming, the Arctic ice would soon be gone, coastal cities would be gone, and the oceans were dying.  

This warning was 100% wrong.

On the first Earth Day in 1970,
after over 25 years of global cooling, after 90 years of exponential growth in oil and coal use, after the population from 1.5 billion in 1880 to 3.7 billion in 1970, and a substantial increase in CO2 content, we were told that billions would die from starvation from a catastrophic ice age.  

This dire prediction was also 100% wrong.

1989:
The U.N. and media repeated the same warnings from 1922, and we had only a few years left to solve the existential threat.  

This dire prediction was 100% wrong.

For decades we have been told there would be snowless winters.  


This dire prediction was 100% wrong.

In 2005,
after Hurricane Katrina, we were told storms were worse than ever and the situation was extremely dangerous.  

After Katrina, we had an extremely mild ten years of hurricanes.

In 2008,
ABC showed a piece of pure propaganda saying that because of the melting Arctic, Manhattan would be under water by 2015.  

This made up "news" was 100% wrong.

2019:
The U.N. and media repeated the same warnings from 1922 and 1989, and we had only a few years left to solve the existential threat.  

This dire prediction is not based on scientific data, but is meant to mislead the public into submission to get rid of oil and push some version of the green new deal which will destroy America.  

There are no data to support this, so they use manipulated computer models, which spew forth predictions to push an agenda.  

No matter how wrong previous predictions have been, the media always present these made up predictions as if they are factual, with no questions asked.

The children have repeatedly been told that polar bears and other species are dying rapidly because of humans, oil, and CO2 induced climate change.  

There are very few identified species which have gone extinct the last 100 years.  

When we see that tens of thousands of species are dying each year, that is a made up number.

This article names ten species that have gone extinct and says there are 500, but most we would have never heard of.  

That is not remotely close to what the public is told.

As for polar bears, there now are more than five times the number of them that were on Earth 70 years ago.  

Today there are between 22,000 and 31,000. 


In the 1950s, there were around 5,000.  

They were being killed, like many species, by hunting, not climate change.  

But that wouldn't push the radical leftist agenda, so the facts are ignored.

Polar bears have become the face of climate change — here's the current state of the species

We are repeatedly told the lie that the science is settled to shut off debate because facts would destroy the people pushing these policies.


We are repeatedly told the lie that anyone who disagrees and tells the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally a climate change denier.  

I have never heard anyone deny that the climate changes.  

We are called deniers to equate us with Holocaust deniers and to mislead the public into believing we are anti-science and stupid.  

The purpose of these lies is to silence or cancel us.


Shouldn't the Biden administration be required to justify its policies with scientific data before it destroys industries that provide thousands of products and employ directly or indirectly tens of millions of people?  

When will supposed journalists ask questions instead of campaigning for the policies?

Higher energy prices will harm everyone, especially the poor, whom the Democrats claim they care about, especially when they are begging for votes.

... Most of the media are clearly willing to intentionally mislead the public to gain power and money for Democrats. "