Tag Archives: climate

Yeah, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The headline says it:

The US Is Forfeiting the Clean-Energy Race to China

The article’s news writers then went on to decry the Trump administration’s decision to do away with “green” energy/renewable energy production subsidies and to push increased production of hydrocarbon-sourced energy.

They had no answers to oil, natural gas, and coal being far more reliable and lower cost than those renewable sources, sources which cannot compete in the market place without those subsidies. They mentioned the alternative, equally reliable nuclear energy production only as an afterthought.

But the argument over green vs hydrocarbon energy, while at the center of the debate, really is only a sideshow.

Why should we care about producing, or not, green energy? Aside from the fact that atmospheric CO2 is plant food rather than a pollutant, the whole underlying premise of human-caused global warming is false.

Earth has been warming since if was formed because the sun has been heating up since it lit off its fusion core.

Today, some 11,000 years after the last glaciation, we’re still cooler than that geologic warming trend. Some 6,000 years after the glaciers retreated, we were warmer than we are today.

Epochs of higher and temperatures than today and higher and lower atmospheric CO2 than today are unrelated to each other: life was lush during both higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2. In those times when higher atmospheric CO2 coincided with cooler-than-today temperatures, life suffered.

Ice cores reaching back 400,000 years indicate that atmospheric CO2 increases coincide with, or lag, planetary warming.

Too much national weal has been wasted on chasing the chimera of global disaster from warming already. Let the People’s Republic of China waste its treasure chasing renewables. It’s a foolish race that has no meaning and so can have no serious winner.

It’s time to knock it off.

I Will Be Brief

Posted on by
Reply

But the climate-funding industry mavens still will not enjoy this. Steven Koonis, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and one of five authors of a Department of Energy report on climate—what really is known and not known about our changing climate—had these points in his Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed:

  • Elevated carbon-dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.
  • Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon-dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.
  • Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.
  • While global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.
  • Natural climate variability, data limitations and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions.
  • The use of the words “existential,” “crisis” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data.
  • Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends.

It’s long past time to stop funding that industry and shift the funding to energy production while maintaining environmental damage controls. Environmental damage: not from atmospheric CO2 or too many jet aircraft contrails, for instance, but from damages as the acid rain of mercury-laden fossil fuel smoke (nearly completely eradicated); from the disposal of lithium batteries at the end of their battery car lifetimes; and from the tailings from mining the likes of lithium, copper, and cobalt to make those batteries and battery cars.

Environmentalists and Technology

Posted on by
Reply

TL;DR, environmentalists don’t like technological improvements that don’t meet their climate funding industry’s approval. Typical of this is their objection to AI-centered data centers and those facilities’ demand for electricity. Especially typical is their hue and cry over the newly hated-by-the Left Elon Musk’s entry into the business with his Grok AI data center.

The facility [built in Memphis, TN] is partially powered by dozens of small natural-gas turbines—most of which are temporary. A relentless environmentalist campaign erupted, accusing the facility of polluting the skies over predominantly black neighborhoods. The city responded by conducting air quality tests, which showed no dangerous levels of pollutants.

The climatistas reject those test results because they refute—not merely contradict—the climatistas’ claims.

Denial isn’t a river in Egypt, but it does rhyme with climatistas’ dismissal of inconvenient truths.

Free Speech Climate Funding Industry Style

Posted on by
Reply

The UN is at it again; this time it’s the UN arm of the Climate Funding Industry that’s attacking individual freedoms.

A United Nations climate expert is calling for people who question the goal of avoiding a climate catastrophe by rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to face criminal penalties.

Elisa Morgera, UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change is insisting that nations have an obligation to

defossilize information systems to protect human rights in the formation of public opinion and democratic debate from undue commercial influence and from information distortions.

In order to protect human rights, our most basic, intrinsic, and inalienable right—free speech—must be circumscribed to suit Climate Funding Industry personages’ definition of proper and properly free speech.

This is just one more reason climate activists cannot be taken seriously and must be cut off from government funds, tax credits, subsidies, and so on.

Another Misleading Claim

Posted on by
Reply

This one by a Progressive-Democrat: California’s Alex Padilla. In his Tuesday letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, he wrote regarding Republicans’ musings about overruling the Senate’s Parliamentarian on the matter of California’s legal right to set its own emissions standards (itself a misleading claim, since what’s in question is whether California, or any State, can set emissions standards more stringent than the Federal government’s),

Republicans are now considering overruling Ms MacDonough, essentially going nuclear and throwing out the rule book in order to get their way.
…
If they can ignore the parliamentarian on this….

This is so broadly misleading as to approach being deliberately false. Far from ignoring the Parliamentarian, Republicans would be taking her eminently seriously and following Senate rules regarding her ruling, whether voting to overturn it or the Senate’s presiding officer overruling it.

Of course, Padilla knows this; he’s merely demonstrating, with his distortion, why it’s next to impossible to deal with members of his party.