Analysis by Paul Homewood: "While Michael was certainly a disastrous hurricane, three specific claims have been made about it, which don’t stand up to scrutiny:
1) Claim: It was the biggest storm on record for the Florida Panhandle: Response: This first claim is plainly meaningless, given that the Panhandle is only a tiny part of the whole US coastline.
2) Claim: It was the third most powerful to hit the US, based on barometric pressure: Response: We know that Hurricane Hunter aircraft kept well away from the center of the strongest storms in the early days, so we have no way of knowing whether other storms prior to Camille were as intense unless surface observations were available...Michael may have had the lowest pressure of any storm since Camille, but such claims cannot be made for earlier periods.
3) Claim: It was the fourth strongest in terms of wind speeds: Response: The claim of 155 mph was based solely on SFMR measurements, which the NHC already admit are questionable...Maximum surge seems to have been around 7 feet. I have heard this described on a news bulletin as “epic”, which is utter nonsense – this is not unusual for any hurricane.
A surge of just 7 feet would suggest that Michael’s wind speeds were much less than claimed...By contrast, the storm surge during Camille was 24.6 feet.
U.N. IPCC report calls for overhauling 'all aspects of society' to limit rise in global temperatures
Wash. Times: The report fired up activists even as critics dismissed the deadline as another arbitrary “climate tipping point,” as Climate Depot’s Marc Morano put it. “U.N. issues yet another climate tipping point — Humans given only 12 more years to make ‘unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,’” Morano wrote.
Dr. Roy Spencer: "This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S. since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes (strong instability, plentiful moisture, and wind shear)."
"I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this: I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." ... "I'm not denying climate change," he said in the interview. "But it could very well go back. You know, we're talking about over a ... millions of years."
"They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael," said Trump, who identified "they" as "people" after being pressed by "60 Minutes" correspondent Leslie Stahl. She asked, "What about the scientists who say it's worse than ever?" the president replied, "You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda."
Schumer claims: Human Beings Could Reduce Frequency of Hurricanes
New York Senator Chuck Schumer: "If we would do more on climate change, we'd have fewer of these hurricanes and other types of storms. Everyone knows that, except a few." - Schumer said the Trump administration has done nothing but "move the issue backward."
John Abraham, thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering: “It is climate denial like his that has contributed to the suffering of residents in the state,” said Mr. Abraham in his column for the Guardian...“Climate deniers are making these storms worse by stopping action on climate change,” he continued. “What the hell do we expect to happen when the deniers are writing the laws?” ...
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano pointed to the recent 11-year gap in major hurricanes making U.S. landfall, which ended in August 2017 with Hurricane Harvey, the longest such “hurricane drought” in recorded history.
“If they want to blame Republican policies for recent hurricanes, will they also credit the GOP for the more than a decade lull in hurricanes?” he asked. “We have reached the level of inane belief that government regulations and taxes can influence storms.”
“You could see this coming, you could see the whole pattern coming,” Bastardi said. “We talked to Sean on the 16th of September, I said I’ll be seeing you again in October probably because of a big Gulf storm.” Bastardi added, “It’s not because of your SUV, this is what nature is capable of doing, and you could see this pattern setting up pretty far in advance.”
“The politics of this were impossible a few years ago. But not so much now,” said Rafe Pomerance, chairman of the environmental alliance Arctic 21 and a four-decade advocate of increased action on global warming. “If we think the problem of climate change is catastrophic, how can we say that we can’t at least consider this as an option?” ...
Researchers have envisioned duplicating the phenomenon by launching jets equipped to fly to 70,000 feet, the lower reaches of the stratosphere, where they would release a sulfur compound. The effort would bleach blue skies a lighter color and make sunsets more vivid, while shielding Earth from some of the sun's rays. The flights would have to be numerous and long-running to create anything like the reflective power of the volcanic eruptions.
A writer for the eco-friendly Grist tweeted, “The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.”
Prof. John Brignell: “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship."
Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history.... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri told the Guardian in 2013.
In 2012, a year before the report came out, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl on UN IPCC report: "I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There's absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times...We've been bombarded by effectively equivalent garbage hundreds of times, the specifics of the newest report are completely irrelevant and uncorrelated with any events, insights, or new scientific evidence. All this fearmongering is just a random mutation of nonsense that everyone has seen many times, with some completely irrelevant and random new noise."
"Only the people who consider themselves to be obedient soldiers of any far left-wing movement pay lip service to that junk but they don't really believe it, either."
"Message to all climate fearmongers: Give it up. This unscientific movement has already peaked in 2009, it has been dying a slow and painful death for about a decade, and you will be much happier if you accelerate it and make the climate hysteria die quickly and abruptly."
"Climate fearmongers, you've become some of the most dishonest as well as useless people in the Earth's history."
So the new IPCC report is another example of what author Marc Morano called, “the ever-receding tipping point.” In his book about the trillion-dollar farce that is the international climate change movement, Morano detailed the shifting goalposts, data manipulation, and dystopian threats that are all part of the strategy deployed by climate activists trying to influence public opinion and policy. “What the media is not telling the public is these climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes,” Morano told me via email. “The U.N. hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense.”
The UN IPCC in its latest major global analysis estimated that the total impact of unmitigated climate change from extreme weather, changes in agriculture, rising sea levels and so on would be equivalent to reducing the average person’s income by between 0.2 and 2 percent in the 2070s. By then, developing world incomes will have increased by 400 percent to 500 percent or even more. Climate impacts have an ever smaller impact on humanity because of prosperity and resilience. A hundred years ago, climate disasters globally killed about half a million people annually. Today, with many more people, that toll has dropped by more than 95 percent...
The Paris agreement on climate change is already an incredibly expensive way of helping very little. Those using the latest IPCC report to call for bigger political promises miss the point by a mile...
Cutting carbon emissions is incredibly expensive. Green energy is not yet able to compete with fossil fuels to meet most of humanity’s needs. Forcing industries and communities to shift — or plying them with expensive subsidies — means everyone pays more for energy, hurting the poorest most. If all the promises in the treaty are kept, the resulting global hit to growth will reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion a year by 2030.
The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy infrastructure. One environmental economist said the UN’s goal is “not feasible.” Scientists have also called into question spending trillions based on flawed climate models.
That’s a price tag of between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion by 2050 just for energy investments. Environmental economist Richard Tol said, given the high cost, the IPCC’s report is totally unrealistic. “No, 1.5 degrees Celsius is not feasible,” Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email.
The Blaze: "Marc Morano of Climate Depot also weighed in on the IPCC’s new report, noting that climatologists have been warning that a critical tipping point has been right around the corner — since at least 1864, and time, and time, and time again from that point."
But even if the alarmist predictions are true, there's nothing that can plausibly be done at this point to stop it. That's the real message of the annual UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The chart contained in the "Summary for Policymakers" shows projected changes in global temperatures over the next 100 years. It also shows that temperatures will top the supposed 1.5-degree limit by around 2040, even if the world makes drastic reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions within the next two decades...The UN's forecasts all assume that the entire world becomes entirely carbon-free by 2055 … at the latest. That's just 37 years from now. It also assumes that the world makes massive reductions in other greenhouse gases, such as methane.
Here's an example of what the UN says would have to happen within the next 12 years to meet that goal. Keep in mind, this is the low end of the UN's proposed changes.
60% of the world's energy would have to come from renewable sources by 2030, and 77% by 2050. (The Department of Energy forecasts that renewables will account for just 27% of the U.S.'s electric power generation by 2050.)
Coal use would have to drop 78%, oil 37%, and natural gas 25% — compared with 2010 levels — within 12 years. (Last year, global coal demand increased, and use of natural gas has massively climbed in the U.S.)
There'd have to be a 59% increase in nuclear power by 2030 and a 150% increase by 2050. (Good luck getting environmentalist to buy into that).
Farmers would have to figure out how to cut methane emissions by 24% by 2030, (and still feed a growing worldwide population).