Search Results for “no global warming for 16 years” – Page 2

EPA announces Smart Home Energy Management System with ‘thousands of partner brands’ – Will Americans be forced to buy the products & services from EPA-selected corporate partners?

April 4, 2024

Does EPA’s New Business Venture Prove Another Old Conspiracy Theory Was True? Does EPA’s New Business Venture Prove Another Old Conspiracy Theory Was True? by Jeff Dunetz On January 4th, the EPA announced the first mass-marketed Smart Home Energy Management System to earn the highly coveted ENERGY STAR certification, which received zero media coverage by groups like the Trusted News Initiative and their “industry partners” that have been conducting coordinated bans on all ENERGY STAR related issues for decades. The EPA’s press release informs us that the new Samsung SmartThings Home Energy service has integrations that span thousands of partner brands but never explains why Americans should want to be forced to buy the products and services from EPA-selected corporate partners. We’re all expected to pretend that if the members of the World Economic Forum think ENERGY STAR is a trusted partner, then we should also trust the deep thinkers at the Commonwealth Club in California, Prosperity Partnership in Washington State, and the Clinton Global Initiative. Nobody dares to ask when Congress authorized the Dept of Energy to create profit-driven enterprises, invent a bogus “certified” electrical commodity, or market those same EPA products on behalf of the USA to our global trade partners. Just don’t ask to see the process employed by DOE to select Samsung Corp as the sole provider for that national network, seek any technical data on the performance of the product, or question the lack of a mathematical formula to verify that any energy-savings actually occur from the use of an ENERGY STAR “certified” logo sticker. When FBI Director Christopher Wray showed up at the annual WEF meeting to speak about working with government and private partners to tackle the cyber-threats, was he discussing efforts to protect American citizens from predators, or was he peddling EPA products. This is a valid question, considering that DOE had essentially abandoned all efforts to reduce GHG emissions through energy efficiency years ago, favoring a Clean Energy Economy where carbon-trading schemes were the most significant money-making ventures for the green con-artist. When former CIA Director James Woolsey provided the keynote speech on “Harvesting Clean Energy, National Security, and the Path to Energy Independence” in 2006, it signaled that actual energy efficiency technologies were no longer desirable. Woolsey was at the 6th Does EPA’s New Business Venture Prove Another Old Conspiracy Theory Was True? N.W. Harvesting Clean Energy conference, which was part of a massive program that had allegedly just spent the last five years searching for cost-effective energy efficiency technologies for America’s Industrial Sector; the goal of that N.W. research program was to assist technology providers in overcoming the barriers that had been put in place by bureaucrats and utility bosses. But saving energy went out of vogue, and instead, the program shifted to accommodate the $100 billion Save Energy Now boondoggle that was to fund a mere 200 “industrial assessments” by a few universities. That quickly became the DOE’s cost-effective solution for beating Global Warming, which also served as the vehicle to drive the environmental justice agenda to American campuses at every level. That pathetic program was followed by the EPA Lead By Example guidelines released by the Obama Regime in 2009, which instructed state bureaucrats to claim EPA products saved 25% to 50% more energy than similar products. That allowed bureaucrats to make extra revenue with the EPA’s lucrative product lines. This encouraged the political view that agency budgets could be leveraged for responsible environmental investments, which appeared perfectly normal to the savvy entrepreneurs in government looking to make some green from the EPA’s “Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs.” I don’t deny that it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but is it true? Indirectly, it has been the subject of several Conspiracy Theories since at least 2011, when Mother Jones magazine posted its “The Right’s Top 5 EPA Conspiracy Theories“. Radicals had declared U.S. Rep.Steve Scalise (R-LA) was a crazy right-winger for suggesting that Obama’s plans to ‘skyrocket’ electrical rates would create a “Global Warming Gestapo,” and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi was warning that the “energy police are about to invade your home with ‘smart meters.’ According to the Guardian newspaper, Corsi had a long list of conspiratorial views about the American press “of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, homophobic and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to ‘scare white America.’” What wasn’t considered controversial, was a Guardian article from Dec.3, 2010, about a secret plot by the CIA and State Dept to rig the outcome of U.N.’s Copenhagen climate deal as described in “WikiLeaks cables reveal how U.S. manipulated climate accord.” The Guardian article claimed that perhaps the most audacious appeal for funds revealed in the cables is from Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-biggest oil producer and one of the 25 richest countries. A secret cable sent on February 12th records a meeting between U.S. embassy officials and lead climate change negotiator Mohammad al-Sabban. “The kingdom will need time to diversify its economy away from petroleum, [Sabban] said, noting a U.S. commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts would ‘take the pressure off climate change negotiations.’” Is the fact that Exxon-Mobile and the Saudi Basic Industries Corp (Sabic) are now building the world’s largest natural gas processing plant to export carbon-based resources from Texas also a conspiracy theory? None of the EPA’s double standards are new; they’ve been buried, suppressed, or ‘scrubbed” from the internet. FISA Court President Rosemary Collier had crafted a 99-page opinion describing the widespread abuse of the Patriot Act by the Obama Regime. Still, our Congress could care less about that criminal activity. Back in January of 2016, I had posted that the ENERGY STAR program was a true National disgrace that had inflicted more damage on America’s economic, educational, and legal systems than an entire army of Bernie Madoff’s and John Beale’s. Its entire reputation had been built on myths, fraudulent scientific research, and bogus technical reports promoted by corrupt media. That article was re-posted by an honest news outlet after my site had been targeted by the State for exposing corruption in the scientific research supporting the EPA’s product lines. Scrubbing all evidence from the internet of a competitor was par for the course for the EPA, which has been mired in scandal and controversy since the ENERGY STAR program was first created by former CIA Director George H W Bush in 1992. The EPA press release from January 4th included the following; ENERGY STAR® is the government-backed symbol for energy efficiency, providing simple, credible, and unbiased information that consumers and businesses rely on to make well-informed decisions. Thousands of industrial, commercial, utility, state, and local organizations—including about 40% of the Fortune 500®—rely on their partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deliver cost-saving energy efficiency solutions. If you believe that the EPA has been providing unbiased information that consumers rely on to make well-informed decisions, you probably also believe that Communist China, WEF, and the UNIDO are as trustworthy as FBI Director Wray

University of Oslo Emeritus Professor Ole Humlum: ‘Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2) controls nearly all aspects of climate is naïve and entirely unrealistic’

March 29, 2024

https://mailchi.mp/82c3fc2cd96c/the-state-of-the-climate-201516?e=0b1369f9f8 Ole Humlum – Professor Emeritus – Section of Physical geography and Hydrology: Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology, with main emphasis on the climatic control on glacial and periglacial geomorphic activity in cold-climate, high-relief areas, past as well as present. # London, 28 March — In his annual review of the state of the global climate, Professor Ole Humlum reviews last year’s key data and observations in the context of long-term climate trends. The review covers a wide range of temperature measurements in both ocean and atmosphere, alongside reviews of oceanic oscillations, sea level, snow and ice measurements and storms. Professor Humlum draws attention to two oceanographic events that are likely to have driven up global temperatures in 2023: “While global average surface air temperatures in 2023 were at record highs relative to long instrumental records (since 1850), they were driven up as a result of the still ongoing El Niño warming episode. In contrast, the two previous years, 2021 and 2022, were influenced by a cold La Niña in the Pacific Ocean. Thus the global surface air temperature record in 2023 continues to be significantly influenced by oceanographic phenomena.” The influence of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption on 2023 meteorological conditions is still uncertain. The eruption, which occurred in the southern Pacific Ocean in January 2022, released an enormous plume of water vapour into the Stratosphere, but there is still uncertainty whether this event had any influence on atmospheric temperatures. Professor Humlum said: “The global climate system represents a multifaceted system, involving sun, planets, atmosphere, oceans, land, geological processes, biological life, and complex interactions between them. Many components and their mutual coupling are still not fully understood or perhaps not even recognised. Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2) controls nearly all aspects of climate is naïve and entirely unrealistic. The global climate has remained in a quasi-stable condition within certain limits for millions of years, although with important variations playing out over periods ranging from years to centuries, or more, but the global climate has never been in a fully stable state without change. Modern observations show that this normal behaviour is also characterising recent years, including 2023, and there is no observational evidence for any global climate crisis.” Ole Humlum: The State of the Climate 2023 (pdf)

Watch: Climate The Movie – New documentary exposing the global warming science & agenda

March 21, 2024

https://tomn.substack.com/p/climate-the-movie-faq ABOUT CLIMATE THE MOVIE (THE COLD TRUTH) DIRECTOR MARTIN DURKIN PRODUCER TOM NELSON This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past. See the end of this post for a full description of this movie. 1. When and where will the movie be available? It has been available for free in its entirety starting on March 21, 2024 at many online locations, including YouTube, BitChute, Rumble, Twitter, Vimeo, Substack, Spotify, and Telegram. 2. Is there a movie website? Yes. climatethemovie.net 3. Are translations being done? Yes. CLINTEL is working on subtitles for many languages; they plan to post finished versions on their YouTube, BitChute, and Rumble channels. 4. Is there an X feed and hashtag for the movie? The X feed for movie updates is @climatethemovie; the X hashtag is #ClimateTheMovie. 5. What’s the run time? 80 minutes. 6. What famous scientists are in the movie? Prof Will Happer, Prof Steven Koonin, Dr John Clauser, Prof Dick Lindzen, Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Ross McKitrick, Prof Henrik Svensmark, Prof Nir Shaviv, and Dr Willie Soon are all in this movie. 7: What articles/posts have been written about the movie? Allison Pearson Telegraph: Planet Normal: Scientists shouldn’t be silenced if their findings don’t fit the climate narrative Efrat Fenigson Substack post: “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth”, Debunks Global Warming & Net Zero Narratives”; also a long-form X post. Katie Spence Epoch Times article, “Prominent Scientists Blow Lid Off Climate Agenda in New Documentary” Chris Morrison, Daily Sceptic: “Watch the Game-Changing New Film That Explodes Climate Change and Net Zero Lies” 8. What related podcasts have been done? Tom Nelson on the Doc Malik podcast. Bonus copy of Climate: The Movie at the end! 9: What clips are available? 2.5 minute introductory clip on X, Telegram, Instagram. —— ABOUT CLIMATE THE MOVIE (THE COLD TRUTH) DIRECTOR MARTIN DURKIN PRODUCER TOM NELSON This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past. Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’? The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism. But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government. This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become a breach of social etiquette. The film was shot on location in the U.S., Israel, Kenya and UK. The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) and others. MARTIN DURKIN Martin Durkin has produced, directed and executive produced hundreds of hours of documentaries and TV for broadcasters around the world, including Discovery, National Geographic and many others. The company he founded and ran was, for a while, the single biggest producer of shows for the Science Channel and Discovery Networks International. His various documentaries have won many awards and he has served on the steering committee of the World Congress of Science Producers, the Edinburgh Television Festival, and as a judge for the Bafta and Royal Television Society awards. TOM NELSON Tom Nelson is a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades. On the Tom Nelson Podcast in the fall of 2022, Martin expressed a desire to remake 2007’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and that kicked off a successful effort to do just that. Many of the scientists interviewed in Climate: The Movie have done lengthy interviews for the Tom Nelson Podcast.

Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment – After ‘years of controversy & the departure of one of the program’s key researchers’

March 19, 2024

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/18/1089879/harvard-halts-its-long-planned-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiment/ Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment The decision follows years of controversy and the departure of one of the program’s key researchers. The basic concept behind solar geoengineering is that the world might be able to counteract global warming by spraying tiny particles in the atmosphere that could scatter sunlight. The plan for the Harvard experiments was to launch a high-altitude balloon, equipped with propellers and sensors, that could release a few kilograms of calcium carbonate, sulfuric acid or other materials high above the planet. It would then turn around and fly through the plume to measure how widely the particles disperse, how much sunlight they reflect and other variables. The aircraft will now be repurposed for stratospheric research unrelated to solar geoengineering, according to the statement. # https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/an-update-on-scopex/ The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) is a scientific effort initiated by Professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch at Harvard University. SCoPEx was designed to measure the stratospheric behavior of aerosols in plumes to advance scientific knowledge relevant to potential future implementation of solar geoengineering. In 2019, the University established an external advisory committee to provide guidance on SCoPEx. Today, the Advisory Committee issued its final report to the Vice Provost for Research and the Vice Provost for Climate and Sustainability, available here. As the report indicates, in August 2023, the research team conveyed to the Advisory Committee that it had suspended work on SCoPEx. Today, the Principal Investigator of SCoPEx, Professor Frank Keutsch, announced that he is no longer pursuing the experiment. The platform developed for SCoPEx is expected to be repurposed for basic scientific research in the stratosphere unrelated to solar geoengineering.

International panel of geologists rejects notion of significant ‘climate change’ – ‘Stunning rebuke’ of ‘proposed geologic time division reflecting human influence’

March 16, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/climate/anthropocene-epoch-vote-rejected.html?searchResultPosition=4 Science Mag: ‘Panel rejects a proposed geologic time division reflecting human influence’ – The vote, first reported by The New York Times, is a stunning—though not unexpected—rebuke for the proposal, which has been working its way through a formal approval process for more than a decade. https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/03/10/1849256/are-we-in-the-anthropocene-the-human-age-scientists-say-nope Excerpts: Science magazine “has confirmed that a panel of two dozen geologists has voted down a proposal to end the Holocene — our current span of geologic time, which began 11,700 years ago at the end of the last ice age — and inaugurate a new epoch, the Anthropocene. “Starting in the 1950s, it would have marked a time when humanity’s influence on the planet became overwhelming.”The vote, first reported by The New York Times, is a stunning — though not unexpected — rebuke for the proposal, which has been working its way through a formal approval process for more than a decade… [S]ome felt the proposed marker of the epoch — some 10 centimeters of mud from Canada’s Crawford Lake that captures the global surge in fossil fuel burning, fertilizer use, and atomic bomb fallout that began in the 1950s — isn’t definitive enough. Others questioned whether it’s even possible to affix one date to the start of humanity’s broad planetary influence: Why not the rise of agriculture? Why not the vast changes that followed European encroachment on the New World? Stanley Finney, a stratigrapher at California State University Long Beach and head of the International Union of Geological Sciences, said “It would have been rejected 10 years earlier if they had not avoided presenting it to the stratigraphic community for careful consideration.”Finney also complains that from the start, AWG was determined to secure an “epoch” categorization, and ignored or countered proposals for a less formal Anthropocene designation…. The Anthropocene backers will now have to wait for a decade before their proposal can be considered again… … From the New York Times: Geoscientists don’t deny our era stands out within that long history. Radionuclides from nuclear tests. Plastics and industrial ash. Concrete and metal pollutants. Rapid greenhouse warming. Sharply increased species extinctions. These and other products of modern civilization are leaving unmistakable remnants in the mineral record, particularly since the mid-20th century. Still, to qualify for its own entry on the geologic time scale, the Anthropocene would have to be defined in a very particular way, one that would meet the needs of geologists and not necessarily those of the anthropologists, artists and others who are already using the term. # International group of geologists rejects notion of significant "climate change": 1. A panel of scientists has rejected notion that climate has sufficiently changed to warrant concluding Earth has exited the Holocene geologic epoch and entered the 'Anthropocene.' 2. Watch for… pic.twitter.com/5IqKwt0NyL — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) March 5, 2024

‘Trust science’, Paris mayor boasts as city declares ‘there will be no air conditioning in Olympic athletes’ rooms ‘to cut the carbon footprint’ of summer Olympics

March 14, 2024

Reuters – March 14, 2024: There will be no air conditioning in the athletes’ rooms at Paris 2024, which has pledged to host the “greenest ever” Games. … Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo told those nations planning on installing air conditioning at the athletes’ village to “trust the science” instead… With climate scientists warning that global warming has produced more extreme weather patterns in much of the world, organisers of Paris 2024 have said they want to halve the carbon footprint compared with the Rio 2016 and London 2012 Summer Games. “I think we have to trust science on two counts. The first is what scientists are telling us about the fact that we are on the brink of a precipice. Everyone, including the athletes, must be aware of this,” said Hidalgo. “And secondly, we have to trust the scientists when they help us to construct buildings in a sober way that allows us to make do without air conditioning.” ..

Yet, the Olympic Committees from Australia, Brazil, Canada and Norway are among those who believe it will not be enough.

“Our clear wish is that there should be air-conditioning in all rooms,” the Norwegian Committee told Reuters, with Brazil saying “the heat forecast” made it “necessary to invest in renting air-conditioning units for the entire delegation”.

Associated Press in 2023: The Paris Olympics is going underground to find a way to keep athletes cool at the 2024 Games without air conditioners…The decision is part of the organizing committee’s goal to cut the carbon footprint of the Paris Games by half and stage the most sustainable Olympics to date by installing a special technology to use natural sources to keep everyone cool even during a potential heat wave. Compared to a conventional project, the carbon impact will be reduced by 45% for the Athletes Village during the construction phase and over the entire Olympic cycle, she said. …

The geothermal energy system will ensure that the temperature in the athlete apartments in the Seine-Saint-Denis suburb does not rise above 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit) at night, including during a potential a heat wave, said Laurent Michaud, the director of the Olympic and Paralympic Villages. … “Despite outdoor temperatures reaching 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit), we had temperatures at 28 degrees (82 degrees Fahrenheit) in most of these rooms,” Michaud told The Associated Press, detailing the results of a heatwave simulation. … To keep the coolness inside, the athletes will have to follow some basic rules, he added, including making sure the window blinds are shut during the day. … Although some Olympic hopefuls have already expressed concern about the lack of air conditioning, Monnet said athletes should adapt and help contribute to fight against climate change. “We need athletes to set an example when they use the buildings,” Monnet said. “We can build the most virtuous village we want, it is also the use that will be made of it that will weigh on our carbon footprint.” …

Allow only AC in very limited circumstances: “It will be on a case-by-case basis, and for health and safety of the athletes,” Michaud said, adding that ventilators vaporizing water droplets could be installed instead of traditional air conditioning units.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts: Heads Up Media – Texas Wildfires Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

March 7, 2024

Heads Up Media – Texas Wildfires Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change By Anthony Watts A few days ago, a wildfire started in north Texas and grew quickly, driven by strong southwesterly winds. Named the Smokehouse Creek Fire, it has burned more than 1.1 million acres and is now the largest wildfire in Texas history. The mainstream media has been quick to blame climate change for the fire, with headlines like this one from NBC News: Wildfires ravage Texas amidst climate change crisis, or this one from ABC13 in Houston: How climate change is increasing wildfire risks across Texas. These stories are false; multiple lines of real-world data refute any connection between these fires and climate change. NBC News claims: The Texas Panhandle is no stranger to face-blasting winds nor roller-coaster dips in temperature. But the fires would not have had the same chance to take off if not for unseasonably warm temperatures and dry conditions made more likely by climate change. ABC13 claims: Additionally, climate change could increase Texan’s risks for wildfires over the next 30 years. ABC13 Meteorologist Elyse Smith has previously covered this topic through ABC’s Weathering Tomorrow initiative, which uses data from our partners at the First Street Foundation. It shows how wildfire risk, as well as heat, flood, and wind risks, will be impacted by climate change through the year 2050. If either of these news outlets had bothered to do a ‘fact check,’ they would find their claims are unsupported by real world data. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Texas show that the state has experienced a declining trend in number of very hot days and a slight increase in precipitation (see Figures 1 and 2, below). Figure 1 – From 1910 through 1964 the number of hot days was actually greater than the current period of time. Figure 2 – From 1970 to the present, average annual precipitation for Texas increased. With fewer hot days and increased precipitation recorded in the long-term climate records, the claim that Texas is more susceptible to wildfires now that in the past because of climate change is clearly false. Both media outlets suggested that the area where the fires are is drier than normal. This too is false. Here is a map from InciWeb showing the location of the Smokehouse Creek Fire (circled in red) in Figure 3. Figure 3 – location of the Smokehouse Creek Fire. According to the US drought monitor, the area now beset by the wildfire is not abnormally dry and certainly not experiencing drought conditions: Figure 4 – U.S. Drought Monitor map of Texas for Feb27, 2024. Note most of the upper Texas panhandle area is not in drought. Nor is the adjacent region of Oklahoma caught up in the wildfire suffering under abnormally dry or drought conditions. According to Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires: Wildfires, especially in arid parts of the United States, have always been a natural part of the environment, and they likely always will. Global warming did not create wildfires. In fact, wildfires have become less frequent and less severe in recent decades. One of the key contributing factors has been that the United States has experienced fewer droughts in recent decades than in periods throughout the twentieth century. According to the National Park Service, wildfires in Texas have always been a part of the state’s history. However recently invasive species now cover much of the region. According to the Texas A&M Forest Service: Invasive species cause many negative impacts to the Texas landscape, from the displacement of native trees to potentially wiping out entire species. Much of the Texas panhandle region is overgrown with cedar, acacia and invasive mesquite trees which use up a lot of groundwater. Previously, natural fires in the region helped control the spread of this problem, but with modern fire suppression, fuel loads have increased. Even the most recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of global climate agrees. On Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) the table in Figure 5 shows the incidence of “Fire weather” has not emerged from climate change: Figure 5: note that Fire Weather has not emerged from climate change being a driver. Finally, recent satellite data show no correlation between wildfire acreage burned and carbon dioxide levels. In fact, global wildfire area burned declined substantially between 2000 to 2018, even as carbon dioxide levels increased. If climate change was driving an increase in wildfires you would see it in the global data, but it shows just the opposite. Actual data and various lines of hard evidence show that there is no connection between climate change and the wildfires now ravaging parts of north Texas and Oklahoma, or anywhere else for that matter. Sadly, once again the media is pushing the “climate catastrophe,” narrative in which every extreme weather event or natural disaster is caused by climate change, despite the clear evidence that this is false. In this case, rather than doing investigative due diligence, neither NBC nor ABC bothered to check facts before publishing these scare stories, which suggests that their reporters and editors are either lazy, incompetent, blinded by political ideology, or all three. Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email PREVIOUS ARTICLE Wrong, Des Moines Register, Fewer Blizzards Would Be a Benefit of Climate Change NEXT ARTICLE The Guardian Should Know That One Mild Winter Is Not Climate Change, Nor Is It Alarming Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

The Guardian Should Know That One Mild Winter Is Not Climate Change, Nor Is It Alarming

March 7, 2024

The Guardian Should Know That One Mild Winter Is Not Climate Change, Nor Is It Alarming By Linnea Lueken A recent article in The Guardian, “Vanishing ice and snow: record warm winter wreaks havoc across US Midwest,” describes the very mild winter much of the American Midwest has experienced this year, claiming that it is due to climate change. While a declining trend towards less-severe winters may in part reflect modest warming, the intensity of this winter’s warmth is more likely explained by El Niño. The Guardian asserts that ice cover across the Great Lakes has been declining since the early 1970s, writing that while the historic average for mid-February is around 40%, “this year it was about 4%.” Grand Forks, North Dakota; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, are listed as having recorded their warmest winter, and the Guardian links to evidence in the form of an article from weather.com. Interestingly, directly beneath the states listed in the weather.com post referenced in the article is this statement, “[t]he Twin Cities’ warmest winter, by the way, was 146 years ago in 1877-78, when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.” The Guardian neglected to mention that. Climate change is the culprit, claims The Guardian, but their own weather.com source lists two natural causes for this year’s mildness, including El Niño and a lack of “persistent blocking patterns – such as the Greenland block – that pull cold air from Canada and lock it into the U.S. for longer than a few days.” Regarding El Niño, weather.com says “[w]armer winters are typical across the northern tier of states during a strong El Niño.” Continuing, weather.com reports: Despite a few recent storms, this season’s winter storm pace across the country is the slowest in 10 years. That’s left just 14% of the Lower 48 covered by snow as of Feb. 26. The warmth also left Great Lakes ice cover at a 51-year low for mid-February, including an ice-free Lake Erie and just a few small bays of Lake Superior with any ice. In case you missed the point, the ice was this low 51 years of global warming ago, when the Earth was not only cooler, but it was in a cooling trend. A recent post at Climate Realism covers this specific subject in more detail, with H. Sterling Burnett writing “the last time the Great Lakes ice coverage was this low in January was in the early 1970s, a time when global average temperatures were cooling, which many scientists claimed at the time could be a sign of a coming ice age.” In fact, ice coverage data for the Great Lakes show that coverage is highly variable from year to year. Plotted annual maximum data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory show as much. (See figure below) The data across all the Great Lakes do indicate that recent years have seen more below-average years, but high years are still found, and it depends on the individual lake. On Lake Superior, Erie, and Huron, for example, most winters touch the 90% ice coverage range. On Lake Michigan, which has lower ice coverage averages, the record ice coverage is tied between two years; 1977 and 2014. Lake Ontario likewise traditionally has less coverage, and has its record high in 1979, and second-highest ice coverage in 2015. The Guardian also says that a “report published in January found that the number of -35F (-37.2C) readings in northern Minnesota have fallen by up to 90%,” they point out that low temperatures play a role in weed and pest control, which is true enough, however they neglect to mention that extreme cold kills human beings as well, and at much higher rates than extreme heat does. They also fail to mention that longer, colder winters result in fewer crop rotations and production. In Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths, multiple studies back up the fact that cold is deadlier than heat all around the world. One study, published in the Lancet in 2021, found that while 600,000 people die globally from heat, over 6 million die from cold. (see the figure, below) Further, cold related deaths have declined at more than double the rate that heat related deaths have increased. The table below provides some of the temperature related death numbers. COLD RELATED DEATHS BY REGION HEAT RELATED DEATHS BY REGION Africa 1.18 million Africa 25,550 Asia 2.4 million Asia 224,000 Europe 657,000 Europe 178,700 South America 116,000 South America 25,250 UK 44,600 UK 8000 US 154,800 US 18,750 China 967,000 China 71,300 India 655,400 India 83,700 Australia 14,200 Australia 2300 Total: 6,189,000 Total: 637,550 Table 1. Global cold related deaths vs. heat related deaths from 2000 to 2019. Data source: Monash University press release. The number of severely cold winters may be modestly trending downwards around the Great Lakes and across portions of the American Midwest, but almost everyone would agree that fewer -35℉ days is a blessing not a curse. This year’s winter is particularly mild not because of climate change but because of natural weather patterns, and a long-term trend in declining extreme cold is actually better for human survival. Contrary to The Guardian’s reporting, climate doomsaying is not an appropriate response to the available data. Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email PREVIOUS ARTICLE Heads Up Media – Texas Wildfires Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change NEXT ARTICLE Check Your Facts, CNN, Human Emissions Aren’t Driving ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Decline Linnea Luekenhttps://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

Bloomberg News: ‘Climate Anxiety’ Can Feel Like ‘There’s No Safe Harbor’ – Concerned are ‘crying in the office and at the dinner table’

February 18, 2024

Also see: 2020 Report: Crying over ‘climate change’ – Tears, sobbing, & ‘climate grief’ is an actual thing for activists – Special Report # https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/climate-anxiety-can-feel-like-there-s-no-safe-harbor-reader-survey-finds?embedded-checkout=true By Olivia Rudgard Bloomberg Green asked readers and other members of the public how global warming is impacting their mental health. Their answers covered a range of emotions — and solutions. Excerpt: For Tom Spencer, there was a moment where his feelings about climate change tipped over from something remote and abstract into real anxiety. The 35-year-old Brit had spent years working in PR in the electric motorsport sector. When he moved to Ireland in 2018, he found himself confronting a flood of misinformation about electric vehicles. “Like most people, I had known there was this underlying big problem, but it hadn’t been my problem. It wasn’t really affecting my daily life,” he says. But the more greenwashing he encountered, the closer to home it became. A mixture of adapting to a new culture, the added anxiety of the pandemic and a sense of responsibility toward others meant everything came to a head in early 2020. “It’s this feeling where it suddenly clicks. I completely understand the scale of this issue. God, we’ve wasted a lot of time,” he says. You can’t understand climate change without understanding people. It is a big, hairy problem that we each feel responsible for but can’t solve on our own. Staring at it directly can be paralyzing, and if you engage directly with the bare, cold reality of the predicament we are in, it can be hard to think about anything else. It’s tempting to deny it or to play it down — what an enormous relief it must be to decide that actually, it’s not a big deal after all. But engaging with it — without falling into either paralysis and despair, or denial and disbelief — is the first step to addressing it. So when we asked Bloomberg Green readers about their feelings on climate change, we wanted to understand both how living with this problem was affecting your day-to-day lives, and also what helps you cope. We received hundreds of responses covering the full range of emotions — guilt, fear, anxiety, rage and worry. We had responses from all over the world, and we also sought out some perspectives from therapists and people with direct experience of climate disaster. Along the way, we found even more people who wanted to tell us how they’ve learned to cope with the anxiety. … I spoke to Flora Vano, 38, the country manager for ActionAid Vanuatu, while she was at the COP28 climate summit last year. She said that a twin cyclone, which hit her country last year, left people fearing they had been cursed. For her an extra toll came from pleading for help at repeated COP meetings while people at home struggled. “Everything we touch turns into something else. Our garden we plant, it got destroyed, our fishes move further away. So they were thinking maybe the gods are punishing us. Maybe we did something,” she said. “Our co-existence has been disturbed.” … For the academic Kate Schapira, 45, the way to deal with climate anxiety was to become a sort of counselor herself. In 2013, she found herself crying in the office and at the dinner table after reading an article about coral bleaching. Inspired by the running gag in the Charles M. Schulz newspaper cartoon Peanuts, in which Lucy sets up a booth offering “Psychiatric Help” for 5 cents, she began visiting local parks and festivals with her own booth, and a sign offering “Climate Anxiety Counseling — 5 cents.”

Meteorologist: Wrong, Time Magazine, January 2024 Was Not the Hottest on Record

February 16, 2024

Wrong, Time Magazine, January 2024 Was Not the Hottest on Record By Anthony Watts An article in Time Magazine (Time) claims that January 2024 was the hottest ever on record for the planet. Titled, 2024 Had the Hottest January on Record Following 2023’s Hottest Year on Record the article is based on a single source of temperature data. Data from multiple other sources of temperature measurements refute this claim. Time refers to the Copernicus EU climate service as the source for its alarming claim. Copernicus EU issued press release claiming: January 2024 was the warmest January on record globally, with an average ERA5 surface air temperature of 13.14°C, 0.70°C above the 1991-2020 average for January and 0.12°C above the temperature of the previous warmest January, in 2020. … The month was 1.66°C warmer than an estimate of the January average for 1850-1900, the designated pre-industrial reference period. The problem with that is that they are using a reference period of 1850 to 1900 that no other climate data source uses; a period, not coincidentally, more than 100 years of global warming ago when the Earth was cooler than today. For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) produced a map of the globe that shows a significantly lower global temperature for January 2024. The GISS global value was just 1.20°C compared to the 1.66°C claimed by Copernicus is different because NASA GISS is using a base period of 1951 to 1980. Copernicus seemingly cherry picked the reference period to fit the climate crisis narrative, and Time was too uninterested in seeking and presenting the truth to investigate the extraordinary claim, instead reporting it as an unchallenged fact. When you look at satellite temperature data compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), the “hottest January ever” claim also falls apart: The satellite global temperature value is just 0.86°C, essentially half of what Copernicus claims at 1.66°C. While it is not the globe, the United States (U.S.) is often cited as being a leading metric for climate change by both media and scientific sources. This is because the U.S. has more temperature stations per land area than any other region included in the global climatological network. As such, its readings have an outsized impact on global average temperature measurements. Yet when you examine the data from the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the best and most state-of-the-art surface measurement system in the world we find that not only was January 2024 not the hottest on the record it was below normal in temperature: At -0.14°F (-0.08°C), there is certainly no cause for alarm about temperature in the United States. Yet Time does not mention any of these other sources. It gets worse than the simple subversion of science by omission of critical facts. Time quoted a spokesperson for Copernicus in the article: “Rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are the only way to stop global temperatures increasing,” Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. That statement is nothing more than political advocacy calling for the reduction of greenhouse gases through restrictions of economies, rather than simply reporting the science. By using that quote, Time is complicit in pushing advocacy over science. Time’s article is yet another ugly example of mainstream media preferring to push an alarming climate change narrative rather than reporting all of the facts, in context, honestly, and without bias. Shame on Time for failing to adhere to the most basic journalistic standards.

Search Results for: no global warming for 16 years – Page 2