Lomborg: "A new review of the available data suggests it’s not actually possible to detect a link between global warming and fire for Australia today."

Mr Lomborg said while the recent bushfire season was very significant, “if we go back in history about 11% of Australia’s surface used to burn every year in 1900” and “today that number is about 5.3%”.

“So we have seen more than half of the area burnt, partly because we have much more agriculture and we have better forest management – we have actually done a lot to reduce the area,” Mr Lomborg told Sky News.

There is no way to falsify the theory. 

Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2. Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields a warming of less than 0.5°C (500 mK). Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes. As for absorption-reemission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.”

...

About 120 years ago, Ångström (1900) contradicted the oft-cited Arrhenius (1896) – the atmospheric physicist referred to by proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

Ångström suggested Earth’s greenhouse effect is already saturated in its current (1900) state, and therefore increasing CO2 will have “no effect whatsoever” on climate (Stallinga, 2020).

Pielke Jr.: A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.

This year’s winter is seeing an impressive rebound in sea ice, tweets meteorologist Chris Martz, reaching the 3rd highest level in 15 years:

According to meteorologist Justin Berk here, “Arctic Sea Ice has made a dramatic recovery and expansion this winter.”

Tony Thomas: "Pachauri was not fit to run a small Delhi eco-thinktank, but was deemed fit soon after to run a UN climate outfit mustering trillion-dollar spending on renewables and plotting a $US100 billion a year transfer of money from the West to Third World corruptocrats."

#

Flashback 2015: Outgoing UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion and my dharma’

European leaders have spent years trying and pointedly failing to solve the climate crisis with regulation. Whether intentionally or not, U.S. policymakers have mostly avoided top-down solutions. And counterintuitively, or perhaps it should have been intuitive, the U.S. now leads the developed world in reducing carbon emissions.

Policymakers can learn an important lesson from this. The key to fighting climate change is to unleash the power of the free market, not to embrace every green politician's or activist's nutty new idea.

"Bottom line: the climate activists are decisively winning. The science no longer matters in the public policy debate. Activists have moved beyond it and the major science institutions no longer defend it against the activists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations. There are rumors are that the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report will break with the past and fully embrace the hysteria. Meanwhile, skeptics are talking to themselves, like characters in Alice in Wonderland – vocal but effectively locked out of the news media."

The American Energy Alliance, a free-market energy industry group, panned Wednesday’s Republican proposal as a “climate messaging exercise” that mimics Democratic proposals.

“His (McCarthy’s) costly proposal is a slippery slope to a slightly less intrusive Green New Deal,” said AEA President Thomas Pyle.

Club for Growth: “Besides hurting our economy, these measures will not make a single environmentalist vote for a Republican and only alienate conservatives across the country."

GOP climate bill will seek to commit US to planting 3.3 billion trees annually

Plant or not plant trees to fight "global warming?! It's all so confusing! This is what the (allegedly) settled science says:

CBS News: Planting a trillion trees could be the "most effective solution" to climate change, 2018 study says - 

Christian Science Monitor: Why planting some trees could make global warming worse - 2016

Live Science: Want to Fight Climate Change? Plant 1 Trillion Trees - 2019

Discover Mag: We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change - 2019

AP: Best way to fight climate change? Plant a trillion trees - 2019

Climate News Network: Planting trees will not slow global warming - 2017

"Instead of banning fossil fuels outright, the U.S. embraced natural gas amid a boom in its production. Thanks to a process called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," we've managed to tap new reserves of natural gas. In 2015, the U.S. surpassed Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top producer of natural gas. By 2018, energy companies produced over 60% more natural gas than they had two decades earlier. This newfound abundance of natural gas has helped our nation transition away from coal, which emits twice as much carbon dioxide.

Thanks to this shift, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have hit 30-year lows, even as global emissions have increased by 50% during the same period. And since 2005, natural gas has done more to reduce power sector dioxide emissions than all renewable energy sources combined, according to the Energy Information Administration.

By eschewing regulation, America has also spurred additional emissions-reducing innovations in the private sector. Freed from red tape, U.S. energy firms have been able to devise and implement a host of groundbreaking green technologies.

America faces a dilemma. Will it focus on real environmental problems that do measurable harm to human and ecological wellbeing, or will it mandate policies to head off climate disasters that are based on warming predictions have been repeatedly proven wrong by real-world empirical observations? Will it recognize that harnessing intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy requires enormous amounts of raw materials and mining, resulting in massive land-use impacts and human rights abuses, and is anything but clean, green, renewable, and sustainable? Or will it ignore all this?

Solar farms generate only 1.5 percent of the nation’s electricity and would be an inefficient way to generate the more than 8 billion megawatt-hours of power that fossil fuels and nuclear provide each year to meet industrial, commercial, residential, and automotive transportation needs and charge backup-power batteries.

The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. “The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.” 

“A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019,” the IEA continued. “Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather. The IEA noted that 80% of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly to the increase.

AOC claims: 'Fracking is destroying our land and our water.'

Steve Milloy: "However you slice it, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is an expensive futility and greenwashing boondoggle masquerading a policy alternative for managing the climate hysteria via technology."

CO2 emission "declines in rich countries balancing out a rise in poor nations, according to data published Tuesday. The International Energy Agency said emissions of the main man-made greenhouse gas stayed at 33 gigatons in 2019, even as the world economy grew by 2.9%.

“This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation,” the Paris-based agency said. “Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets.”

The country with the biggest drop in energy-related CO2 emissions was the United States, which recorded a fall of 2.9% to 4.8 gigatons on the back of coal-fired power plant closures and lower demand for electricity. The European Union saw its emissions fall by 5% to 2.9 gigatons, while Japan's dropped 4.3% to just over 1 gigaton in 2019. By contrast, emissions in the rest of the world rose by almost 400 million tonnes last year, led by higher coal use in Asia.