Read original post

The onset of 2024 has been marked by a series of claims suggesting that the year would be characterized by record-breaking heat. Despite these early predictions, several regions experienced extreme cold, challenging the narrative that warming trends uniformly lead to more severe weather events.

Record-Breaking Cold vs. Heat Predictions

At the beginning of 2024, various media outlets and commentators preemptively labeled the year as the hottest on record. For instance, The Hill Times ran a headline stating, "2024 the year it got really hot," and Heatmap Daily expressed a negative sentiment towards the anticipated climate patterns of 2024. Such statements were made despite the occurrence of record-breaking low temperatures and snow in typically hot regions like Saudi Arabia.

The Hill Times

Climate Science and Predictive Rigor

The traditional cycle of hypothesis testing in science appears to be overlooked in some climate science narratives. Predictions made without awaiting actual data from the year in question have led to concerns about the validity of these hypotheses. Notably, New York Times columnist David Gelles speculated about the intensity of the upcoming wildfire season and the certainty of another hot year, respectively.

The RCP 8.5 Scenario

Climate discussions have also been influenced by the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario, which has been subject to criticism for its portrayal of an improbable future where the economy collapses due to heating, yet hydrocarbon energy use soars. Despite this, Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has aligned its climate scenario exercises with this narrative, potentially affecting financial risk calculations.

Impact on Municipal Decisions

The City of Edmonton's investment in electric buses that malfunction in cold weather exemplifies the practical consequences of climate predictions. The buses required diesel heaters to operate in winter, highlighting a gap between expectations of warming trends and real-world conditions.

Edmonton Journal

Historical Weather Events

Historical records, such as a heatwave in 1934 that caused significant crop losses and a drought in 1871, show that extreme weather events have occurred without the modern emphasis on climate change as a causative factor.

Agricultural Innovation

Advancements in agricultural technology, such as the development of electronic soil that boosts crop growth, demonstrate human innovation's potential to address food security concerns, irrespective of climate change.

The Challenge of Core Assumptions

Climate alarmists are encouraged to reflect on their core assumptions and consider the implications if their theories are proven incorrect. For instance, a Royal Society publication suggests that CO2 increases could be a result of temperature rises, not the cause.

Historical Temperature Records

The precision of historical temperature records is contested, with adjustments to past data and reliance on incomplete datasets calling into question the accuracy of temperature comparisons between the 19th century and the present.

Modern Temperature Records and Models

Contemporary temperature records also face scrutiny, as NOAA reports data from non-existent weather stations, and global models rely on interpolated and adjusted data, lacking the precision often claimed.

Real-World Energy Experiments

A proposal to test the reliability of wind and solar power during peak demand hours in Ontario highlights the need for practical evaluations of renewable energy solutions.

Climate Sensitivity Studies

Observation-based studies, such as Ray Bates' paper, offer lower estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling when considering a more complex energy balance model that includes heat transfer between the tropics and non-tropical regions.

Summary of 2023 Climate Extremes

Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s summary of 2023 climate events points out the discrepancy between the narrative of worsening weather and the actual data, including the lower number of wildfires in the United States despite claims of a global climate crisis.

Conclusion

The early verdict of 2024 as an exceptionally hot year, based on predictions rather than observed data, has raised questions about the scientific rigor in climate forecasting. The reliance on controversial scenarios and the challenges posed by historical and contemporary data accuracy underscore the complexity of climate science. As the year progresses, it remains to be seen whether the initial predictions will align with reality.

Read original post

The assessment of historical and current sea level data is essential in understanding climate change and its impacts. This article examines the inconsistency and evolution of sea level rise data from the 20th century to the present, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA based off a dissection of the data by Tony Heller.

Historical Perspectives on Sea Level Data

In the 1990 IPCC report, it was stated that there was no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the 20th century. However, by 2016, this position had changed significantly, with claims that the 20th-century sea level rise was likely faster than during any of the preceding 27 centuries.

IPCC predicts extreme sea level rise in 2016

Tide Gauge Data vs. Satellite Data

In the 2018 version of NASA's tide gauge graph, the data depicted minimal acceleration in sea level rise from 1870 to the late 1990s. However, a discrepancy arose between tide gauge data (showing a more gradual increase) and satellite data (indicating a much steeper rise in sea levels).

Reconciliation of Data

To reconcile the differences between tide gauge and satellite measurements, subsequent versions of the tide gauge data were adjusted. The revised tide gauge data showed a flattened rate of sea level rise from 1950 until 1994, followed by a sharp increase that aligned with satellite observations. This alignment raises questions about data manipulation to fit the narrative that the world is going to end unless we do something about the climate.

Data Comparison and Allegations of Tampering

Comparing the current tide gauge graph with the 2018 version, critics have suggested that the data was altered to create a "hockey stick" shape, indicating a sudden and recent increase in the rate of sea level rise. The adjustments prior to 1994 were particularly noted, even though the overall amount of sea level rise remained consistent.

James Hansen's Predictions and Reality

In 2008, NASA's James Hansen predicted multimeter sea level rises within the century, with significant impacts on coastal regions. Hansen's projections, including the inundation of lower Manhattan within 20 to 30 years, did not materialize. Actual sea level rise in this area has been slower than even the lowest projections by climate scientists.

Review of NOAA's Projections

NOAA's different sea level scenarios initially indicated a divergence in possible outcomes starting around the year 2000. However, the lack of divergence led to a revision of the timelines, pushing the expected separation of scenarios to around 2020. Critics argue that this adjustment is indicative of a pattern of modifying projections to fit observed data.

Conclusion

The examination of sea level rise data reveals alterations in the historical record, which have shifted the narrative from a lack of acceleration to a rapid increase in sea level. While the reasons behind these changes are not explicit, it is pretty clear that organizations like NASA and the NOAA have an easier chance of funding their budgets when they have an existential crisis to monitor. The discrepancies between tide gauge and satellite data, and the adjustments that have been made to projections that have been declared over time, highlight the moving goalposts that so-called "climate deniers" are forced to deal with. The climate hysterics have been able to cry wolf as many times as they please without many people in the broader public noticing. The implications of these goal post moves are significant, as they influence public policy and funding related to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. And have ultimately sent the world down a suicidal path that has brought with it unreliable energy systems and chronic capital misallocation.

[

Humanity at a Crossroads

It’s time to come back to reality.

TFTC – Truth for the CommonerMarty Bent

](https://tftc.io/humanity-at-a-crossroads/)

Read original post

Key Takeaways

In this fascinating episode of the Tom Nelson Podcast, the rise of citizen journalism and its impact on democratizing information was discussed with guest Jeff Reynolds, senior investigative researcher for Restoration of America. Reynolds, who has written a book on dark money in politics, delves into the science and ideology behind the climate movement.

Reynolds became a cataclysmic climate change skeptic after years of scientific fascination, leading him to question the catastrophic claims made by climate change proponents. His skepticism grew as he found that questions about climate change were often met with ad hominem attacks rather than substantive answers. This spurred him to dig deeper into climate science, focusing on the lack of debate and logical fallacies present in the discourse.

The discussion between Tom and Jeff also touched on the "culture of lying" surrounding the theory of man-made global warming, which Reynolds believes became especially prominent following Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. Reynolds' report, "How the Left's Global Warming Ideology Wrecked Science," criticizes the shift from empirical data to computer modeling and interpretation in climate science, which he argues has led to data manipulation and exaggerated predictions of doom.

Reynolds highlights the media's role in perpetuating a fear-based narrative around climate science and points out the financial interests behind climate reporting, including the influence of nonprofits and billionaires.

The discussion also covers the Michael Mann trial and the implications of various scientific revelations on the credibility of climate science. Reynolds expresses concern over the judicial process and the potential bias of a DC jury in assessing the facts of the trial.

Throughout the conversation, Reynolds emphasizes the need for critical thinking and questioning in the face of overwhelming and often one-sided climate messaging.

[

Evaluation of Historical Global Temperature Data: It’s Fake

The concept of measuring a singular “global temperature” is inherently complex due to the natural vast temperature variations across different geographical locations. To derive an accurate average global temperature, extensive data from a multitude of locations is required.

TFTC – Truth for the CommonerStaff

](https://tftc.io/historical-global-temperature-data-evaluation/)

Best Quotes

1. "The biggest lie in American climate journalism is that reporters cover climate science as a science." - Holman Jenkins (quoted by Jeff Reynolds)This quote underscores the concern that climate journalism has veered away from objective scientific reporting and towards advocacy and fear-mongering.
2. "A culture of lying has metastasized around the theory of man-made global warming since its emergence as a prominent political movement in the 1990s." - Jeff ReynoldsReynolds criticizes the spread of misinformation and the lack of honest discourse in the climate debate.
3. "The longer the earth goes without proving the theory, the more wild-eyed the predictions of doom get, and the more its adherents resemble members of a cult." - Jeff ReynoldsHere, Reynolds suggests that as the dire predictions of climate change fail to materialize, the rhetoric becomes more extreme and disconnected from empirical evidence.
4. "It's the democratization of information." - Jeff Reynolds on citizen journalismReynolds celebrates the role of citizen journalism in providing access to diverse viewpoints and information that might otherwise be suppressed or overlooked.

Conclusion

The discussion between Tom Nelson and Jeff Reynolds offers a critical and insightful look into the climate change debate, emphasizing the importance of skepticism, the examination of evidence, and the recognition of bias in media reporting. Reynolds' perspective challenges the mainstream narrative of climate change and suggests that there is a concerted effort to manipulate data and public perception for political ends. While the podcast presents a nuanced view that may not align with all listeners' beliefs, it encourages a deeper engagement with the facts and a more rigorous analysis of the claims made by climate change advocates. The conversation with Reynolds is a potent reminder of the need for continued dialogue and critical examination in the pursuit of truth, particularly in fields as impactful and contentious as climate science.

Read original post

Introduction to Global Temperature Measurement Challenges

The concept of measuring a singular "global temperature" is inherently complex due to the natural vast temperature variations across different geographical locations. To derive an accurate average global temperature, extensive data from a multitude of locations is required. This raises questions about the methodologies used by organizations such as NASA when attempting to construct historical temperature data sets.

Historical Temperature Data Analysis

In 1884, NASA generated a detailed temperature map indicating a general global cooling with a specific hotspot in West Africa. This analysis was primarily based on the data from a single thermometer in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The data from this thermometer began in approximately 1850, but there were significant gaps, including a lack of data from August to December in 1884. Despite these gaps, the area was denoted as a hotspot in NASA's map.

Data Gaps and Concerns

The issue extends beyond Africa. In 1884, there was minimal to no data available for vast regions such as South America, Asia, most of Australia, the Arctic, large portions of Canada, Russia, Greenland, and all of Antarctica. The lack of data from these regions casts doubt on the accuracy of the global temperature map for that year and, by extension, any conclusions drawn from it.

Historical Media and Scientific Perspectives

A 1978 New York Times article highlighted the lack of data, specifically from the southern hemisphere, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about global temperature trends. Similarly, the Climatic Research Unit in England's map for July 1884 exhibited significant regions with missing data, further compounding the challenge of constructing an accurate global temperature map.

Possible Data Collusion Among Research Groups

Five different research groups have calculated the global temperature for 1884 within a narrow range, despite the acknowledged scarcity of data. Given the extensive gaps in data coverage, one would expect a wider variance in the calculated temperatures if these groups were acting independently. The close alignment of their results despite the acknowledged data limitations suggests the possibility of collaboration or collusion, raising concerns about the objectivity of the temperature records.

Criticism from NASA's Own

Criticism has also arisen from within NASA itself. Several prominent individuals associated with NASA's Apollo moon program have expressed their discontent with the agency's climate change claims. They argue that the assertions about the catastrophic impact of human-generated carbon dioxide on climate change are unsubstantiated, thus challenging the credibility of NASA's current climate science division.

Conclusion

The pursuit of understanding historical global temperatures is fraught with challenges, most notably the paucity of historical temperature data. The reliance on incomplete and regionally isolated data points to construct a global temperature map for the year 1884 raises significant questions about the scientific validity of such representations. The existence of potential collusion among research groups to present a unified narrative despite insufficient data further undermines the reliability of these historical temperature assessments. These concerns resonate with the broader scientific principle that authority should not be blindly trusted at the expense of truth, as articulated by Albert Einstein. The discrepancies and limitations in historical global temperature data underscore the need for a more rigorous and transparent approach to climate science.

Read original post

Introduction

The National Climate Assessment provides forecasts and analyses on climate trends and their impacts across the United States. One of its predictions highlights an expected increase in the number of very hot days in the U.S. Midwest. This article examines historical temperature data to evaluate the accuracy of these predictions.

Midwest Temperature Trends

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Midwest region includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Historical data on temperature trends within these states indicate patterns in the frequency of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius).

Historical Peaks and Declines

The available data suggests that the percentage of days exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit in the Midwest reached its highest point in 1936. Since that year, there has been a notable downward trend in the occurrence of such very hot days, with record lows being reported in recent years. This decline has coincided with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

State-by-State Analysis

An examination of each Midwest state individually reveals consistent trends with the regional pattern:

• Minnesota: A sharp decline in the number of hot days since the 1930s.
• Wisconsin: A plummeting trend in the occurrence of very hot days since the 1930s.
• Iowa: A significant decrease in very hot days.
• Similar downward trends are observed in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

All the Midwest states have experienced a reduction in the number of very hot days as atmospheric CO2 has risen.

Comparison with National Climate Predictions

The National Climate Assessment's predictions contrast with the observed data, forecasting an increase in very hot days in the Midwest. This discrepancy raises questions about the underlying data and methodologies used for the national climate projections.

Nationwide Temperature Trends

At a national level, the percentage of weather stations recording temperatures of 95 degrees Fahrenheit or higher peaked in 1931 and has since declined to record lows. This trend is also reflected in the frequency of 95-degree days across the lower 48 states, which has dropped since the 1930s.

Climate Extremes Index Discrepancies

NOAA's Climate Extremes Index (CEI) presents a different picture, indicating that summer maximum temperature extremes have risen to record highs. This is contrary to the thermometer data, which shows a sharp decline in summer maximum temperatures.

Data Adjustments and Implications

The CEI appears to be based on adjusted data that transforms the declining temperature trend into a warming trend. The legitimacy of these adjustments is called into question, as they seem to contradict the raw thermometer data.

Conclusion

The historical data analysis of temperature trends in the Midwest and nationwide does not support the predictions of increased very hot days made by the National Climate Assessment. The apparent discrepancy between raw temperature data and the adjusted data used in the Climate Extremes Index warrants further investigation to ensure accurate climate modeling and prediction. The contrasts between observed trends and climate projections highlight the importance of transparency and scrutiny in climate science.

Read original post

The Great Barrier Reef, a natural marvel off the northeastern coast of Australia, has been the subject of many environmental concerns. Contrary to widespread media reports of its imminent demise, recent data suggests that this vast ecosystem is far more resilient than often portrayed.

The Great Barrier Reef's Vital Statistics

Spanning nearly the length of California, the Great Barrier Reef comprises about 3,000 individual reefs. These reefs are not only surviving but thriving, with none lost to environmental changes. Extensive measurements indicate coral coverage is at record highs since official records began in the mid-1980s.

Coral Growth and Environmental Factors

Corals are known to grow faster in warmer waters—a fact supported by scientific observation for an extended period. The natural variability of the reef means it is regularly impacted by cyclones and starfish plagues, which can cause significant coral loss. However, the reef's ability to recover robustly from these events signals a healthy, vigorous ecosystem.

Misconceptions About Pollution

There is a popular narrative that pollution, particularly from farming, is devastating the reef. However, due to the rapid flushing of water from the Pacific Ocean, the presence of pesticides and farm nutrients is negligible. Data suggests that the reef is largely unaffected by such land-based influences.

The State of Coral Coverage

Recent studies by the Australian Institute of Marine Science focusing on approximately 100 reefs out of the 3,000 have shown a pronounced increase in coral cover. Despite periods of massive coral bleaching, the overall coral coverage has doubled since 2010, challenging the narrative that bleaching events are a death sentence for the reef.

The Historical Perspective

Examining coral growth rates over the last four centuries, there is no clear evidence of a decline. In fact, some data might indicate an increase in growth rates which could correlate with rising temperatures, aligning with the known preference of corals for warmer conditions.

The Impact of Ocean Currents

The Great Barrier Reef benefits from strong ocean currents that serve to disperse potential pollutants. These currents effectively dilute and eliminate threats from farming runoff before they can impact the reef, rendering the pollution argument less credible.

Addressing Quality Assurance in Science

The scientific community has faced criticism for a lack of quality assurance, leading to mistrust among the public. Improving these systems is crucial for maintaining the integrity of scientific research, especially in areas that are prone to emotional and ideological influence.

Conclusion

The Great Barrier Reef, contrary to the doom-and-gloom scenarios often depicted in media reports, is currently experiencing record amounts of coral coverage. This resilience points to a far more complex and robust ecosystem capable of withstanding and recovering from environmental stressors. As the scientific community confronts challenges in quality assurance and ideological biases, it is critical to maintain objectivity and foster healthy debate to ensure accurate representation of the reef's true state.

Read original post

Historical Context of Forest Fires in the United States

Forest fires have long been a natural occurrence in the United States, shaping ecosystems and influencing land management policies. The historical data on burn acreage in the United States, as reported by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) and the US Forest Service, shows significant fluctuations in burn acreage over the past century. Data from these agencies dating back to the early 20th century reveals that the burn acreage was substantially higher in the past compared to recent decades.

Early Burn Acreage Records

According to the US Forest Service, the 1930s experienced a notable spike in burn acreage, with 1938 being a particularly severe year for forest fires. The New York Times corroborated these numbers, reflecting the concern of the era. In 1945, the US Forest Service reported an average of over 200,000 fires annually, with an average burn acreage of 31 million acres—a figure larger than the state of New York.

Recent Trends in Burn Acreage

In contrast, the burn acreage in 2020 was recorded to be about one-tenth of the 1945 average, indicating a significant reduction in burn acreage over the years. The NIFC records also suggest that burn acreage has decreased, with 2020 being one of the lowest years on record for burn acreage.

Methodological Changes and Data Representation

The NIFC indicates that there was a methodological change in counting the number of forest fires starting in 1983. This poses a challenge when comparing the number of fires before and after that year due to the difference in counting methodology. However, the data for burn acreage does not show a similar discontinuity, suggesting that acreage measurements have remained consistent over time.

The National Climate Assessment and Data Omissions

The most recent National Climate Assessment (NCA) has been critiqued for starting its analysis of forest fire trends from 1984 onwards, potentially omitting earlier data that depicts higher burn acreage in the past. Critics argue that this selective representation of data creates the impression that forest fire burn acreage is increasing, while the complete historical record would indicate otherwise.

Erasure of Historical Data

In early 2021, reports emerged that historical fire data prior to 1983 was removed from the NIFC website, with the justification given that the data was unreliable. The removed data included figures that showed higher burn acreage in the past. This action has prompted allegations of data manipulation, with critics asserting that the true extent of historical burn acreage is being obscured.

Preindustrial Burn Acreage

Government reports from 2001 indicate that in the preindustrial period (1500-1800), an average of 145 million acres burned annually in the conterminous United States. Comparatively, current figures show that only about 14 million acres burn each year, suggesting a 90% reduction in burn acreage since preindustrial times.

Implications and Conclusions

The decrease in burn acreage from preindustrial levels to today raises questions about the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and forest fires. The data suggests that higher carbon dioxide levels have not led to an increase in burn acreage. Moreover, the historical context and recent trends indicate that forest fire activity has varied greatly over the last century, with recent years experiencing less burn acreage than earlier periods.

The analysis of forest fire data and trends remains a complex issue, influenced by historical records, methodological changes, and data representation. A comprehensive understanding of forest fire dynamics requires careful examination of the full range of available data, taking into account both historical and contemporary contexts. Especially considering the fact that the government is actively trying to ignore historical data that does not agree with the narrative they are attempting to push.

Read original post

Overview of Tropical Cyclone Trends

Recent data analyses on the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones have yielded some interesting findings. An examination of Pacific typhoons since 1951 suggests a declining trend over the past 50 years. These results are based on a graph produced using simple spreadsheet software, indicating that advanced tools are not necessarily required for basic data analysis in climate science.

Global Tropical Cyclone Energy

Further supporting a trend of decreasing cyclone activity, a graph by Ryan Maui indicates that the global tropical accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has been declining for the past 30 years. Additionally, data on hurricane frequency also show a downward trend over the same period. This evidence challenges the notion that global warming leads to an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones.

Correlation Between Solar Activity and Hurricane Frequency

A potentially significant correlation has been observed between solar activity, as measured by sunspots, and the frequency of major hurricanes. Data over the last three solar cycles show an anti-correlation: when solar activity was low, major hurricane frequency was high, and vice versa. Peer review of this correlation has confirmed its presence, suggesting that solar activity may play a role in influencing hurricane frequency, though more research is needed to establish causality.

Amazing correlation with the SILSO sunspots pic.twitter.com/3C2uWVWnqW

— Andy May (@Andy_May_Writer) January 24, 2024

Academic Research and Climate Theory

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has posited that global warming will likely intensify hurricanes, with higher wind speeds and more precipitation. However, this theory has come under scrutiny, as current data does not appear to support these predictions. In fact, some of the hottest years on record have coincided with some of the lowest major hurricane activities, further complicating the narrative.

Media Reporting and Scientific Consensus

Media outlets have occasionally been accused of promoting an agenda, particularly when discussing the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, for instance, there was speculation about the influence of global warming on hurricane intensity. However, Dr. Chris Lanzie, the chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, provided a counterpoint suggesting that global warming might actually decrease hurricane power. The press, as critics argue, may prioritize narratives that align with certain agendas over balanced scientific discourse.

Influence of Funding and Political Bias

President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech warned about the potential for government funding to politicize science, potentially leading to a situation where public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. The concern is that funding might drive research directions, particularly favoring studies that focus on carbon dioxide's relationship with climate over other factors such as solar activity.

Scientific Integrity Concerns

Prominent figures within the scientific community have expressed concern about the reliability of published research. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet journal, and the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine have both highlighted issues of conflict of interest, small sample sizes, and the pursuit of trends over substantial science. These concerns resonate with Eisenhower's warnings and suggest a need for reform in academic research practices.

Conclusion

The analysis of tropical cyclone data and the potential influence of solar activity on hurricane frequency raise important questions about the current understanding of climate science. While the academic community continues to conduct research, it is essential for independent verification and analysis to occur. The internet has become a platform for real-time science and discussion, offering an alternative to traditional academic channels. As climate science continues to evolve, it is crucial for the public to engage critically with the research and to distinguish between well-supported studies and those that may be influenced by funding or political agendas.

Read original post

In a CNBC interview earlier today, former Secretary of Energy Rick Perry voiced strong criticism against the current administration's pause on energy policies, which he believes will negatively impact the American economy and job market. Perry, also a former governor of Texas, is skeptical of the administration's portrayal of the climate crisis as an existential threat and suggests that this pause could inadvertently lead to an increase in coal plant activity, particularly in Europe.

Perry argued that if the goal is to genuinely address climate concerns, the U.S. should promote the use of clean-burning American liquefied natural gas (LNG) rather than halting its production. He warned that the expected economic fallout would extend beyond the primary LNG-producing states of Texas and Louisiana, affecting jobs in Ohio and Pennsylvania—states critical to the political landscape.

[

Peak Cheap Oil Is A Myth, NGLs, & Winding Down Wind Farms

Recent trends in U.S. oil production have surprised many, with significant growth despite expectations to the contrary. The concept of “inventory runway” has been central to these discussions, referring to the duration for which producers can maintain or increase output levels.

TFTC – Truth for the CommonerStaff

](https://tftc.io/peak-cheap-oil-myth/)

The former secretary suggested that the president's actions might be politically motivated, aimed at appeasing environmentalists within the Democratic Party. Perry expressed concern that unilateral decisions by the administration, circumventing Congress, could signal a disregard for the legislative process and the will of the American people. He drew parallels between energy policy and immigration policy, implying a pattern of bypassing Congressional approval to satisfy a political agenda.

Perry also highlighted the geopolitical implications of the administration's energy stance, stating that it sends a negative message to European allies who rely on the U.S. for energy security and to reduce dependence on Russian energy sources, which can be used as a geopolitical weapon.

In conclusion, Perry anticipates a strong voter response in November, reflecting dissatisfaction with the current energy and immigration policies. He cautions that the administration’s current path could have far-reaching consequences for American energy workers, the political climate, and international relations.

Read original post

In a report released by The Heritage Foundation earlier today, Visiting Fellow Roy Spencer critically evaluates the accuracy of computerized climate models in predicting global warming and their impact on energy policy. The report "Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models" claims that the warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than the predictions made by these models.

Key findings from the report suggest that the observed rate of global warming is significantly weaker than nearly all computerized climate models have indicated. Furthermore, it argues that climate models, which are used to guide energy policy, fail to conserve energy—a foundational requirement for any physically based climate system model. Based on these observations, the report advocates for public policy to be informed by actual climate observations, which it describes as "rather unremarkable," as opposed to relying on models that it claims exaggerate climate impacts.

The report delves into the causes of temperature change, emphasizing the balance between energy gain and loss. It draws on examples such as a pot of water on a stove, wearing a coat in winter, and changes in air temperature throughout the day to illustrate the concept of energy balance. It also points out the tiny energy imbalance observed in the climate system, suggesting that some portion of recent warming could be natural, thus challenging the mainstream climate research community's assumption of a pre-human energy equilibrium.

Spencer's report scrutinizes the construction and functioning of climate models, highlighting their reliance on tuning adjustments or "fudge factors" to prevent them from drifting in temperature over time. Despite these efforts, the report notes that many models still struggle with energy conservation.

The document argues against the narrative of human-induced climate change, contending that there are no distinctive "fingerprints" of human-caused warming. It also examines the direct warming effect of CO2 and the amplification from feedbacks in climate models, suggesting a wide range of warming projections and questioning the models' sensitivity to CO2-induced forcing.

Comparative charts within the report showcase discrepancies between climate model predictions and observed temperatures across different regions and layers of the atmosphere. For instance, the report highlights that all 36 models surveyed produced higher warming rates than observed in the United States during summer.

In conclusion, the report by Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, cautions policymakers against basing decisions on climate models that it claims overpredict warming. It suggests that the reliance on these models is based on faith in assumptions rather than scientific evidence, and it calls for caution due to uncertainties in climate projections and explanations of past changes.

The Heritage Foundation's report has potential implications for future climate policy and the public's understanding of climate change. It critically evaluates the tools used to predict climate change and suggests a need for a more observationally based approach to policy-making.

Read the full report at The Heritage Foundation's website.

Read original post

What is the Climate Endgame?

Recently the United Nations released a new report demanding $150 trillion -- that's with a capital T -- to combat the imaginary climate crisis.

In a video on the report I ventured that “climate” has been one of the most successful taxpayer fleecings in American history, pimping global cooling then global warming then climate change and now “climate crisis.”

In sheer dollars, it rivals the military industrial complex, and second only to central banking. Trillions frittered away on green billionaires and their army of useful idiots who glue themselves to highways.

Marxist “Watermelons”

Alas, it's not just the 150 trillion. There's always been a more sinister angle to the environmental movement. Indeed, 50 years ago Czech physicist Petr Beckmann coined the term "watermelon" to describe the movement -- green on the outside, deep Marxist red on the inside.

We can see this political agenda in how media treats environmental issues. Anything the left dislikes has a sin-soaked carbon footprint that must be eliminated, but anything the left likes gets a pass.

Visit our Lead Sponsor, Unchained. Protect Your Bitcoin, Reduce your Taxes Coupon Code PETER for $100 off Onboarding.

For example, the past few years we've seen mainstream press attacking the carbon footprints of bar-b-cues, air conditioning, recreational shooting or even camping, college football, especially tailgating at college football — which is something no self-respecting college Marxist would do.

Meanwhile, burning dozens of cities for racialist Marxism, or hundreds of private jets flying cross-Atlantic to environmental conferences apparently have no carbon footprint. It's magic.

From Crony to Mass Poverty

Alas, joke or no, they're now taking this to the next level: In Europe they're floating digital identities that could be used to impose a carbon allowance. Beyond which you'd have to buy credits. So the riff-raff stays in their pods, the rich still get to park their yachts off Monte Carlo.

Commenter Eva Vlaardingerbroek labeled this, correctly, as “Neo-Feudalism.” Climate austerity for the poor, yachts and private jets for the nobles.

You will take the bus and you will be happy.

Alas, it's one thing to keep the poor in their place, but the next step is slashing humanity's standard of living altogether.

After all, we are all sinners in the eyes of St Greta.

How poor will we get? Major UK consultancy Future Laboratories issued a report calling for carbon allowances of just 2.3 tons per year. Which is the carbon emissions of a single round-trip cross-Atlantic flight.

Now that would do wonders for keeping out the riff-raff: you can fly or you can eat. Unless you've got the dosh -- or the ideological blessing -- to buy your indulgences.

2.3 tons is interesting because it's roughly 7 times less than the average American -- and 5 times less than the average European, who are poorer because their politicians are stupid

So what would 7 times less carbon look like? Well, carbon lines up almost perfect with GDP, so easy: we'd be 7 times poorer. In other words, a standard of living between Cuba and Botswana.

Of course, at that point we pray they do not further alter the deal and take us all the way to climate paradises like Somalia or Papua New Guinea.

Enter for free chance to win 50 American Silver Eagle coins — valued at over $1,500! Rated Top Precious Metal dealer by Investopedia.

What's next?

The good news is the watermelons are overplaying their cards. 150 trillion to buy our way to Botswana isn't really a winning platform.

Alas, the bad news is our left-wing media is brainwashed so deep, they'll do everything they can to hide the trap until we're deep inside.

Voters are losing their enthusiasm for climate. But that swamp isn’t draining fast enough to take the wind out of their sails. Not yet, anyway.

Sign up for free to get weekly articles on the economy and freedom.

Also check out the weekly podcast rounding up all the week’s videos in a single 30 minute podcast.

Originally published on profstonge.com

Read original post

In a recent report that could have significant implications for global economic policy, the United Nations has presented an eye-watering estimate for addressing what it refers to as the "climate crisis." The World Economic Situation and Prospects report, spanning 167 pages, puts forward a figure of $150 trillion as the cost of tackling the environmental challenges we face.

via The World Economic Situation and Prospects report

Due to the fact that this kind of spending would have massive implications on the global economy, it is important to unpack the magnitude of this figure. To put it into perspective, $150 trillion is roughly equivalent to half of humanity's accumulated wealth since the dawn of bipedal hominids. This staggering amount, which verges on the inconceivable, is projected to be necessary over the course of the next half-century.

The UN's calculations are primarily based on substantial subsidies for green energy, meant to "transform the global energy sector." This sector is purportedly in need of an investment of around $5.3 trillion per year, which by itself exceeds the entire GDP of an economic powerhouse like Japan. If maintained over 50 years, the total would surpass the already astronomical initial estimate, reaching $265 trillion.

Further breakdown of the proposed spending includes trillions to incentivize poorer nations to join the energy transition, as well as a "loss and damage fund," purportedly designed to compensate for the impacts of global warming on these nations. However, critics argue that such funds may merely line the pockets of corrupt elites rather than foster genuine environmental protection or improvement.

The report also recommends diverting existing development funds to climate-related projects, a move that could potentially undermine infrastructural development such as road and railway construction crucial for economic growth in developing regions.

These proposed expenditures, while monumental in their scope, are not merely theoretical. A summit in Paris, attended by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen among others, saw commitments to channel approximately four trillion dollars per year towards these climate initiatives, including the controversial payments to third-world elites.

Despite the seemingly unassailable sums involved, public support for such measures is limited. Surveys consistently reveal that the average voter is unwilling to contribute more than a token amount to the climate change agenda, a figure dwarfed by the ambitions of the climate lobby, which wields significant influence over global policy.

In conclusion, the UN's report signals a potential redirection of trillions of dollars towards combating climate change, a move that is not without controversy. While the efficacy and practicality of these measures are debated, one thing is certain: the conversation around climate change funding is set to intensify as these figures come under greater scrutiny.