Climate Change

The consensed climate science community has consensed on the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are largely or totally responsible for the recent increase in global average surface temperature. Some even refer to CO2 as the climate “control knob”. The climate alarmist community and numerous progressive politicians perceive the recent increase in global average surface temperature as an “existential crisis”, which they assert would ultimately leave the earth uninhabitable.

The ensemble of climate models project widely varying increases in global average surface temperature, almost all of which have been higher than the observed global average surface temperature. If one accepts the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible for recent warming, while there are numerous factors which contribute to the variations in the model projections, the two most influential factors would be the future CO2 concentration and the sensitivity of the climate to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Future atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a function of both anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions and are unknowable. The consensed climate science community deals with this issue by using a set of four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5) which project atmospheric CO2 concentrations into the future.

Much of the concern regarding an “existential crisis” is driven by studies based on RCP8.5, though many climate scientists now believe this concentration pathway is unreasonable or even unachievable based on resource constraints.

The sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is currently unknown. The IPCC uses a range of 1.5 – 4.5°C per doubling (nominally to 540ppmv). A recent analysis by David Middleton of climate sensitivity estimates based on instrumental data from 40 studies conducted since 2002 concludes that the estimates of climate sensitivity resulting from these studies are declining over time, as shown in his graph below. Note that the values range from a low of 0.5 to a high of 4.8, or 2.65+/-2.15.

The graph above displays the mean values established in the various studies. The graph below shows the range of high and low estimates for most of the mean values displayed.

While most of the studies displayed identify significant uncertainty, the uncertainty in numerous studies is enormous, such as the second 2009 study displayed above. This study has a mean of 3 with uncertainty of -2 and +7.

Clearly, if CO2 is the “climate control knob”, our knowledge regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration hardly qualifies as “settled science”. However, as shown in the graphs above, recent instrumental studies suggest an equilibrium climate sensitivity toward the low end of the IPCC range of estimates. Such a relatively low sensitivity suggests that climate change, as it has been occurring over the past ~70 years, does not represent an “existential crisis” now, nor is it expected to represent such a crisis in another ~70 years when the doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be expected to occur.

Efforts to accurately determine climate sensitivity, climate forcings and feedbacks are climate science. Proclamations of an “existential crisis” are political science, intended to obfuscate rather than advance climate science.

From: edmhdotme

Date: November 11, 2020

The Contradictions of Green Policies to Limit CO2 Emissions

Summary

"The context of the 2019 CO2 emissions from various Nations and Nation groups is shown above.

Currently the burning of Biomass is designated as “CO2 neutral” by Western Nations to give the appearance of reducing CO2 emissions and thus controlling Climate Change.  The designation of Biomass burning as Carbon neutral is essentially self-defeating as:

burning Biomass substantially increases the instantaneous output of CO2 emissions.
is hugely destructive of natural environments and habitats wherever employed at the necessary industrial scale.
The primary government actions to limit CO2 emissions have been to mandate a change in the fuels used to generate electrical power.  The Green thinking requires the substitution of fossils fuels, replacing them with nominally “CO2 emissions free” fuels such as the Wind and Solar power as well as Biomass and Biofuels, which are designated to be sustainable and CO2 free by policy, because their plant material may well regrow eventually.  These fuel substitution policies have already done proven damage to the reliability of Power grids in the South Australia and California and are making power supplies increasingly vulnerable wherever those policies are instituted.  A low wind period in the UK and Europe in November 2020 came very close to causing the failure of the UK Grid.

The inevitable CO2 emissions characteristics of their mandated alternative fuels are conveniently ignored by policy makers:

the substitution of fossil fuels particularly by Biomass for electricity generation has gross and immediate extra CO2 emissions consequences.
the engineering requirements for Renewables, (Wind and Solar), themselves cause very significant CO2 emissions and also imply the utilisation of massive, limited mineral resources.
The policy of promoting Biomass:

is essentially self-defeating in it objective to limit CO2 emissions an save the Climate:
in spite of being declared “Carbon neutral”, by EU and UK policy it is far from Carbon neutral by its effect:  for the same power produced, burning Biomass releases much more CO2 than other fossil fuels, (Coal, Lignite and particularly Natural Gas).
is massively destructive of virgin forest environments, wherever the wood is harvested.  In Europe there is insufficient timber feedstock even to maintain partial power production.
will require up to 100 years to fully restore the destroyed native forest wild life habitat and virgin environments and to thus reabsorb the total CO2 that is released instantaneously by the burning of the Biomass in power plants.
requires significant heat energy to dry and process the harvested wood material converting it into the pelletised, transportable product.
requires significant fossil fuel use for long distance transport.
has already required substantial and costly refit of the generation and local fuel supply technologies at Drax where the UK Biomass is burnt.
these factors in combination result in an additional, instantaneous CO2 release into the atmosphere of about 3.6 times that produced by burning Natural Gas for the same power output.
Germany and the UK are leaders in the development of Renewable Energy in Europe. This post uses 2019 hourly generation datasets showing the scale of various generation technologies over the year.  It combines that power output data with data on the CO2 emissions of different fossil fuels to show the extent of CO2 emissions in 2019.

It questions the efficacy of using Biomass to reduce CO2 emissions at all, as

the scale of CO2 emissions from Biomass cancels out any potential CO2 savings made from using Weather Dependent Renewables.

So all the excess expenditures on Weather Dependent Renewables have done nothing to reduce Global CO2 emissions overall.

The excess costs of Weather Dependent Renewable power generation in the EU(28): 2020" ...

The Contradictions of Green Policies to Limit CO2 Emissions

The UN, the signatories to the UN FCCC, the parties to the Paris Accords, the administrators of the Green Climate Fund, the IPCC, the consensed climate science community, climate activists, developing nations, not-yet-developing nations, non-government organizations and globalists everywhere are anticipating major changes in the US approach to climate change as the result of the US presidential election. The anticipation is based partially on the symbolic value of US participation and partially on the financial obligations which would be imposed on the US as a result of its participation. Some developing nations are also anticipating accelerated development of their economies as the US de-develops while transitioning to renewable energy over the next 30 years.

The UN sees itself at the center of the climate change movement and anticipates that its power in that position would be enhanced by a more docile and cooperative United States. The UN also envisions itself eventually at the center of a global government, coordinating and controlling the actions of its member states. However, that vision of global governance would require the surrender of sovereignty by the member states, a surrender which would be far more likely with a US government supportive of globalism.

The UNFCCC and the parties to the Paris Accords profess to accept the concept that climate change represents an existential threat which must be met with heroic efforts on the parts of the signatories. These heroic efforts are far more likely to be made if major powers such as the US are supportive and actively participate in or even lead the efforts. They anticipate this would now be far more likely. However, it is not likely, at least in the near term, that the US would commit to the Paris Accords as a treaty, binding it to performance under the current terms of the Accords and the anticipated requirement for greater “ambition”.

The US is a primary source of funding for climate research. The IPCC and the consensed climate science community anticipate that funding is likely to continue and perhaps expand under a new US Administration. They also anticipate that research oversite would diminish to previous levels. Knowledgeable climate skeptics are far less of an issue outside government that inside, in positions of authority.

The administrators of the UN Green Climate Fund and its intended beneficiaries anticipate that the US would fully fund its intended 25% share of annual funding for climate change mitigation at current levels and at the expanded levels proposed for the future. They also anticipate that the US would provide corresponding funding levels for climate adaptation and for compensating nations and populations alleged to have been damaged by climate change.

The developing and not-yet developing nations which would be the beneficiaries of funding from the Green Climate Fund anticipate that funding which has been inadequate and slow in coming would flow fuller and faster with committed US support.

Finally, potential future climate change “refugees” anticipate that it would be easier to achieve refugee status and support with committed US support.

In summary, the world anticipates the return of “Uncle Sap”.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Kip Hansen

Date: November 4, 2020

Burning Stuff is so 16th Century

Quoting from Joel T. Headley’s “The Adirondack: or Life in the Woods” written in 1849:

“The first harvesting of the Adirondack forests began shortly after the English replaced the Dutch as the landlords of New Netherlands and changed its name to New York [September 8th, 1664] . Logging operations generated wealth, opened up land for farming, and removed the cover that provided a haven for Indians.”

“After the Revolutionary War, the Crown lands passed to the people of New York State. Needing money to discharge war debts, the new government sold nearly all the original public acreage – some 7 million acres – for pennies an acre. Lumbermen were welcomed to the interior, with few restraints: “You have no conception of the quantity of lumber that is taken every winter… A great deal of land is bought of government solely for the pine on it, and after that is cut down, it is allowed to revert back to the State to pay its taxes.”...

Burning Stuff is so 16th Century

Science  (Merriam-Webster)

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study //the science of climate

“Science is Real” is one of a group of memes which appear on a popular residential yard banner/sign headlined “In this house, we believe:”. At the most fundamental level, the statement is a truism. Science exists. Knowledge exists, but ignorance and misunderstanding persist. Therefore, scientific exploration is incomplete and ongoing.

However, beyond this fundamental understanding, this apparent truism is actually false. Not everything revealed by science is knowledge, nor is everything identified as science. For example, there is an irreproducibility crisis in science. A scientific result which cannot be reproduced by other researchers using the same data and observations is not knowledge, but rather a dangerous form of ignorance. Similarly, science which selectively analyzes some data while ignoring other data is referred to as “cherry picking” and produces intentionally deceptive results, leading to an even more dangerous form of ignorance (intentional misunderstanding).

Falsifiability is the characteristic of a scientific statement or result which establishes that the scientific statement or result can be tested to determine its validity.

“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”, Karl Popper

It is not necessary that falsifiability be able to occur immediately, as the data or observations necessary to test may not be currently available.

There is an irreproducibility crisis in climate science. This crisis is aggravated by the frequent unwillingness of climate researchers to share data, statistical analysis approaches and computer code with other researchers. It is also complicated by “adjustment” of data, rendering the data merely estimates. Perhaps the most glaring example of falsifiability in climate science centers around sea level and sea level rise measurement. The two methods of measurement produce results which vary by a factor of two. One or both of these measurements must be false, but the ability to falsify the incorrect result does not yet exist.

Climate models are a classic case of results which are ultimately falsifiable but are not subject to immediate falsification. The CMIP5 ensemble of models produce widely varying results and thus cannot all be true. However, the models are progressively falsifying themselves as the differences between modeled future temperatures and actual measured temperatures continue to grow larger. While the climate models demonstrate some degree of knowledge of the climate, their differences highlight the remaining ignorance regarding the climate. The models also actually ignore certain aspects of the climate which are not sufficiently understood to be modeled with any accuracy.

Climate science also still struggles with the inability to define climate sensitivity and climate feedback, still expressing them as ranges of potential values. This issue, combined with the wide variation in Representative Climate Pathways, is the primary reason for the wide variation in modeled outputs.

The danger with statements such as “science is real” is the assumption what is identified as science is true, or that identifying something as science makes it true.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: October 26, 2020

Science and Politics

"“I’m reaching out to scientists this week about the election. How do you feel about it? Which of the candidates has the best plan, for you, in science and technology?”

The above question was emailed to me today by a reporter.

My response:

I am not happy with either the Democratic or Republican plans for science in the U.S.  Both sides seem to want to use and misuse science as a club to further their political agendas.  The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.

Here is the long response,some text from something that I’m working on:

Dutch regulatory lawyer Lucas Bergkamp summarizes the challenge in this way. Science has become an instrument used by politicians and agencies to arm themselves with powerful arguments in complex value-laden debates. Scientists have let the politicians hijack the scientific enterprise. Both policy makers and scientists exploit scientific uncertainty to avoid debate on the relation between science and politics, facts and values. Armed with science, politicians are able to avoid accountability for decisions. Serious debate is avoided because politicized science has purged doubt and skepticism. Activist climate science makes use of a series of strategies and tactics to influence public opinion and politics. Bergkamp concludes that climate science itself has come under siege." ...

Science and Politics

Propaganda:  (Merriam-Webster)

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

Halting and/or reversing climate change is a cause. Climate change is frequently described as a “crisis” or an “existential threat” by environmental activists, politicians and bureaucrats, though these descriptions are used infrequently by climate scientists. Environmental activists continue to be frustrated that citizens in numerous countries do not perceive climate change as a crisis, or even an important issue, and are not clamoring for heroic actions to halt or reverse it. Their position is that there is a compelling scientific consensus that recent climate change is totally or predominantly anthropogenic and that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” must be rapidly reduced and ultimately eliminated to avoid a climate catastrophe.

            “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate”, Cool Hand Luke

The advocates of the cause in the global media have concluded that the lack of public concern and outcry is the result of a failure to communicate regarding the issue clearly, consistently and continuously. More than 400 members of the global communications media have become partners in an effort called Covering Climate Now.

“Covering Climate Now is a global journalism initiative committed to more and better coverage of the defining story of our time. Organized by journalists, for journalists, CCNow was co-founded in April 2019 by the Columbia Journalism Review, and The Nation, in association with The Guardian. Our partners include more than 400 news outlets with a combined audience approaching 2 billion people, and our innovative collaborations are driving stronger climate coverage across the media. CCNow works directly with newsrooms, sharing first-class content, providing story ideas and background resources, amplifying our partners’ coverage, convening climate journalism conferences, and publishing a weekly newsletter highlighting best practices.”

CCNow lists several characteristics of good climate coverage, including:

“Good climate coverage connects the dots between human-caused climate change and stronger heat waves, droughts, storms, and sea level rise and the damage caused to people and the economy.”

“Good climate coverage humanizes the story by focusing on how real people and communities are experiencing the climate crisis, and it recognizes that the poor and people of color suffer disproportionate impacts.”

“Good climate coverage is accurate and fair but need not be neutral about humanity’s survival -- it holds political, business, and other leaders accountable for delivering the rapid emissions reductions and other measures scientists say are imperative.”

Unfortunately for CCNow, climate science does not “connect the dots” listed; and, real people and communities are not experiencing a “climate crisis”. Clearly, “good climate coverage” accepts the “climate consensus” as revealed truth and therefore holds the “responsible parties” feet to the fire regarding achieving emissions reductions consistent with the consensus positions. CCNow apparently perceives no need to question the consensus even as new research and analysis calls the consensus into question.

CCNow is focused on spreading ideas and allegations for the purpose of helping the cause of climate change activism.

From: CFACT

By: Dr. Jay Lehr, Terigi Ciccone

Date: October 27, 2020 & November 2, 2020

Manufacturing Climate Deceptions - Part One
Manufacturing Climate Deceptions - Part Two

"It is astonishing how scientifically accurate data is used to create massive deceptions. Namely involving man’s ability to overpower Mother Nature and control the thermostat of planet Earth. While we are clearly not conspiracy theorists, man-caused global warming or climate change (take your pick) has been a mechanism used across the world to grow government, converge to a one-world government and defeat capitalism in favor of world socialism. The tool of choice is the use of well chosen facts, casting aside facts not considered useful in order to deceive. In science this is called cherry-picking. Lacking ethics, one chooses only the facts that support their beliefs while ignoring those that don’t." ...

Manufacturing Climate Deceptions - Part One
Manufacturing Climate Deceptions - Part Two

Stasis : a state of static balance or equilibrium : stagnation – Merriam-Webster

All aspects of life on earth are subject to continual change. The changes are the result of numerous factors including: changes in the sun; changes in earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun; changes resulting from anthropogenic actions, including gaseous and particulate emissions and land use changes; volcanic activity; and, other natural phenomena. Paleoclimatic history suggests that periods of stasis, if they have existed, have been brief and fleeting.

However, the consensed climate science community appear to believe that stasis is desirable and therefore, that global average temperature, global sea level, global ice cover, etc. should adhere to patterns determined to exist at some relatively recent point or period in human history. Some appear to believe that this point in history should be immediately prior to the start of the industrial revolution. Others appear to believe that this point should coincide with the beginning of the instrumental record, while others believe the period circa 1950 to be the reference point

A relatively common position is: “We liked it the way it was in … and we want it to stay that way.” However, any particular year is but one year of a 30-year climate period and any particular climate period is merely one period in an epoch of approximately 11,000-year duration.

Residents of islands in the Pacific are concerned about rising sea levels, but ignore the reality that their islands are volcanic and have not always existed, no less at their current extent and elevation. Residents of coastal communities in numerous countries are also concerned about rising sea levels, but typically choose to ignore the effects of coastal subsidence.

Residents of cities and their environs are concerned about rising temperatures, but ignore the impact of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect on those temperatures. Residents of these cities frequently move to the suburbs, not realizing that they bring UHI with them as they expand the urban heat island.

Environmentalists are concerned about the retreat of glaciers, ignoring the fact that these glaciers are the residue of the most recent ice age. They are concerned about the effects of glacial retreat on global sea level, but ignore that global sea levels were much lower at the peak of the ice age in which the glaciers were formed.

Environmentalists are also concerned about the extent of sea ice, even though it has no impact on global sea levels. Sea ice coverage was far more extensive and persistent during the ice ages, even though global sea levels were far lower.

Climate science has not determined what set of static conditions would be ideal for the globe and all of its residents, but that has not deterred the desire for stasis at some set of conditions. There remains no common agreement on the specific conditions to be achieved.

There is also no recognition that stasis might be neither possible nor desirable, nor that the effort would likely require significant ongoing effort and cost.

From: CFACT

By: Dr. Jay Lehr, Carl Langner

Date: October 21, 2020

Climate ‘Catastrophe’ Myths, Realities and Why You Should Care

"Those of us who reject the idea that mankind controls Earth’s thermostat do so for many reasons. As yet there exists no physical evidence to link the steady growth of carbon dioxide beginning in the 1950s with the erratic atmospheric temperature record which goes back to the 1850s. Nor has there been any acceleration in the historical record of storm frequencies or intensities, droughts, floods, wild–fires, species extinctions, and all the rest of unsupported propaganda announced daily in the media. The oceans are rising, but at a constant leisurely 7 inches per century.

It is more logical to assume Earth’s temperatures are a result of natural causes, as has been the case for all time even before man or animals walked the Earth. We know we are rebounding from a Little Ice Age that ended around the time Washington was fighting near Valley Forge. This warming has caused the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans, which is responsible for the greening of the Earth in recent decades. For the record the total warming of the atmosphere since 1880 has been about one degree centigrade, in contrast with predictions of a 3-4 degree rise by the United Nations supported computer models." ...

Climate ‘Catastrophe’ Myths, Realities and Why You Should Care

The Biden/Harris position on climate change has been shifting (shifty?) as their political campaign has “progressed” toward election day. The Green New Deal is one of the key issues on which the campaign has shifted with regard to climate. The Biden campaign website states: “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” Senator Harris is a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal in the Senate and has previously supported it on the campaign trail. However, Biden has now stated that he does not support the Green New Deal. Climate change is only one aspect of the Green New Deal, which deals with air travel, high speed rail, building energy efficiency and electric vehicles. Virtually all other aspects of the Green New Deal are reflected in both the 2020 Democrat Party Platform and the Biden Platform.

One of the key factors in the reduction of US CO2 emissions has been the shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation. This shift was largely made possible by hydraulic fracturing, which has made natural gas far more available. The Biden/Harris position on fracking has changed from “ban fracking” to “ban fracking on public lands” to “not ban fracking”. Biden has also stated that there would be no more fossil fueled power plants built under his administration. Biden/Harris are committed to eliminating CO2 emissions from power generation by 2035, five years later than the Green New Deal schedule.

Biden has committed to incentivizing installation of 500,000,000 solar modules and 16,000 wind turbines. While these are large numbers, they are relatively trivial in comparison with the numbers needed to replace all existing fossil fueled power generation facilities with intermittent renewable generators and storage systems. Solar and wind currently supply approximately 12% of US electricity. However, this capacity is currently backed up by fossil fueled generation; and, in general, is dispatched first under environmental dispatch orders. Combined solar and wind generation capacity would therefore have to be increased by roughly an order of magnitude to supply approximately all of US electricity consumption, even with continuing fossil fuel backup. Eliminating the fossil fuel backup would require installation of significant additional generating capacity plus long term, high draw storage capacity sufficient to supply power for several days. This storage technology is not currently commercially available.

While a Biden/Harris administration would incentivize solar and wind installations, the majority of the investment required to install these systems would be required to be provided by private sources, such as investor owned electric utilities, other businesses  and homeowners. In the process, the utilities would be forced to abandon existing, functioning fossil fueled generating capacity, at a loss of approximately $4 trillion.

The switch from fossil fueled generation to renewable generation would also strand huge quantities of coal, oil and natural gas, causing a dead weight loss of $50+ trillion, which would be borne by both private owners and the government. These costs are not considered when the Biden asserts that: “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward.”

From: Real Climate Science

By: Tony Heller

Date: October 1, 2020

Alterations To The US Temperature Record

"For the past decade or so, I have been documenting how US temperature graphs released by NOAA and NASA are not representative of their own raw data. This work has been high profile on a number of occasions, but has been repeatedly censored by the press as “conspiracy theory.” This happened as recently as yesterday on DailyKos.

Reality is that the data alterations are no secret, and that NOAA and NASA acknowledge that they do it. In this post I will document the magnitude of the adjustments and how they can be visualized.

This graph of US temperatures was posted by NASA in 1999, showing a strong cooling trend from the 1930’s through the end of the century. The years 1934 and 1998 are circled." ...

Alterations To The US Temperature Record

The Biden Climate Plan is very similar in scope and intent to the Democrat Climate Platform with one notable exception. The Democrat climate platform does not mention the Green New Deal, though the Biden Plan identifies it as a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face”. Biden has selected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and John F. Kerry to lead his Climate Task Force, both of whom are strong advocates for the Green New Deal.

The Biden Climate Plan is more specific in certain aspects than the Democrat Climate Platform. These specifics are being enunciated and modified on the campaign trail, so it is not certain how the final plan will play out. For example, Biden has enunciated several inconsistent positions on the future of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas development, ranging from a total ban on fracking to a ban on fracking on “public lands”, including offshore areas.

The Biden campaign has adopted the slogan: “Build Back Better”. However, this slogan does not really apply to the US energy sector, since nothing in the US energy sector has been destroyed or severely damaged, so there is no need to build back since the existing infrastructure is functional and is meeting the nation’s energy needs. Arguably, the only real opportunity to “Build Back Better” exists in the Democrat-controlled cities which have been ravaged by rioting, looting and arson. However, based on the local and state government responses to the rioting and destruction, it is doubtful whether most of the businesses destroyed will choose to build back at all.

The Biden plan commits to rejoining to the Paris Accords and to further funding the UN Green Climate Fund. It proposes to achieve greater “ambition” in the US participation and to actively seek greater ambition from the other signatories to the Paris Accords. The Biden plan sets no requirements for greater ambition globally relative to the increased ambition of the US participation. It ignores the total lack of “ambition” under the accords by China and India, among others.

The Biden plan, as explained on the campaign trail, proposes some $1 trillion plus federal funding intended to incentivize private funding and investment in net-zero facilities and equipment. However, the federal funding level and the envisioned private funding fall far short of the estimated costs of the Green New Deal. There is also no recognition of the $60+ trillion deadweight loss associated with abandoning fossil fuel resources in the ground and replacing functioning electric generation infrastructure before the end of its useful life.

The differences between the Biden plan commitment to federal funding and the actual funding requirement necessary to accomplish the goals established in the plan would be achieved by a combination of legislation and regulation compelling private sector expenditure and investment.

The Biden Climate Plan and the Democrat Climate Platform both represent government on steroids, insinuating government at all levels into corporate and personal decision making. While Biden asserts he will not raise taxes on those earning less than $400,000 per year, his plan will certainly impose other, non-tax costs and investments on virtually all taxpayers.

From: CFACT

By: Terigi Ciccone, Dr. Jah Lehr

Date: October 6, 2020

A History of Global Temperature For Those Who Never Studied Geology

"We have long thought that if more people had been required to take a course in Geology in High School, the human-caused global warming exaggerations would be more difficult to pull off on an unsuspecting public. Our simplified version of what is going on in and around the Earth should help fill the void.

 The way the Earth formed, its rotational path around our sun, and its own axis are typically taught in Geology but ignored by the well-financed climate modelers. They are arrogant enough to throw a few variables into an equation claiming its solution predicts our Earth’s temperature decades hence. Sadly you and they disregard the known fact that your TV weatherman is correct on his 7-day forecast only 56% of the time. The modelers will tell you that climate and weather are two different things ..."

A History of Global Temperature For Those Who Never Studied Geology

The 2020 Democrat Party Platform covers a broad range of topics. The section of the platform dealing with climate is entitled “Combating the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice”.

The section begins with the statement: “Climate change is a global emergency.”, though no source is provided for the emergency declaration. The statement is then “supported” by factual assertions regarding recent weather events and resulting economic losses, though there is no evidence that these weather events were the result of, or were aggravated by, climate change. These factual assertions are then followed by an assertion that: “Thousands of Americans have died.”, suggesting a link to climate change though there is no record of Americans dying from climate change. Finally, the section asserts, counterfactually, that: “Pacific Islanders…are losing their traditional way of life as sea level rise submerges their homelands.”.

The first climate platform plank deals with rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, seeking increased “ambition” under the Paris Accords from other nations.

The second platform plank commits to investment in clean energy generation and energy efficiency.

The third platform plank to mobilizing youths into a corps and cohort challenged to conserve public lands and deliver clean energy.

The fourth platform plank commits to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035. It further commits to install 500 million solar panels and 16,000 wind turbines; and, to a “technology neutral approach” to new power generation, including nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

The fifth platform plank commits to making “energy saving upgrades to up to 2 million low-income households and affordable and public housing units within 5 years”.

The sixth platform plank commits to “a national goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for all new buildings by 2030 and to incentivizing tens of billions of dollars of private-sector investment to retrofit 4 million buildings”. 

The seventh platform plank commits to “transitioning the entire fleet of 50,000 school buses to American-made zero emission alternatives within 5 years” and transitioning 3 million government vehicles to zero-emissions vehicles. It also commits to “partnering with state and local governments to install at least 500,000 public charging stations from coast to coast.”

The eighth platform plank commits to “apply a carbon adjustment fee at the border” to products from countries not in compliance with the Paris Accords.

The ninth platform plank commits to empowering local communities to become more resilient to the projected impacts of the “climate crisis”.

The tenth platform plank commits to increasing support for wetlands restoration as protection against sea level rise and storm surge.

The eleventh platform plank commits to “require public companies to disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains” and to hold polluters and corporate executives accountable for intentionally hiding or distorting material information and for affecting the health and safety of workers and communities.”

A recurrent theme within the climate platform is the creation of “millions of family-supporting and union jobs”.

The concept of the “carbon adjustment fee”, as stated in the platform, ignores the fact that neither China nor India has made any commitments under the Paris Accords and thus arguably cannot be “not in compliance” with the Paris Accords.

The platform  plank regarding public companies seems certain to trigger a flood of lawsuits intended to “milk” the companies to fund the other platform planks.