Climate Change

skepticism

1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
2b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
scientific skepticism: an impartial attitude of the mind previous to investigation

Merriam-Webster

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) has renewed his threats to hold “star chamber” hearings in the US Senate to expose and attempt to humiliate those he describes as “climate deniers”. He appears willing and anxious to harass anyone who does not accept the “climate crisis” and support heroic actions to diffuse the “crisis”. The senator is a “climate hawk” who has delivered more than 250 speeches on the subject on the Senate floor. His choice of the descriptor “denier” in reference to such individuals characterizes his attitude toward them.

The senator is highly unlikely to find a true “climate denier”, or a true “climate change denier” or even a true “anthropogenic climate change denier” to harass in his “star chamber”, though he will likely find numerous serious climate scientists who possess and profess a healthy skepticism of a climate “crisis” or “existential threat”. Numerous climate scientists understand that climate science is hardly “settled” and can speak with authority regarding the numerous areas of uncertainty regarding our understanding of earth’s climate.

Skeptical scientists would point to the ensembles of climate models which produce “spaghetti diagrams” projecting future temperatures which differ by a factor of five among themselves; and by a factor of 2-3 from numerous actual observed temperature records over 30 or more years. Skeptical scientists would also note that the model mean in these “spaghetti diagrams” is merely the mean of an ensemble of model outputs, at least all but one of which, if not all, are incorrect. They would point out that not one of those models has ever been verified.

Skeptical scientists would point out the use of a range of estimated values for climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (3+/-1.5) which has been in use for more than 30 years without resolution. They would also note that the majority of recent studies of climate sensitivity have reported values close to or even below the range of values used by the IPCC.

Skeptical scientists would also note that measurements of the rate of sea level rise taken by satellites show rates of rise twice the rate measured by tide gauges located at geologically stable sites; and, the current inability of the climate science community to explain and rationalize this difference.

Skeptical scientists would note the differences between global temperature measurements made by satellites and those made by near-surface measurement systems; and, they would note the differences among the various near-surface temperature anomaly products. They would also point out the ongoing need to “adjust” the near-surface data to resolve suspected data inaccuracies; and, the need to “infill” temperature estimates where no data exist.

Skeptical scientists would also point out the differences between assertions of increases in hurricane, tornado, drought and flood frequency and severity and actual observations and data. They would also note the inaccuracies of “attribution” studies which purport to show a climate change contribution to the frequency and intensity of severe weather events.

In summary, skeptical scientists would express doubt about particular aspects of the climate science consensus, highlight the uncertainty of current climate knowledge and would suspend judgment regarding the existence of a climate “crisis”. Skeptical scientists would recognize that, based on current knowledge, assertions of a “climate crisis” or an “existential threat” are political constructs unsupported by the science.

Those such as Senator Whitehouse who attack scientific skepticism are “anti-science”.

Guest Post

From: International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

By: Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

The power disaster unfolding in California will soon occur across the country, if Joe Biden gets his way. The Golden State has been sweeping away the forms of energy that have provided reliable electricity for decades, under the same agenda the former Vice-President is planning for America as a whole.

Power outages are now commonplace in California. Last summer, the state suffered its first rolling blackouts in nearly 20 years. Imagine if this happened in Chicago in the middle of winter.

California’s trouble is explained by officials who now openly admit to an over-reliance on wind and solar power. The governor said there was not enough wind to keep the turbines going, while cloud cover and nightfall restricted solar power. The Los Angeles Times recognized the root of the problem:

“… gas-burning power plants that can fire up when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing have been shutting down in recent years, and California has largely failed to replace them …”

Consequently, the state has fallen thousands of megawatts behind its needs. Governor Gavin Newsom admitted, “we failed to predict and plan for these shortages” and took (nominal) responsibility for the rolling blackouts. Now he wants everyone to conserve power, while the state looks for new sources of energy, most likely fossil fuel-generated power from neighboring states.

All this is happening while California continues its intention to transition to 60% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% “climate-friendly energy” by 2045, as required by state law.

Indeed, in their October 6 open letter to Newsom, the heads of the California’s Energy Commission, Independent System Operator and Public Utilities Commission wrote: “We are unwavering in our commitment to meeting California’s clean energy and climate goals.”

Team Biden plans to go even further, committing to making the entire nation 100% renewable within 15 years. The United States would fall tens of millions of megawatts behind on its electricity needs.

Like the California government, the incoming Biden-Harris administration is acting entirely under the unfounded belief that climate change is a manmade calamity that can be stopped by eliminating fossil fuel use. They are clearly unaware of the Climate Change Reconsidered series of reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

These documents summarize thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either refute or cast serious doubt on the climate scare. They conclude that we are not causing a climate crisis.

Yet, in their October 6 report, Preliminary Root Cause Analysis – Mid-August 2020 Heat Storm, the same heads of California’s Energy Commission, Independent System Operator and Public Utilities Commission highlighted the “climate change-induced extreme heat storm across the western United States” as the first cause of the blackout.

In their view, apparently, shutting down coal, gas and nuclear power plants in California and in states from which California imports electricity played only minor roles.

California’s determination to shift to so-called “green” energy – which is actually anything but clean, green, renewable and sustainable – is being echoed by politicians across the nation. The result, especially in states that don’t enjoy California’s mostly benign weather, is going to be that those in the poorest neighborhoods and those on fixed incomes may be forced to choose between heating and eating.

It also means people trying to run their homes, offices, factories, hospitals and schools on intermittent, weather-dependent, much more expensive wind and solar power will have to get used to never knowing when or for how long their electricity will be on or off. Now in California; soon in the entire USA.

Coherent energy systems are designed with the understanding that portions of the system will be offline from time to time. Power companies compensate for this with reserve power at the ready. However, California has closed its margin for error in response to anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel sentiments and climate change concerns. Team Biden intends to do this for the entire United States.

Power outages cannot always be avoided and are more common than one may think. For example, between 2008 and 2017, Illinois had 871 outages, the tenth most by state. Texas had nearly twice as many, giving it the dubious distinction of ranking number two in the list.

But these pale in comparison to California which has the least reliable electrical power system in the nation. It leads in power outages every year. Between 2008 and 2017, it had 4,297 power outages!

The origin of the problem is partly California’s Senate Bill 1368, which in 2006 established the state’s emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants. Following that year, eleven coal-fired power plants were closed and three were converted to biomass. Only one coal-fired plant remains.

The state also reduced its normal reliance on energy from out of state coal plants.

Yielding to anti-nuclear activists, the state also closed all but one nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon. That plant generates about 18,000 Gigawatt-hours of reliable electricity every year, fully 8.6% of California’s total generation.

But Diablo Canyon will soon be closed too. Not surprisingly, during its construction and operation, anti-nuclear protests were common; nearly two thousand people were arrested for civil disobedience during a two-week period in 1981. In response, in 2016, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a Pacific Gas & Electric Joint Proposal to phase out the state’s remaining nuclear power. That means the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon’s two units will not be renewed when they expire in 2024 and 2025.

Ironically, the Commission did not approve Pacific Gas & Electric’s proposal for resources to replace the station’s output. It does not appear to matter that nuclear reactors produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. They are hated by the enviro-radicals who drive California’s energy policy and are steadily putting the state even further behind the 8-ball.

It gets worse. California now requires that all new homes be nearly entirely electric. It wants citizens to switch their natural gas stoves to electric, as part of their global warming initiatives. More than 30 cities have already enacted bans on gas appliances, including San Francisco. The state also hopes to eliminate all gasoline and diesel cars in favor of plug-in electric automobiles.

This means demand for reliable, affordable electricity will rise by leaps and bounds, just as supplies are steadily reduced, and partially replaced by expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent power.

Just as Mr. Biden promises for the nation as a whole, California is sacrificing reliable electrical power as part of its impossible crusade to “stop climate change.” Of course, this will have no impact on our planet’s climate, because (a) climate change is mostly natural and not driven by carbon dioxide, and (b) all those wind turbines, solar panels and backup batteries will be manufactured overseas, mostly in China, using fossil fuels and simply moving the source of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it will certainly spur sales of candles, flashlights, propane heaters, and natural gas, gasoline and diesel generators.

So, welcome to America’s future under a Biden-Harris-Kerry- AOC Administration. America, the blackouts are coming.

_______________________________________________________

*Ohio-based Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Advisor to the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Paul Driessen

Date: November 22, 2020

Preventing Future Forest Infernos

"The 2020 fire season is nearing its end. But monstrous wildfires continue to rage across America’s western states, devastating towns and habitats, and killing hundreds of people and millions of animals. Politicians and environmentalists continue to rage that climate change is the primary factor, allowing few responsible, commonsense forest management actions that could actually reduce the risks.

Manmade climate change is a convenient scapegoat, but it cannot be separated from natural climate fluctuations and effects. Moreover, even assuming fossil fuel emissions play a dominant role in the human portion of this equation – and even if the Pacific Northwest or entire USA eliminated coal, oil and natural gas – China, India and scores of other nations will not do so anytime soon.

And they will certainly be using fossil fuels to manufacture the wind turbines, solar panels and batteries envisioned by Green New Dealers – and to mine and process the raw materials those technologies require.

The key ingredient in these monstrous, devastating forest fires is fuel. A century of Smokey the Bear fire suppression, coupled with half-century bans on timber harvesting, tree thinning and even insect control has filled western forests with dense concentrations of brush, fallen branches, needles and leaves, skinny young trees and huge older trees – many of them dead or dying – ready to be turned into conflagrations under hot, dry summer and autumn conditions that prevail most years in California and other western states." ...

Preventing Future Forest Infernos

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 oversight would diminish to previous levels. Knowledgeable climate skeptics are far less of an issue outside the government than 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