Get used to it.

More alarmist falsehoods exposed.

Peer Reviewed Science Journal Report: ‘Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, And Delay
Guest Blogger
If I had been permitted to fact-check review this paper, I would have barred it for publication because it contains a minimum of six major errors . . .

 

.........according to a climate change denier who's beliefs are in contradiction to the science recognized by the vast majority of actual climate scientists.

 

Any substantive comment?

 

No hurricane trend.
After Hurricane Ian: No Trend in Florida Landfalls, Global Activity Trending Down
September 29th, 2022

Hurricane Ian approaches SW Florida on 28 September 2022.

With Hurricane Ian (now a tropical storm) exiting the east coast of Florida, there is no shortage of news reports tying this storm to climate change. Even if those claims actually include data to support their case, those data are usually for cherry-picked regions and time periods. If global warming is causing a change in tropical cyclone activity, it should show up in global statistics.

The latest peer-reviewed study (March 2022, here) of the accumulated wind energy in tropical cyclones since 1990 (when we started have sufficient global data) showed a decrease in hurricane activity. There was an increase in Atlantic activity, but this was matched by an even larger decrease in Pacific activity, due to a shift from El Nino to La Nina conditions during that time.

So, yes, there is climate change involved in the uptick in Atlantic activity in recent decades. But it’s natural.

Looking at just the numbers of global hurricanes since 1980, we see no obvious trends.


Global hurricane activity counts by year during 1980-2021.
. . . .

 

China’s climate push could spawn new global players, even if Beijing falls short on its pledge

Not an easy road ahead
In practice, some $22 trillion are required to achieve China’s ambitious carbon goals, according to a report from the World Economic Forum and Oliver Wyman.

“To achieve its ambitious carbon peak and carbon neutrality goals, China needs to close an annual funding gap of about RMB1.1 trillion ($170 billion),” the summer report pointed out. “It can only do so if it manages to develop far more sophisticated green financing schemes.”

And if Chinese companies want to play a role in global efforts to reach environment goals, some differences between local standards need to be resolved with international ones, said Kelly Tian, financial services-focused principal at Oliver Wyman.

The last two years show how Chinese leaders still struggle to balance growth and economic interests with achieving climate goals, especially in an economy where coal is the dominant energy source.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/04/chi...ate-goals-could-spawn-new-global-players.html

 

You're making progress. At least that comment doesn't make the case guest bloggers often make. That what is happening isn't really happening. Unfortunately, it fails to consider the unnatural impact of human activity on the climate from spewing hundreds of millions of pounds of greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere. The impact retired lawyers pretend is inconsequential.

 

Earth’s future depends on the Amazon. This month, it’s up for a vote.

The Amazon rainforest is nearing a crossroads. Down one path, deforestation will likely continue to accelerate, pushing the iconic forest closer to a dangerous, self-destructing tipping point. On the other, Brazil’s government will likely renew its efforts to protect the Amazon, conserving an enormous amount of biodiversity and carbon.

A runoff election later this month will help decide which direction the forest takes. Following the presidential election Sunday, in which no candidate earned a majority of votes, the top two competitors — right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro and former leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — will face each other again on October 30. The two politicians are expected to take vastly different approaches to the nation’s most beloved ecosystem should they win.

Under President Bolsonaro, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has surged. Meanwhile, Lula, as he’s widely known, has promised to crack down on illegal mining and help bring forest loss under control, as he did a decade ago when he was president. An analysis by the climate website Carbon Brief suggests that if Bolsonaro loses to Lula, annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be down by nearly 90 percent by the end of the decade.
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2...rest-brazil-jair-bolsonaro-lula-deforestation

 

Your reply is disappointingly myopic.

 

China's "road ahead" is a con. They lead the world in new coal-fired power plants.

 

Why is it "green" to protect the Amazon and also "green" to cut down Canadian forests?

Drax Is Burning Virgin Forest
Guest Blogger
The BBC have finally caught up! There have been complaints for years about this:

Drax runs Britain’s biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets – which is classed as renewable energy.

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.

The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.

Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop. . . .

 

Insanity. And get this: at the same time Drax is burning Canadian forests for fuel to get the subsidy, I know a woman who lived in the middle of that Canadian forest, surrounded by millions of tons of fuel, who burned corn in her wood pellet stove to heat her home because the US government so heavily subsidized use of corn as fuel. True story. Her house smelled like popcorn.

 

Wind and solar are problems, not solutions.

The Penetration Problem. Part I: Wind and Solar – The More You Do, The Harder It Gets
Posted on October 3, 2022 by curryja | 89 comments


by Planning Engineer

There seems to be a belief that increasing the level of wind and solar projects will make subsequent progress with these resources easier. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Continue reading →

 

The lies just keep on coming.

Media Lying About Climate Change and Hurricanes

Michael Shellenberger, Substack

Over the last several weeks, many mainstream news media outlets have claimed that hurricanes are becoming more expensive, more frequent, and more intense because of climate change.

• The Financial Times reported that “hurricane frequency is on the rise.”
  
  
• The New York Times claimed, “strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean.”
  
  
• The Washington Post said, “climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes.”
  
  
• ABC News declared, “Here’s how climate change intensifies hurricanes.”
  
  
• Both the FT and N.Y. Times showed graphs purporting to show rising hurricane frequency using data from the U.S. government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  

All of those claims are false. . . .

 

The hurricane hypesters are in full cry.

Hurricane Hype, Lies, Censorship – and Reality
Guest Blogger
Politicized hurricane and climate science breeds distrust, green energy and economic disasters Paul Driessen Hurricane Ian is in the history books, having unleashed its Category 4 fury on southwestern Florida.…

 

Alarmism debunked.

Epstein to Media: ’25 myths about extreme weather, refuted’
EXTREME WEATHER OCTOBER 10, 2022

 

Yet you went there??

 

Responses to climate change are in direct proportion to how much money someone has invested in fossil fuels.

IMO, if it ain't broke, don't mess with it. The globe has long ago and all by itself, reached an equilibrium that allows billions of species of life to flourish.
That was before one species started to change that natural balance.
Not on purpose but it happened anyway.
I can see no reason except profit and greed and inertia why that species cannot move on, develop new ways of doing things, invest and protect jobs and make the world a nicer more stable place to be.
The question isn't WHY do it.
The question is WHY NOT.

 

Responses to claimed climate change are rooted in one's view of the science.

 

The science is about to get unsettled.
Joining Battle Over The "Science" Of Global Warming
October 11, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  If you read this blog regularly, you likely are a follower of the global warming wars — the ongoing political struggle over government-led efforts in the US and elsewhere to transform the energy economy to get rid of fossil fuels and their associated “carbon emissions.”
  
  
• Lately, those wars have been focused less on what might be called the “science” of global warming — that is, the extent to which human carbon emissions may be causing atmospheric warming and whether that warming might be dangerous — and more on issues of practicality and cost of the proposed of energy transition. After all, as to the “science” issues, we are instructed endlessly by our politicians and media that the science of global warming is “settled.” So what’s the point of debating that any more?
  
  
• In the real world, the “science” behind the claim that human carbon emissions are heading us toward some kind of planetary catastrophe is not only not “settled,” but actually non-existent. Nevertheless debating that subject can quickly lead to arguments couched in technical jargon and mathematics that very few people will try to follow. By contrast, almost anybody can quickly grasp why wind and solar electricity generation can’t work to power a modern economy and will multiply electricity bills by an order of magnitude.
  
  
• But don’t get the idea that everybody has just given up on exposing the fake “science” behind the global warming scare.
  

READ MORE

 

To do that one had to fully understand all the science there has been collected.
Most telling recently is that done in the Polar regions.

 

The polar regions are just fine. Meanwhile, please review the link in #1119.

 

Not according to some .
Want some science?

https://www.npolar.no/en/themes/climate-change-in-the-arctic/#toggle-id-2


https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-6/climate-change-impacts-in-the-polar-regions/.

https://www.arcticwwf.org/threats/climate-change

I could go on. That is just a sample of the first page of the search.

 

Yes. The arctic warms faster than lower latitudes. That's well known and unimportant for anything except propaganda.

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to use their interactive extent graph generator

 

The more important issue is the effects that has and is having on ocean currents and subsequently weather.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/enviro...agazines/polar-regions-climate-change-impacts

https://beta.nsf.gov/news/rapid-arctic-warming-likely-drives-extreme-winter

 

That's completely false. I have zero (0) money invested in fossil fuels, yet I am entirely realistic about climate change. I did work for fossil fuel companies many years ago, so I do know quite a lot about the business -- though I don't have any illusions about it or feel any particular loyalty to it.

You mean the system of fossil fuel energy use that has made the material abundance of modern civilization possible?

The notion that nature is in some kind of delicate balance is absurd. Nature is only "balanced" in the same sense that a marble sitting on a plate is balanced: nudge it, and it will just move to a different place on the plate, where it will be just as balanced as it was before.

Many, many species have changed the "natural balance."

Why move on from what works best when there is no credible reason to do so, and a lot of downsides?

Are you unaware of what is happening in Europe because they decided to reduce production of fossil fuels? The answer to WHY NOT is, in Dr. Strangelove's delicious phrase, "for reasons which must be all too obvious at this moment."