From the world of science – as opposed to grant-troughing junk science – two more studies confirming that the man-made global warming scare is a myth.
One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the “Pause” in global warming is real – and that “climate change” is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
Note also that it says the computer-modelled predictions of climate doom relied on by all global warming alarmists to support their thesis are wrong.
President Trump is to take his first step towards scrapping President Obama’s “stupid” and “job killing” Clean Power Plan, an aghast New York Times reports.
The Trump administration will repeal the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s effort to fight climate change, and will ask the public to recommend ways it could be replaced, according to an internal Environmental Protection Agency document.
The draft proposal represents the administration’s first substantive step toward rolling back the plan, which was designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, after months of presidential tweets and condemnations of Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce climate-warming pollution.
But it also lays the groundwork for new, presumably weaker, regulations by asking for the public and industry to offer ideas for a replacement.
In 2016, when it launched the plan at Obama’s behest, the EPA declared that the Clean Power Plan was a vital, cost-effective way of combating climate change which would ultimately benefit the U.S. consumer.
That shrieking you can hear is the sound of the Green Blob, mourning the loss of another of its tentacles.
If you believe the liberal media, the ACSNCA – as probably no one ever called it – was a vital organization established by President Obama in 2015 as part of his career-defining mission to combat climate change:
The 15-member Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment included academics, corporate representatives, and local officials who were tasked with helping public and private-sector officials understand the findings of the National Climate Assessment so that the information could factor into their long-term planning.
Put more simply, the panel, which was founded in 2015, existed to make sure government data was able to help both the public and private sectors prepare for the inevitability and disruptiveness of climate change.
Yeah, whatever. In reality, it was just more expensive, entrenched bureaucracy; more jobs for the usual suspects from the green gravy train; more intrusive environmental policy inserted by these faceless apparatchiks at every level of government.
To get an idea of the people we’re dealing with – and of why the U.S. taxpayer has reason to thank Trump for nipping this operation in the bud – consider the committee’s chair Richard H. Moss.
The way New Yorkmagazinedescribes him below, you’d think he was some kind of scientific expert:
Germany has ‘massively weakened’ its climate action plan for next week’s G20 summit in Hamburg in order to appease Donald Trump.
According to a shocked report in the green, EU-linked propaganda outlet Climate Change Newsthis represents a disastrous cultural surrender which
“….shows the degree to which the German presidency has bent to the will of the Trump White House.”
In public, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has been talking tough on climate change, promising to put it at the forefront of the G20 summit and making none-too-subtle swipes at any world leaders out there who happen to dissent from her position.
Without naming him, Merkel appeared to lament U.S. President Donald Trump’s uncertainty about human-induced climate change, saying, “We can’t, and we won’t, wait until the last person on Earth is convinced of the scientific evidence for climate change.”
Behind the scenes, however, it would appear that Merkel’s negotiating teams have been bending over backwards to tone down the climate action plan and avoid an embarrassing rejection by Donald Trump.
This can be seen by comparing the two draft climate action plans for the summit, one from March and the revised one from May. According to Climate Change News, American negotiators have watered it down considerably.
“The US massively weakened the language in the energy part of the action plan,” one source with knowledge of the negotiations said. “It pushed for references to so-called ‘clean’ fossil fuels and made it less explicit that the energy transition has to be built on energy efficiency and renewables.”
“It also provided cover to some other G20 members – such as the Saudis and Russia – to weaken some climate sections of the document, including the pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”
Here are some of the elements which have been removed from the original draft:
A 2025 deadline for the end of fossil fuel subsidies
References to the risk of “stranded assets”
A call for “the alignment of public expenditure and infrastructure planning with the goals of the Paris Agreement”
A push for carbon pricing
A commitment to publish mid-century decarbonisation blueprints by next year
A pledge to develop a “profound” climate plan for multilateral development banks
Seven references to the UN’s 2018 review of nationally-determined contributions
11 references to the 2050 mid-century pathway for net zero emission
16 mentions of infrastructure decarbonisation
In other words, this represents the most massive victory for climate rationalism and energy realism – and a crushing and humiliating defeat for the global green blob.
It’s also a spectacular vindication of the Trump presidency.
As I argued in December last year before the inauguration, Trump had the potential to become a climate super hero: the one man on earth with the power to turn back the tide of green lunacy which has swamped the planet for last four decades.
The Green Blob’s tentacles extend everywhere: into our kids’ classrooms (where they are brainwashed with environmental propaganda); into our universities (where whole departments have now been hijacked by green junk science—because hey, that’s where the money is); into the mainstream media (most of which repeats, unquestioningly, the spurious claims of impending eco-disaster put out by environmental activists and publicity-hungry university departments); into business, which now wastes billions on environmental compliance and billions more on energy costs artificially inflated by the almost entirely unnecessary government-mandated drive for renewables); into government (where few politicians, even now, have the nous to appreciate that they have been sold a pup and who still continue to inflict more “sustainable” initiatives on their hapless electorates); into the economy, where jobs have been killed and growth blighted by measures designed by eco-fascists on a self-admitted mission to destroy Western industrial civilisation; into the environment, which has been ravaged by the very things we’re told are supposed to help save it—from bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes to those forests in the US which have been chopped down to create wood-chip biofuels to be burned at Britain’s Drax power station to the rare-earth minerals mined in appalling conditions in China to make wind turbines; into the cost of living (inflated by green taxes, regulations and tariffs), where in some cases people have been driven into fuel poverty and an early death because governments like Obama’s have caused electricity prices “necessarily” to “skyrocket” by mandating renewables over cheaper, more reliable fossil fuel.
This insanity has been allowed to prevail, largely unchecked, for over four decades. While enriching a corrupt few, it has caused misery to billions. It costs the global economy at least $1.5 trillion every year in “decarbonisation” expenditure which serves no purpose other than to give virtue-signallers a warm glow of self-righteous satisfaction.
And no major politician, anywhere in the world, has had either the courage or the conviction to deal with it.
Yes there have been a few wobbles on the way, including some resistance even from within his own administration. But though the battle is far from won, what’s clear is that Trump really means what he says about making America’s energy economy great again. (And undoing the disastrous legacy of the Obama administration).
I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.
Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.
Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.
And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.
Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.
Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.
Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record.
Pruitt had no convincing comeback.
Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?”
Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond.
There should have been nothing complicated or unexpected about these questions. They are the kind of thing any half-way decent interviewer might have asked, be he a hostile one or a semi-friendly Fox News one playing devil’s advocate.
And if Scott Pruitt had had even the most cursory briefing and media training in his new role, he should have been prepared for them.
Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump’s environmental policy: that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again.
How could Scott Pruitt not do this?
Any one of us on the skeptical side of the argument could have pointed him to dozens of leading scientists — and hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles — that could easily have enabled Pruitt to say what needed to be said.
He could have noted the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the heavily politicized IPCC; the dishonest manipulation by organizations like NOAA — indeed especially NOAA — of the raw temperature data; the utter meaninglessness of the “hottest year evah” claims so often made in the liberal media.
And he could easily have batted off the “What if you’re wrong?” question by making perhaps the most important point of all that needs to be made about the “war” on “carbon”: that what it all comes down to is cost benefit analysis. To whit: the trillions of dollars being spent every year on the possibility that there might be a problem, a) could be spent much more usefully elsewhere and b) are doing more harm than good.
Pruitt was incapable of doing this though because, trained lawyer though he is, he is simply not on top of his brief.
Today is Earth Hour and as usual I shall be lighting a candle – several, actually; plus turning my Rayburn up to eleven; plus turning on all the house lights; plus lighting the patio heaters; plus starting my Landrover and leaving its diesel engine to idle outside in the drive; plus switching on the immersion heater; plus running several hot baths – in tribute to the world’s climate heroes.
I refer, of course, to the tiny, elite fellowship of scientists, economists, politicians, journalists and bloggers who have bravely taken the right side of the climate argument and spoken up for truth, integrity and the scientific method in defiance of the vast and terrifying propaganda behemoth they call the Green Blob.
Many of them were present at the annual Heartland Institute Climate Conference in Washington DC this week. I was sorry not to have been able to make it there myself this year because these people have become my friends. Shared adversity does that for you: everyone from our elder statesman Fred Singer downwards has been brutally vilified, traduced, mocked and monstered by the Servants of the Green Blob over the years – because when the evidence isn’t on your side (as it hasn’t been for a long time where the alarmist cause is concerned), blustering appeals to authority, affectedly high-minded ridicule and below-the-belt cheap shots are pretty much the only weapons left to you.
My sceptical filmmaking friends Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney once made a movie exposing the nonsense of the greenies. It was called Not Evil Just Wrong. In my view this was a misnomer. It should have been called: Wrong – And Totally Bloody Evil Too.
There many reasons why the alarmist establishment – the Climate Industrial Complex as Myron Ebell calls it – is so totally loathsomely evil. If I had to list them all this would be longer than War & Peace.
One is that they’re such hypocrites: if you really cared about the environment in the way these fascistic loons claim they do, then you’d be vigorously opposing renewable energy (such as the bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes defacing our landscape and slicing and dicing our avian fauna) and instead going all out for fossil fuels.
This was a point often made in the Heartland panel discussions – which you can catch up with here .
In the one on Sustainability – Panel 5A – independent scientist Indur Goklany pointed out that without fossil fuels we wouldn’t have the fertilizer we need to make our agricultural land so productive. This in turn would mean we wouldn’t be able to leave nearly so much space free as fallow land, as nature reserves or as wilderness.
You’d think the Greenies would get this fairly basic scientific point – given how much they’re always banging on about “the science” – but they never do because, as I argued in my book Watermelons, their commitment to environmentalism owes much more to quasi-religious ideology, to straightforward greed and to anti-free-market control-freakery than it does to a genuine love of nature.
Then there’s the hatred. Pretty much everyone speaking at the Heartland Institute will have suffered personally for speaking out against the Great Global Warming Scare. Willie Soon‘s travails are typical. It’s why only the brave – or the elderly, who have nothing to lose – who speak out.
The same applies, of course, to all the other professions which dare to confront the climate “consensus”. I wrote in my book, for example, about how popular British TV presenters David Bellamy and Johnny Ball both effectively had their careers destroyed when they took the “wrong side” on global warming.
Journalists get it in the neck too, of course.
Let me close by treating you to some examples of the kind of hate I got recently simply for pointing out that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef isn’t actually being wiped out by man-made global warming. Sure, it has experienced some serious bleaching in some parts – probably the result of the recent El Nino – but not nearly on the scale that has been claimed by politically- and financially-motivated climate alarmists. And it will recover, just like reefs always do and have done for millennia, sometimes in warming far more extreme than anything we have experienced today.
If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers. With jewels inlaid in their spiral horns and maybe some magical attachment that plays the collected works of Taylor Swift while she rides.
So I totally get where President Trump is coming from when I read reports that, under the influence of Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, he has toned the phrasing of an Executive Order so that it no longer includes derogatory comments about the utterly useless and pointless climate deal signed in Paris in 2015 by Barack Obama.
Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order,” sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.
Ivanka and her husband “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reports. Now, the executive order will have no mention of the so-called Paris agreement.
If it’s just a case of casual daughter-pleasing, fine. But if he actually means it than we should all start to worry.
I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.
He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons.
But it’s all very well having good instincts and good intentions. The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.
“I screwed up the economy, your jobs and your mortgages so – hey – I’m just the guy you can trust to tell you what to do about climate change!”
That was my take home message of a piece Hank Paulson penned for the New York Times a couple of years ago on the urgent need for a carbon tax.
Two years on – with fellow GOP Establishment stooges James Baker and George Shultz – he’s still harping on the same tedious theme.
This copper-bottomed, ocean-going shyster Paulson is the kind of Dubya-period throwback whose advice the Trump administration should avoid like the plague.
As Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson not only failed to predict the 2008 financial crash – the US economy is “very healthy” and “robust” he insisted in 2007 – but it’s quite possible that his encouragement of risky lending while he was at Goldman Sachs helped cause it.
But that’s because Paulson is the very embodiment of the liberal elite which both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump were designed to overthrow.
Paulson may notionally identify as a Republican. Or, at least, he served with a “Republican” administration. But what’s quite evident from his demands for a carbon tax is that he belongs to that shiftless DC/corporatist/bankster elite which couldn’t give two hoots whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in charge, just so long as the elite get to maintain their power base and their revenue stream.
Note how, back in 2014 when he was calling for that carbon tax in the New York Times, he boasted about teaming up with Tom Steyer (arch-liberal hedge funder, creator of the NextGen super PAC) and Michael Bloomberg. These men are not conservatives.
What they are is crony capitalists. They are the embodiment of almost everything that America voted against when it voted for Donald Trump.