American Elephants


What if There is No Climate Emergency At All? by The Elephant's Child

When Greta Thunberg arrived in Madrid for the big climate meeting, there was an “unprecedented demonstration” for protection from the climate in the Spanish capital, supposedly involving 500,000 participants. However, the federal police said there were about 15,000 demonstrators.

This seems to be a fairly usual story in all things climate. The notrickszone website adds:

There were, as usual, no scientific facts to be found, but a lot of feeling, self-righteousness and general demands to an ominous elite, who officially stand behind Thunberg’s FFF.  (fact free fantasy)

NoTricksZone also links to a headline from 2018 that notes that over “100+ Scientific Papers find that there is Low Climate Sensitivity to Doubled CO².”  They find that the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO² ranges from less than zero to 1º C.

From The German Spiegel Online, Dec. 7, 2019

Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe and Zambia: “It’s the longest dry period that we have ever had.”

The Victoria Falls are considered to be the widest waterfall in the world. But instead of the usual quantities that plunge into its depths, there is a drought – tourists have also gone absent. The mood there is gloomy.”

And, of course, it is being immediately attempted to explain the water flow with man-made climate change. The Guardian wrote on the same day:

Data from the Zambezi River Authority shows water flow at its lowest since 1995, and well under the long-term average. Zambian president, Edgar Lungu, has called it ‘a stark reminder of what climate change is doing to our environment’.”

Spiegel calls it the worst drought ever. The Guardian calls it the worst drought since 1995. That’s a small difference.

Here are excerpts from The Climate Talking Points Report delivered to the UN Climate Summit in Madrid:

MADRID, Spain – How to Talk About Climate Change Issues & Alleged “Solutions” – 2020

INTRODUCTION: Global warming hype and hysteria continue to dominate the news media, academia, schools, the United Nations, and the U.S. government. The Green New Deal being pushed on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 presidential race is based upon “solving” an alleged “climate crisis.”

Teen school-skipping climate activists are testifying to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and young children are being recruited for lawsuits against the U.S. government for its alleged climate “inaction.” The phrase ‘climate emergency’ has emerged as the favorite for climate campaigners.

But the arguments put forth by global warming advocates grossly distort the true facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and record temperatures to melting polar caps and polar bears, among others. In short, there is no “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency.”

The UN, climate activists, the media, and academia are using the climate scare as an opportunity to lobby for their alleged “solutions” which require massive government expansion and central planning.

This talking points memo is designed to arm people with the voices of the rising number of scientists, the latest data, peer-reviewed studies on key facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore/Green New Deal positions.

The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of “climate cause deniers.” They deny the hundreds of causes and variables that influence climate change and instead try to pretend that carbon dioxide is the climate “control knob” overriding all the others factors and they pretend that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their “global warming.”

The Los Angeles Times supports mandated relocation of coastal properties based on climate alarmist flawed sea level rise claims. I have noted before that the World’s 76 best Tide Gauges show a mean 0.34 mm rise. That’s not even one millimeter! And if you don’t know how big a millimeter is, look it up. We have a case of mass hysteria going on.

Do remember that I just pointed out that Nancy Pelosi just took a body of House Democrats en-masse to Madrid for the big bash, and to tell the UN Climate meeting there that the U.S is not out of the Paris Climate Accords. “We’re Still in” she told them. I believe that is in President Trump’s jurisdiction, since it is not a treaty. It is widely agreed that the Paris Climate Accords were designed to transfer a great deal of money from the wealthy nations to the very poor nations of the world.

 



Please Make an Effort To Know What You Are Talking About! by The Elephant's Child

mediadc.brightspotcdn.com

Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) yesterday announced that “every Democratic presidential candidate” was supporting her Green New Deal resolution.

“The Green New Deal that we introduced two weeks ago, which was an amazing step forward, when we first were engineering it before it was introduced they were saying, ‘She’s divisive. She’s too confrontational. No one will sign onto a single piece of legislation that she introduced,'” said Ocasio-Cortez.

“We were able to to introduce a resolution in both chambers co-sponsored by every presidential candidate, every Democratic presidential candidate and 65 House members,” Ocasio-Cortez continued.

Oh dear, it’s not, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez that you are divisive or confrontational, it’s that you don’t know what you are talking about. The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. The people who suggest that “global warming” is not a crisis, are not “deniers”– they acknowledge that the earth has warmed in the last 40 years – 25 one hundredths of one degree! That’s+0.25 deg.C. according to the UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere.

You want to rely on wind and solar energy — natural and free, provided generously by Mother Nature? The problem is that wind and solar energy do not provide enough energy to power a modern society. The problem is not in the quantity of turbines or solar panels, it is in the wind itself. Wind is intermittent. It blows, occasionally, in puffs and wafts, sometimes in gales, and very often not at all. On the rare occasions when it blows steadily at about 35 mph, the turbines produce energy. When it does not, it requires 24/7 backup from a conventional power source. The conventional power sources don’t do too well with switching on and off all the time, either.

Solar energy is a different matter. Sunshine is diffuse. There are clouds that drift across the sky, at different levels, and sometimes there are clouds for days. it rains. The sun sinks below the horizon at night, just when everyone is settling down for the evening. Ivanpah in California’s Mojave Desert was the biggest and fanciest solar array with thousands of solar panels the size of garage doors shining on a central tower designed to heat and generate massive amounts of power. Didn’t work. The project generated only about 40 percent of the advertised power, and managed to incinerate all kinds of birds, many of them protected species like eagles. Cost a bundle. Useless.

To have enough wind turbines to power the country, you’d need an acreage about the size of California. Not going to happen.

The bit about high speed rail doesn’t work either. It works in Europe because Europe is much denser with many towns and cities close together. You may have noticed that new California Governor Newsom has just dumped Jerry Brown’s pet high-speed rail train to nowhere. Too expensive, Vast cost overruns. Always was a pipe dream, but Brown would not give up on it. You may have noticed that Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono suggested that your idea of ending airline flights to Hawaii didn’t go over well.

The fact that you have all the Democratic potential candidates signed on to your Green New Deal, is frightening. It says that we have large numbers of people running for the highest office in the land who do not do their homework, and do not know what they are talking about. It really isn’t that hard to study up, but the idea that one of them might possibly be elected and know only that they have to believe in global warming because it’s what Democrats do, is pretty scary. But then you got elected, never having done any research either.



VOTE NO on Initiative 1631. Here’s Why. by The Elephant's Child
November 3, 2018, 2:23 am
Filed under: Politics | Tags: ,

Here in Washington State, we have two initiatives on the ballot. They get identified by number because there is no short snappy name for rather complicated issues.

Initiative 1631, as the voters pamphlet describes it “is a measure that would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate impacts, under oversight of a public board.”
In reality, the measure would charge pollution fees on something that is not a pollutant – carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide or CO² is not only not a pollutant, it is what each of us exhale each time we breathe. It is a natural fertilizer for plants, and the slight increase in CO² in the atmosphere is greening the world, and helping to feed hungry people. Here is celebrated climatologist Richard Lindzen:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and it is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance.
This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many skeptics.
Many politicians and learned societies go even further. They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable and although mankind’s CO² contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control carbon dioxide levels.

“Clean energy sources” refers to wind and solar energy, which does not work to provide the energy a state or community requires. Wind is too intermittent, and creates power only in the rare times that the wind blows at the right speed. It does not blow steadily even in the windiest spots. Solar energy is too diffuse to be depended on, and when there are clouds, there isn’t any, nor is there any at night. Our own governor, Jay Inslee has been trying to get a carbon tax passed, but the legislature has not obliged. The tax would sharply raise the price of energy steadily until 2035 when it would be a 59¢ extra tax per gallon on gasoline, aside from federal taxes. It would cost the average household $440 more per year in 2020, and $990 per year in 2035, and because of the energy tax would raise the cost of everything.  Governors and politicians are always tempted by the potential of new taxes, because having the money to do things that the people might like helps to get reelected. Noble causes like “reducing pollution” also help, but CO² is not a pollutant, however this is a test case for installing a carbon tax across the country.

Iniative 1634 prohibits new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages (with exceptions) or ingredients thereof, unless effective by January 15, 2018 or generally applicable.

We do not need new taxes on our food. Bad idea.

Governors and Legislators would attract more voters by showing us how they can cut the cost of government while improving governance, but that never seems to occur to them as a possibility.



Do Not Vote for a Carbon Tax. It’s Not What You Might Think! by The Elephant's Child

preview_sunny-green-hillsHere in the State of Washington, we have a carbon tax on the ballot. If passed, it would be the first carbon tax in the country. The greenies are simply quivering with excitement. It will do nothing at all to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor is that the aim.   Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Climate change is very low on the list of voters’ priorities, and for good reason. The most dangerous environmental pollutants have been cleaned up—carbon dioxide is not among them. U.S. emissions of particulates, metals and assorted gases—ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur have fallen almost 70% between 1970 and 2014. The illusion remains that the beneficial gas carbon dioxide is among hazardous pollutants. (The EPA keeps trying to impress this false idea on the gullible). The public’s biggest worry is corruption of politicians.

Unlike genuine pollutants, carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless gas. Every human being exhales about two pounds of CO2 a day, along with a similar amount of water vapor. CO2 is nontoxic to people and animals and is a vital nutrient to plants. It is also a greenhouse gas which helps maintain earth at a habitable temperature.

CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, and is helping to feed a hungry world. he amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ranges from around 390 to a little over 400 ppm. Greenhouses keep their atmosphere at around 1000 ppm to keep their plants growing nicely. It would be a good thing if we could raise the amount in the atmosphere to 1000 ppm, and it is possible and not all that expensive.

The climatistas or climate warriors or whatever you want to call them are not really interested in climate as such, they are interested in ending the vast pollution of Capitalism, and they believe that the war on climate is their best chance of getting to their goal. Carbon taxes are just one of the ways of getting there.

Dr. Roy Spencer is Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. He is the source of the only truly global monitoring system of observed warming.

Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.

You have seen the pictures of New York City practically underwater, with the Statue of Liberty up to her nose in rising seawater.

Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years. If a major hurricane is approaching with a predicted storm surge of 10-14 feet, are you really going to worry about a sea level rise of 1 inch per decade? If Hillary would have fact-checked her example of sea level rise in Norfolk, Virginia, she would have found out that the experts already know this is mostly due to the land there sinking.

To the extent that the cost of weather disasters has risen over time, that is well known to be the result of modern society building more infrastructure in areas that are prone to damage from weather—which is almost everywhere.

Do read the whole thing, stop worrying, and if you live in Washington State, please vote against the carbon tax.

ADDENDUM: Dr.Roy Spencer has a website here, with both the latest climate news, and excellent short articles explaining global warming 101 for those of us who didn’t do much beyond high school biology, chemistry and physics.




%d bloggers like this: