Climate experts like James Hansen tell us that we need to reduce CO2 to prevent natural disasters. That theory is easy enough to test, because CO2 levels used to be lower, and we know what the climate was like at 305 PPM CO2.
All indications are that the climate was much more extreme at lower levels of CO2. The years 1926 and 1927 brought almost daily catastrophes to the world, including the worst Mississippi River floods on record, and the worst floods in Vermont history.
The Arctic was hot during NASA’s claimed coldest years on record, and scientists wondered if the North Pole was going to melt entirely.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitsbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface.
“Smokescreens.” This, apparently, is the fancy new euphemism used by climate alarmists to describe what we on the skeptical side of the argument prefer to call “facts.”
The word appears in an interview given by Katharine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech where she is director of the Climate Science Center, and a leading member of the climate alarmist establishment.
She was a co-author, for example, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment produced during the Obama era. She also featured prominently in the first episode of the global warming propaganda documentary series Years of Living Dangerously.
Here she is, talking to someone calling themselves ‘Sierra Club’, at EcoWatch.
Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the “smokescreens” skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change.
“There’ll be no progress that way,” she insists. “It’s a lot easier for people to say, ‘I have a problem with the science’ than it is to talk about what the real problem is.”
Hayhoe might not realize this but she could scarcely have provided more damning evidence of the political nature of “climate science.”
If climate science were robust and real, it would be more than capable of standing up to questioning and debate.
But because it’s not really about science at all, only about propaganda used to push political outcomes, Hayhoe is only capable of recommending this response when asked challenging questions: change the subject.
What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?
Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.”
But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject. Try, “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world? I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind; aren’t you worried, too?”
At this point, you’ve moved the conversation beyond what they don’t agree on. Because whether it’s a natural cycle or not, a lot of people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field. You want to acknowledge what people have to say but not to engage.
Even when she’s changing the subject, she can’t get her facts right – as Paul Homewood notes here.
Katharine Hayhoe was listed by Time as one of the ‘100 most influential people of 2014’. She has been described as “perhaps the best communicator on climate change.”
I don’t mean to be ungallant. But the phrase does rather come to mind: “Is this seriously the best they’ve got?”
The House omnibus spending package includes a substantial increase in funding for green energy subsidies the Trump administration and Republicans believe should be eliminated.
The spending bill provides the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) $2.3 billion, a level $1.7 billion above President Donald Trump’s budget request and $232 million above the 2017 enacted level. It also nearly doubles the House-passed level.
“Not only does this allow the federal government to pick winners and losers, but also it limits research to a small sector of the energy economy—renewables. The U.S. should pursue a market-based, all-of-the-above energy policy,” the Republican Senatorial Committee stated in its 2018 budget proposal.
The bill was released to the media Wednesday night and provides $34.5 billion for the Department of Energy, the department that houses the EERE. DOE’s funding level is $3.8 billion above the fiscal year 2017 level and $6.6 billion above Trump’s budget request. EERE is the agency that provides research and development for solar power and other types of green energy projects.
The bill would provide nearly $13 billion in energy subsidies, or $5.4 billion above the president’s budget, and $1.6 billion above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. It’s 72 percent above Trump’s budget proposal. The president and Republicans sought to ding subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicle earlier this year to help pay down Trump’s tax cuts.
Republicans called for the immediate repeal of the $7,500-per-vehicle credit in November to help balance out the party’s tax bill, which sought to slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent and to reduce the number of tax brackets for individuals. The tax bill passed in December with the tax credit included.
Analysts argue the tax credit drives most of the sales for the electric car industry. Electric car sales slumped badly in Georgia, going from 1,400 a month to just 100 a month after the state shuttered its $5,000 credit. Other countries have eliminated electric vehicle credits with similar results.
Data show that the elimination of the tax credit could be a death knell for companies like Tesla, especially considering the Silicon Valley automaker’s inability to mass produce vehicles at the scale of its larger competitors. The company relies heavily on the credit for survival.
Something bizarre happened Wednesday after the U.S. District Court for the District Northern California held a “tutorial” hearing on global warming science.
Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said.
California cities, environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated. Effectively, those seeking to punish oil companies are throwing aside the oft-touted “consensus” on climate science.
The irony was not lost on University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., who published peer-reviewed studies on climate science and policies.
This tweet indicates how much the climate debate has changed.
An oil company is invoking the IPCC consensus as their opponents, environmental activists (including some climate scientists), deny the IPCC consensus.
San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five oil companies, including Chevron, over the alleged damages man-made global warming caused. Chevron was the only defendant that chose to participate in the climate science hearing, but the oil company surprised plaintiffs by not challenging the “consensus” IPCC assessment.
That ruffled the feathers of some scientists and environmentalists, who immediately went on the offensive against Chevron, accusing the company of using the IPCC to discredit climate policies.
“Chevron’s lawyer plucked his strategy right from the climate-denier playbook,” environmental group the Center for Biological Diversity climate scientist Shaye Wolf told Earther.
Apparently, the “climate-denier playbook” includes citing the IPCC. Chevron agreed with the IPCC’s scientific assessment, while the company did not agree with policy proposals the international body suggests, the oil entity argued.
“He overemphasized and inflated narrow areas of uncertainty about global warming’s impacts. And he bobbed and weaved his way out of acknowledging the role of fossil fuels,” Wolf said.
Climate scientists Kate Marvel of NASA and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech went on to argue the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated and scientific studies in the years since have painted a more alarming picture of man-made warming.
“The most recent IPCC report came out in 2013, but the climate model simulations used in that report stopped in 2005,” Marvel told Earther.
“By ‘stopped,’ I mean they relied on observational data (greenhouse gases, aerosols, volcanic dust, solar fluctuations) only up to that point,” she said. “Everything going forward was a projection, using our best guesses of what emissions would look like.”
“The IPCC report is the gold standard of climate science assessment, but it falls short in three important and relevant ways that would lead me, as a scientist, to advise expanding the literature used in this case if one wanted to obtain the most comprehensive and up-to-date perspective on the state of climate science,” Hayhoe echoed.
In another instance, University of California professor Gary Griggs argued Chevron’s presenting of IPCC sea level rise projections were outdated. Griggs, a coastal geography expert, was brought in by trial lawyers representing San Francisco and Oakland.
Chevron also presented the court with charts showing climate models tended to overestimate man-made warming. Chevron was misleading by presenting outdated graphs comparing models and temperature observations, some climate scientists argued.
If you weren’t following the latest changes to the forecast Wednesday afternoon and evening, you were probably surprised to find almost no additional snow on the ground this morning.
The forecasting industry gets it right a lot, but sometimes, it gets it really wrong. And we definitely got it really wrong today.
I can tell you with a lot of certainty that it’s very frustrating for any meteorologist to miss a forecast, but it’s also humbling. It’s just a fact of the matter: The atmosphere is incredibly complicated and always will be.
Meteorologically, the storm never really got its act together because too much dry air ate away at the precipitation shield on the northern and western flank.
However, there was significant snow not too far away. In New York City, for example, some spots got more than a foot of snow.
This was the potential here in Southern New England if the axis of heavy precipitation had tilted more toward the northwest.
Of course, there are always computer models that we all use to guide us, but frankly, their performance hasn’t been as good in the past few weeks.
Although the models successfully understood a storm would form, they did a poor job of placing the precipitation within the storm. I suspect the unusual blocking pattern that we are in is throwing the models for a loop.
While the European model did a better job forecasting this system than other models, it also was way overdone. But in other recent storms, other models have outperformed the Euro, so it’s dangerous to just follow one model.
For example, if we had believed the NAM model on Wednesday morning, we would have forecast 10 to 15 inches of snow in Boston. This model accurately predicted the amount of snow seen in New York, but it arced the precipitation band way too far to the northwest.
Good forecasting means using the models as a tool, rather than following them directly.
When I started pulling back on accumulation Wednesday afternoon and evening, my forecast was still going against the guidance.
There’s a saying that “the trend is your friend,” and to me, the trend started becoming quite clear with the information that came in Wednesday afternoon.
This is looking less impressive with each new piece of data. I hope no one is going to be disappointed if I need to move amounts lower. pic.twitter.com/ovcAkXmLV4
Some storms are just handled by the models worse than others.
Case in point, even as late as early Thursday morning, the European model was still insisting a lot of snow would fall over southeastern Massachusetts — up to 9 inches. This is why you can’t look at these maps and just make a forecast.
No one likes to be wrong in any industry.
Part of forecasting the weather is accepting you can’t always get it right, and sometimes, you’re going to get it really wrong.
Climate is climate, and climate science is nonsense, and never the twain shall meet. Experts believe cherry trees are going to start blooming in January, in spite of the fact that the concept is ridiculous and there is no evidence to back it up.
A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science.
San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused.
A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.”
The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing.
Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted.
Judge slams California cities lawyers says they misled the court – says document they claim “shows conspiracy” shows nothing of the sort #climatechange tutorial @ClimateDepot
“Alsup dismissing the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy,” environmental journalist Amy Westervelt tweeted.
Alsup dismissing the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy amongst fossil fuel companies to suppress info on climate. Exxon discovery files tell a different story. #climatetutorial@ClimateLawNews
Cities and oil companies gave Alsup a five hour tutorial on global warming Wednesday, answering eight questions the California judge had given both parties ahead of time. A group of scientists skeptical of man-made warming also submitted briefs for the hearing.
Eight California localities and New York City have filed suit against fossil fuel companies, arguing they should pay for the damages global warming allegedly wrought. New York City’s lawsuit seeks up to $20 billion in compensation, much of which would go toward trial lawyers.
However, all the cities claim fossil fuel companies conspired to suppress global warming science. The claim is largely based on reporting from liberal journalists at InsideClimate News and Columbia University.
In it, environment editor Damian Carrington’s word choice revealed support for these efforts. He called courts the new “front line” against climate change and cited numerous instances where “groups and individuals seek to hold governments and companies accountable for the damage they are causing.”
“The litigation represents a new front of climate action, with citizens aiming to force stronger moves to cut carbon emissions, and win damages to pay the costs of dealing with the impacts of warming,” he wrote.
Describing the importance of such lawsuits, Carrington even went so far as to put climate change lawsuits on the same level as desegregation lawsuits writing that, “They are inspired by momentous cases from the past, from the defeat of big tobacco to the racial desegregation of schools in the US.”
Carrington reported that as of March 20, the first lawsuit was filed against the UK government brought by twelve UK citizens who claimed,“The UK carbon target for 2050 does not match the Paris agreement goal and the government knows that.”
The U.S. has the most cases including a lawsuit by the mayor of New York City. Mayor Bill de Blasio announced he was suing the five largest oil companies in the world for supposedly knowing their actions were causing global warming, but hiding it from the public.
Left-wing California cities San Francisco and Oakland have also launched suits against major oil companies over climate change.
Carrington also cited efforts in numerous countries bringing climate change lawsuits against the government to block oil drilling or deforestation in places including India, Uganda, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Portugal, and Norway.
The Guardian said that lawyers filing lawsuits blamed the election of Donald Trump, an increase in extreme weather events, and “revelations” how much fossil fuel companies knew about climate change.
Some of those so-called “revelations” were the result of investigations done by anti-fossil fuel groups and publications — with the help of huge, anti-fossil fuel donors, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and George Soros.
His article quoted several proponents and litigants of such cases, but very little opposition or criticism of this “new front of climate action.”
A Democratic attorney general who’s blocked natural gas pipelines and sued ExxonMobil over global warming is now saying that buying Russian gas is better for the climate.
New England received two shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) this winter that included supplies from Russia. Climate policies have made the region much more reliant on natural gas, which is expected to increase, but pipeline constraints have made supplies precarious during cold snaps.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has opposed building new pipeline capacity to bring more gas to energy-starved New England and says importing liquefied natural gas during cold snaps is better for the environment than building new pipelines.
“LNG is a more efficient and economical way to meet energy needs during instances of high winter demand than building high-risk and costly pipelines that are not needed to maintain reliability,” Healey spokeswoman Chloe Gotsis told E&E News on Wednesday.
Healey has used her office to block pipeline projects that energy experts say are needed to relieve supply constraints in New England. The region’s grid operator recently warned that shuttering coal and nuclear power plants will only exacerbate energy security woes.
A recent ISO New England study found the region “could be headed for significant levels of emergency actions, particularly during major fuel or resource outages.” Recent cold snaps have sent electricity prices surging and forced power plants to burn more oil and coal.
Despite pressure to build more pipelines, Healey’s office says continuing to import LNG from abroad, including from Russia, is a better policy.
“Continuing to rely on pipelines is too risky for ratepayers and our climate,” Gotsis said.
Healey’s been criticized for her opposition to pipelines, including by The Boston Globe. The paper published an editorial in February arguing pipeline opponents had essentially funded a “Russian pipeline” to the Arctic.
“The real-world result of pipeline absolutism in Massachusetts this winter has been to steer energy customers to dirtier fuels like coal and oil, increasing greenhouse gas emissions,” The Globe wrote.
Healey is also locked in legal battles with Exxon. Healey joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in suing Exxon about two years ago for allegedly covering up global warming science and funding groups opposed to climate policies.
Healey’s suit is largely based on reports from liberal journalists at InsideClimate News and Columbia University on Exxon’s climate research going back to the 1970s. Healey’s case has even enveloped conservative non-profits.
Healey’s Exxon suit is tied up in Massachusetts courts over jurisdiction issues, and she’s defending herself in federal court against accusations she initiated her investigation in bad faith.