ABC News published a poll that shows American attitudes on man-made global warming, finding mainly that most people want the government to do “a great deal” or “a lot” on the matter.
But the poll by Langer Research Associates also had findings that are inconvenient to those agitating for “action” on global warming.
While the poll — sponsored by ABC News, Stanford University and Resources for the Future — found that 74 percent of Americans believed the Earth had warmed in the past century, only 41 percent attributed it entirely to human activities.
Nearly 60 percent of Americans said warming in the past 100 years was either entirely natural or equally caused by natural factors and human activities. Those beliefs have remained relatively unchanged since the late 1990s, the poll noted.
In fact, American stances on climate science have changed little in the past 21 years, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate activism, promoting green energy and demonizing fossil fuels in that time.
Let’s dig into some of the more inconvenient numbers here. For starters, the poll shows that despite years of campaigning, activists and politicians have failed to move the public on this issue: pic.twitter.com/esRnWiKUyD
The poll also found that rather inconveniently for environmentalists, Americans still like the coal industry. Sixty-six percent favored giving tax breaks to coal power plants that install smokestack scrubbers — which ironically don’t do much for CO2 emissions.
Another — very low support for taxes that raise energy costs (like a carbon tax or gas tax), but high support for tax breaks to encourage innovation. Americans still like coal: pic.twitter.com/IFMWT2OgQV
On the flip side, most Americans opposed raising taxes on electricity and gasoline. What’s interesting about this finding is that it contradicts what Americans say when asked about taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, when asked if companies should pay for greenhouse gases emissions, 68 percent of Americans agreed. But when framed differently, in terms of what could happen to energy prices, most were skeptical.
The poll found that “74 percent express concern about the impact of climate change regulation on the prices they pay for things generally” and “[e]ven among Democrats and liberals, six in 10 oppose higher taxes on electricity.”
Likewise, “just two in 10 are very confident that those efforts, in fact, would reduce global warming,” ABC News noted, adding only “a narrow majority, 53 percent, favors immediate action over more study.”
Ultimately, pollsters concluded that “[r]ecognition of global warming and concern about its long-term impacts are broad, if highly partisan.”
“Solutions are widely desired, especially when problems or remedies are clearly identified,” pollsters concluded. “But a somewhat skeptical public, concerned about costs, resistant to mandates and uncertain that proposed solutions will work, harbors continued doubts about how best to pursue them.”
“Climate change” threatens the future of UK’s historic churches, endangering roofs, towers, and spires, according to the National Churches Trust.
“The intensity of extreme weather patterns, including heavier rainfalls and storms, is putting church gutters and drains under strain, and systems designed in the past cannot cope,” said Claire Walker, the chief executive of the trust.
“Looking to the future, the impact of climate change could have a serious impact on the UK’s historic churches,” Walker said. “Higher levels of rainfall in the UK, such as the 20% increase seen in Scotland since the 1960s, with more cycles of wetting and drying, will cause damage to timber and stonework. Stronger winds and more frequent storms will threaten roofs, towers, and spires.”
“Climate change is also making the UK ever more vulnerable to invasive pests. The biggest danger for church buildings would be from termites, which are now widespread in France, with infestations being found close to the Channel coast.”
Ms. Walker does not explain how climate change—rather than severe weather and the passing of years—is doing such damage to church structures, nor how climate change is empowering termites to become more menacing as the world allegedly grows warmer thanks to CO2 emissions.
The Guardian newspaper, a major proponent of global warming, notes that the National Churches Trust saw a 26 percent one-year increase in applications for grants for “urgent repairs, maintenance and development projects in 2017,” further evidence that climate change is wreaking havoc on the world.
In 2017, a total of 480 churches and chapels in the UK requested financial assistance from the trust, which bestowed 230 grants worth £1.7m—“an increase of £300,000 compared with 2016.”
Ms. Walker said that many churches have reached a “tipping point” due to the combined impact of climate change, cuts to Heritage Lottery Fund grants, and the end of the government-funded roof repair scheme for listed places of worship.
Climate change has become the convenient whipping boy of all the ills in the world, from racism to immigration, and now to church destruction.
While the mainstream media earnestly sell this story, the public demand for fantasy tales may at some point turn to non-fiction.
However, don’t expect it to be “comprehensive” at all as hundreds of scientific publications showing profound impacts by sun and oceans will go ignored.
Climate science has turned into a religion that centers on a single act of faith. Human CO2 is changing our climate.
In the past, it was always understood that climate was impacted by a vast array of factors, such as oceanic cycles, solar cycles, aerosols, cloud cover, etc. to name a few.
Images: NASA (public domain)
But over the years tremendous resources have been poured into an effort aimed at pinning the blame on man-made greenhouse gases. Models have been grossly distorted and corrupted to make CO2 the 90%+ climate driver.
Despite global temperatures falling by more than 0.5°C over the past two years due to the ending of an El Nino event, IPCC scientists continue to insist that trace gas CO2 is the main driver behi9nd climate warming.
In the IPCC 5th summary report for policymakers, for example, solar and oceanic factors described as having little effect on global temperatures:
With such a disregard for natural factors, it is no surprise that we are already observing the spectacular failure of the climate models.
Not only have ocean cycles been grossly ignored in climate models, but so have solar factors. The sun is not constant in its behavior and has been shown to act in cycles that have profound impacts on the earth’s climate system.
Research showing sun’s impact piles up
Despite all the effort to frame CO2, scientists are still conducting a formidable amount of research on the sun’s impact.
Indeed since the last IPCC report was released in 2013, there have been literally hundreds of scientific peer-reviewed publications showing that the sun, directly and indirectly, has a great impact on the Earth’s climate. Yet IPCC scientists obstinately continue to refuse to acknowledge these in their models.
Back in 2013, I produced a list of 123 paper showing that the sun impacts global climate.
More than 600 published papers show a clear solar impact on climate
NTZ guest author Kenneth Richard has been busy listing the papers as well. What follows is the list of papers showing the sun impacts global climate.
2012 123 papers had been published and ignored by IPCC 4AR
That brings the total of scientific peer-reviewed papers that will be completely ignored by the IPCC to 625. If that isn’t fraudulent “science-based” policymaking, then what is?
Aim: Human society in shackles
The aim of the IPCC is to ignore recognized standards of science, frame mankind for a nonexistent crime, and shackle human society. It’s the next planned slavery. The developing countries, who will be denied cheap and reliable energy, will bear the heaviest chains.
President Donald Trump chastised his predecessor for thinking global warming was the biggest threat facing the U.S., arguing nuclear weapons were a bigger threat “by a factor of about five million.”
“To me, the most important issue is the nuclear issue, because I know President Obama said global warming is our biggest problem, and I would say that no, it’s nuclear warming is our biggest problem by a factor of about five million,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
“The nuclear problem we have to make sure, we have to be very careful,” Trump told Hannity in an interview after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland. Trump’s interview with Hannity is set to air Monday night.
Indeed, President Barack Obama called global warming the greatest U.S. security threat on multiple occasions. Obama even blamed global warming for contributing to the Syrian civil war and Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
“No challenge – no challenge – poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” Obama said in his 2015 State of the Union speech.
Trump has largely abandoned the Obama administration’s policies on global warming, including promising to withdraw from the Paris climate accord as soon as possible. However, the Trump administration has not rescinded an executive order on international climate finance.
Trump met with Putin for several hours on Monday in Helsinki where the two leaders discussed a range of topics, including the 2016 election meddling.
“During today’s meeting, I addressed the issue of Russian interference in our elections. I felt this was a message best delivered in person. Spent a great deal of time talking about it and president Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly,” Trump said after the meeting.
The United States in 2017 experienced the largest decline in carbon emissions in the world, according to a recent report.
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the U.S. last year had a growth rate in carbon emissions of -0.5 percent and a decrease of 42 million tons, citing data from oil giant BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, published in June.
Last year marked the ninth time in this century that the U.S. has had the largest decline in emissions in the world; 2017 was also the third consecutive year that emissions in the U.S. declined, although the decline was the smallest over the three-year period.
Ukraine had the world’s second-largest decline, with a growth rate of -10.1 percent and a 28.1-million-ton decrease in emissions.
Carbon emissions from energy increased worldwide last year, growing by 1.6 percent and 426.4 million tons. China led that growth, increasing its emission totals by 119 million tons at a rate of 1.6 percent. Since the turn of the century, China has had the world’s largest surges in carbon emissions all but four times.
India, which ranked second behind China last year, had led the world in growing carbon emissions from 2014 to 2016.
President Donald Trump faced severe opposition after he announced in June 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, saying the deal “would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.”
Democrats said Trump was imprudent and his commitment to leave the accord could backfire.
“President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord is a stunning abdication of American leadership and a grave threat to our planet’s future,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said at the time. “In walking away from this agreement, the president is denying scientific truths, removing safeguards that protect our health and our environment, protecting polluters and their dirty energy agenda, and threatening our national and global security.”
American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry said the U.S. exit from the accord did not have a direct impact on the decrease in carbon emissions last year, because Trump’s announcement was made in June and the full withdrawal would not take place until November 2020. The U.S. must continue reporting carbon emissions to the United Nations until its exit from the deal has been completed.
Perry said the increase in natural-resource use has been a major factor in the reduction of carbon emissions over the past 10 years.
“I would credit America’s Shale Revolution, which started in about 2007, as the main driver behind the CO2 reductions, especially because of the substitution of natural gas for coal to generate electric power in the US—which will likely continue,” Perry told the Washington Free Beacon.
Compared to coal, natural gas releases about half of the carbon emissions to create the same amount of electric power. Coal’s share of energy sources for electricity has fallen below 30 percent in the last decade as natural shale gas became more abundant, according to Perry.
“We can thank the underground oceans of America’s natural gas that are now accessible because of the revolutionary, advanced drilling and extraction technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal/directional drilling, and are increasingly displacing coal for the nation’s electricity generation,” Perry wrote on his blog “Carpe Diem.”
In the intervening week since this article, a few people on the internet have been busy making mincemeat of Samenow’s rather pitiful effort.
For MC readers who don’t go out searching the internet regularly for real information on climate to combat the propaganda from the various Pravdas out there, I thought I would do the public service of presenting some of this real information here.
First, some basic background is needed to develop appropriate bullshit radar on this subject.
If you follow climate or weather information even a little, you will already know that on any given day, somewhere in the world, some weather station, or more likely multiple stations, is recording an “all-time high” temperature for the particular day in question, while some other weather station, or maybe multiple stations, is recording an “all-time low.”
It follows that the fact that multiple “all-time high” records were set during the course of a week tells you nothing about climate change.
There could have been even more all-time lows, and the overall average could have gone down, no matter how many “all-time highs” were recorded.
Any reader of any intelligence whatsoever will immediately be asking, don’t just tell me about “all-time highs,” but tell me what is the overall picture? How many all-time lows were there?
What is happening with the “average” temperature? You will not be surprised to learn that Samenow does not provide the answers to those questions.
In other words, his article is not intended to provide useful information to the intelligent reader, but rather to propagandize those lacking in either basic background information or critical thinking ability or both.
The 105 deg F from Denver Airport on June 28 isn’t even close to that record. Homewood then helpfully includes a chart of the all-time high temperatures from all of the 50 states (from NOAA data).
Not only are none of them from June or July 2018, but:
The most recent is from 2012 (113 deg F in South Carolina).
The only other one from after 2000 is from South Dakota, 120 deg F in 2006; but that one did not actually set a record, but only tied a record of the same temperature from that state originally set in 1936.
A substantial plurality of the record all-time highs was set in the period of 1910 – 1940 — in other words, well before the era of human-induced global warming can be credibly claimed to have begun.
In Montana, the all-time high of 117 deg F set in 1893 still stands (although it was tied in 1937).
Should we try a few from Europe? Samenow has three. First, there is one from Scotland. This quote is from the original version of Samenow’s article, which is excerpted in Homewood’s post:
The UK Met Office reported Motherwell, about 20km southeast of Glasgow, hit 33.2C on Thursday, passing the previous record set in August 2003 at Greycrook.
Oops! That claimed “record” has since been withdrawn. It seems that it was caused by a vehicle parked with its engine running next to the temperature sensor.
Record-breaking temperatures in Scotland last month have been declared invalid because a vehicle was parked too close to thermometers. Provisional figures from the Met Office had suggested 33.2C was reached at Motherwell on 28 June – the highest temperature ever measured in Scotland. But this has been discounted following evidence that a stationary vehicle with its engine running had been waiting near the relevant weather station.
To its credit, WaPo has subsequently corrected Samenow’s article on this point. How about anything else from Europe?
Samenow has two examples, both from Ireland:
• In Ireland, on Thursday, Shannon hit 32C, its record.
• In Northern Ireland, Belfast hit 29.5C on Thursday, its record, and Castlederg hit 30.1C on Friday, its record
As for Ireland, Shannon International Airport may have set a record of 32C [90F], confirmed by the Ireland Met Office as the highest temperature anywhere in the country last month. But this was also well below the all-time [Irish] record [of 33.3 deg C/92 deg F] at Kilkenny in 1887, not to mention the 20thC record of 32.5C [91F] [at Boora] in 1976.
And for Northern Ireland:
The highest temperature in N Ireland [of] 30.1C [86.2F] [cited by Samenow], [was] well below the record [for Northern Ireland] of 30.8C [87.4F] set in 1976 and 1983.
Let’s try someplace else. How about Montreal? From Samenow:
Montreal recorded its highest temperature in recorded history, dating back 147 years, of 36.6C on Monday. The city also posted its most extreme midnight combination of heat and humidity.
But our friend Homewood went digging in official Canadian data, available online, and came up with this:
Oops again! Looks like Montreal on August 1, 1975, was a full degree C (1.8 deg F) warmer. Samenow’s article has not been corrected on this point, at least not yet.
You can go on with this as long as you want. As you can see, the failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you.
They are reduced to cherry-picking some unrepresentative data points and leaving out all of the relevant contexts.
It’s no wonder the reporting on this is becoming increasingly scarce. For you, the moral of the story is, if you want some real information as to whether the world is warming or cooling, and by how much, skip the propaganda at the various Pravdas, and go for the UAH lower troposphere satellite record.
It is available in the form at the top of this post, at drroyspencer.com, updated monthly.
Warning: this article is not for the gullible or the faint-hearted. The alarmist message is in line with genuine alarmist messages in that it ignores the facts and draws a conclusion that does not bear scrutiny, similar to the UN IPCC messages.
Shortly after it became known that a large iceberg had become stuck off the west coast of Greenland, as reported on the BBC (see image above), the ever-vigilant BBC were quick to declare:
“A huge iceberg has drifted close to a village in western Greenland, prompting a partial evacuation in case it splits and the resulting wave swamps homes.”
It’s those melting ice caps, don’t you know! Soon after, the same BBC provided further proof that accelerating sea level rise had caught out the unsuspecting David Furber and his family at Brean beach, Somerset, England.
Our hapless climate victims lost their holiday hire car in their own microcosm of the epic global climate catastrophe:
“We’d left their car on the beach with a family member – a teenage daughter – and were unaware that the tide comes in so far,” lamented Mr. Furber.
Fortunately the vacationers – unlike their car – were safely rescued despite the force of the merciless waves.
Correlation means causation, doesn’t it? Thus endeth an alarmist fairytale.
A proposal for the federal government to financially guarantee the construction and operation of new dispatchable power generation, which could include clean coal-fired plants, is expected to be taken to the cabinet with the backing of the Prime Minister. —The Australian, 14 July 2018
China’s demand for the fossil fuel for electricity generation has surpassed expectations. The commodities sector has been hit by escalating trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, but coal is bucking that trend as China’s demand for the fossil fuel remains high. —CNBC, 12 July 2018
Germany, Russia + Putin, Trump, natural gas, and pipeline fiasco at the NATO summit has got all of us thinking. For decades now, the Russian bear has continually been sinking its mighty energy claws into Europe and Germany. Despite long promising to “get off Russian energy,” Gazprom sales to Europe hit an all-time record last year, and Europe is still the largest buyer of Russian oil. —Jude Clemente, Forbes 15 July 2018
The change at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency won’t mean a dramatic shift in policy. If anything, President Donald Trump’s EPA could become even more effective at undoing Obama-era environmental policies under its new boss. —Bloomberg, 10 July 2018
Should environmentalists fear the prospect of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice? Most left-of-center environmentalists are convinced that the answer is yes, on the grounds that Judge Kavanaugh has consistently sought to rein in federal regulatory agencies that by his lights appear to be going beyond their legislative mandates. —Reihan Salam, National Review, 12 July 2018
I held back on criticizing Elon Musk about his Thai cave rescue grandstanding because he claimed the rescuers encouraged him to help, even though his solution came after divers were already pulling the boys out of the cave.
I figured, who knows? Maybe it was true. Maybe he really was trying to help, and the obsessive publicity-seeking that surrounded his effort was just a habitual reflex.
But then another Musk reflex kicked in: getting really sore and thin-skinned about criticism and lashing back about it on Twitter. So I figure if he’s so willing to dish out criticism of everybody else, he deserves to get some of it back.
To recap, you’ve probably heard about the enormous rescue effort for the 12 boys on a Thai youth soccer team and their coach, who were on an outing to explore a system of caves and trapped by rising flood waters when the summer rains came a month early. Finding the boys and getting them out safely took an astonishing effort by Thai Navy SEALs and an elite team of mostly British cave divers.
At the tail end, in sailed Silicon Valley entrepreneur and serial grandstander Musk, who took to Twitter to publicize his makeshift submarine pod—supposedly made out of SpaceX rocket parts, because there’s got to be a publicity tie-in to one of his businesses—which arrived when it was no longer needed. But to Musk’s legion of fanboys, he was just as big a part of the rescue as the people who actually did it.
Musk couldn’t show some modesty and recognize that the story wasn’t about him. He had to dismiss the opinion of the local Thai official who ran the rescue operation and said his pod would have been impractical.
Then early Sunday, diver Vern Unsworth dismissed Musk’s effort as “just a PR stunt,” so Musk took to Twitter to repeatedly insult Unsworth, sniffing that in his own tour of the caves, he “never saw this British expat guy.”
This was supposed to make Unsworth seem like an uninformed observer. But given that Unsworth has spent the past six years in Thailand exploring the Tham Luang cave system and was crucial to the rescue operation at every point, the fact that Musk doesn’t know who he is makes Musk seem uninformed. This is a good reminder to billionaires and politicians: when they give you the “VIP tour” of an important project, they’re not necessarily showing you everything important. They’re just trying to find a polite way to keep you out of the way.
Zeynep Tufekci points out that one of the lessons of this fiasco, for Silicon Valley’s would-be “visionaries,” is to respect the different forms of expertise in other fields.
The Silicon Valley model for doing things is a mix of can-do optimism, a faith that expertise in one domain can be transferred seamlessly to another and a preference for rapid, flashy, high-profile action. But what got the kids and their coach out of the cave was a different model: a slower, more methodical, more narrowly specialized approach to problems, one that has turned many risky enterprises into safe endeavors—commercial airline travel, for example, or rock climbing, both of which have extensive protocols and safety procedures that have taken years to develop.
This ‘safety culture’ model is neither stilted nor uncreative. On the contrary, deep expertise, lengthy training and the ability to learn from experience (and to incorporate the lessons of those experiences into future practices) is a valuable form of ingenuity.
There are also some big lessons for Silicon Valley itself, lessons that might help explain some of the problems Musk has been having with his own company, the electric car maker Tesla.
1. Sometimes, Established Experts Actually Know Something
People who are experts in a specialized field—like, say, cave-diving—generally are not idiots and don’t need a Silicon Valley guy to come swooping in to say, “Well, actually, here’s how you really do it.” In fact, a big emerging story from the cave rescue is the crucial decision of Thai officials to hand control to a team of foreign cave divers after one of their Navy SEALs died during part of the rescue mission.
Even highly trained SEALs don’t know all of the challenges specific to the dangerous specialty of diving in caves, where oxygen supplies have to be managed with extra care because it is impossible to surface if anything goes wrong. The rescue wouldn’t have succeeded if not for a small group of enthusiasts who spent many years developing this expertise.
As one of the divers explained, “We were just using a very unique skill set, which we normally use for our own interests.” (This was his case for why they are not heroes. It didn’t find it convincing.)
Similarly, there are people out in the world whose “unique skill set” is building factories to produce large numbers of automobiles. The consequences of this expertise are not life and death for individuals, but they can be life and death for companies, and these experts have learned from decades of experience, failed experiments, and intense competition.
So sailing in with a plan to build a super-automated car factory that will make everybody else obsolete? It’s probably not going to work, as Musk has discovered at Tesla, where his “automated” factory now employs more people to make fewer cars than when it was owned by Toyota.
2. There’s a Reason People Stick with the Tried and True
Too much of Silicon Valley has grown up in the era of the app economy, where innovation takes less detailed knowledge (because there is no established way of doing anything to begin with), and most of all where the stakes are relatively low.
Your app fails, and your customer is out a few dollars and just switches to a competitor’s app. In the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley, where start-ups are expected to fail and there’s little lasting stigma, you can just move on to the next long-shot idea.
But in high-stakes situations, people want to use technology that is known and proven in tens of thousands of hours of use, not something you bodged together in two days and tested in a swimming pool. They’re not going to use it, because they’re specialists with a lot of experience, and this is outside their experience. They don’t know if it will go wrong or how to fix it when it does.
In an emergency, when someone’s life is on the line and they’re already pushing things beyond the normal limits, taking on your untested invention is just too great a risk. The Thai rescuers would have had to be very desperate to even consider using it.
Emergencies are not the only high-stakes situation. The other is putting a roof on a house, where you’re asking the homeowner to spend tens of thousands of dollars to safeguard the value of the entire house. Are you going to be excited to use Tesla’s shiny new solar roof tiles? Probably not.
Musk might make a lot of claims about how tough they are and how long a warranty he’s going to offer on them. But people in the building industry want to know how the product has lasted in actual use for over 30 years. They want to know how long it will be before Musk’s laminated glass tiles develop fine hairline cracks and leak, causing angry homeowners to call them up and demand a repair. They want to know if his money-losing company is still going to be around ten years from now when it’s time to make good on the warranty.
I remember watching a plumber remove a tankless water heater—they were all the rage about 15 years ago—only to discover that it was warrantied by a company that had gone out of business when the fad didn’t last. That happens to you once, and you’re going to be leery about jumping on the next bandwagon. Better off going with the cheaper asphalt shingles that you’ve been using with no problem for decades.
3. Publicity Is Less Important than Results
Getting lots of positive publicity and commanding the loyalty of an army of online fanboys is not as important as actually getting the job done. When Musk was posting videos of his makeshift tiny submarine, he got lots of positive feedback from people who had never heard of Vern Unsworth, or Rick Stanton, or John Volanthen, or any of the other divers—but these were the men who were actually pulling boys out of the caves.
Similarly, how many people know who George Mitchell is? Hint: he is the “father of fracking.” He never had a Twitter account and doesn’t get glowing profiles in the tech media, but he has done more than anyone else—far more than Musk—to revolutionize energy technology (and even to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, if you care about that sort of thing).
This leads us to the last, most obvious lesson.
4. Fighting On Twitter Is Not the Best Way to Run Anything
That’s a lesson with a wide application outside Silicon Valley. Let’s just say there is more than one very stable genius who needs to put down his phone and pay more attention to his job.