Ever since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency, curbing climate change has been a fundamental component of his energy policy agenda.

During the spring, for example, the Biden administration issued a power plant rule­­, imposing strict emissions reductions regarding the use of fossil-fuel power plants. There have been many other rules proposed as well, including regulating cars, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, and even microwaves.

All of these rules are predicated on concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, then curbing the use of sources of energy that emit them (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should in theory curb these increases in global temperature.

However, lawmakers often present policies aimed at curbing climate change only in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. For example, the recent rule the Biden administration issued on electric vehicles claims it will reduce greenhouse gases by 7.2 billion tons through 2055.

This figure sounds large, but it’s surprisingly deceptive: A key unanswered question is the actual temperature impact of these and other related policies.

The predicted temperature impact of these and other policies hinges on a number of assumptions that affect our ever-changing climate.

That’s why we have created The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator, an online tool that enables the public to change some of the assumptions to simulate the climate effects of these policies to reduce carbon emissions.

Facebook’s censorship is totally out of hand, and their “independent and nonpartisan fact checks” are anything but. Now they are censoring “Climate: The Movie.” The supposed “fact checks” provided by Science Feedback and Climate Feedback (they are two branches of the same organization) have been shown many times to be both partisan and ideologically driven. The “fact check” of Steve Koonin’s bestselling book Unsettled done by Climate Feedback was blisteringly criticized by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in a lead editorial by the WSJ editorial staff.

The editorial includes the following:

“Mr. Koonin, whose careful book draws extensively on existing scholarship, may respond on the merits in a different forum. Suffice it to say here that many of the ‘fact check’ claims relied on by Facebook don’t contradict the underlying material, but instead argue with its perceived implications.

The fact-check attacks Mr. Koonin’s book for saying the “net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” Minimal is in the eyes of the beholder, but the U.S. National Climate Assessment predicted America’s climate costs in 2090 at about $500 billion per year—a fraction of the recent Covid stimulus in an economy that could be four times as large.

The fact-check on the statement that ‘global crop yields are rising, not falling’ retorts that ‘while global crop yields are rising, this does not constitute evidence that climate change is not adversely affecting agriculture.’ OK, but that’s an argument, not a fact-check. …

Climate Feedback’s comment on a line from the review about ‘the number and severity of droughts’ does not identify any falsehood, but instead claims, “it doesn’t really make sense to make blanket statements regarding overall global drought trends.’ Maybe it doesn’t make sense for Facebook to restrict the reach of legitimate scientific argument and competing interpretations of data.”

WSJ, May 7, 2021. //

Science Feedback looks at the same data and facts that the movie examines and draws different conclusions than the eminent scientists in the movie. They have a different opinion than the experts in the movie. That does not mean the scientists in the movie are factually incorrect. Look at the data yourself, support for all 70 serious scientific claims made in the movie can be found here for those that want to see more.

By Andy May

Wow! Our new paper “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,” in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology has struck a nerve, judging by the traffic about it on twitter. An anonymous twitter troll who calls himself “Bonus @TheDisproof” has published what he (or she) calls a list of errors in our paper that is getting a lot of views and likes from the usual alarmist suspects, some of whom are probably actually people as opposed to “bots.” One person who has reposted the “Bonus” critique is Michael Mann. Michael Mann says, “This article is a Crok.” I don’t think he was complementing my co-author Marcel Crok, but then Mann is well known for crude and juvenile remarks. Mann might still remember Marcel for his 2005 award-winning article about Mann’s notorious hockey stick graph. Marcel was the first who wrote extensively about the critique of McIntyre and McKitrick on this graph. //

The anonymous “Bonus” somehow created quite a stir on twitter, yet we don’t know who he or she is, could be a twelve-year-old with his mother’s phone for all we know. Bonus cites very few peer-reviewed articles and when he does, he often gets them wrong as in the Rosenthal article mix up discussed above. Yet, Michael Mann cites him in twitter, which gives you an idea about Mann’s academic integrity.

None of Bonus’s claims are true or supportable. Beware of what you read from anonymous sources. Bonus’s critique is a biased and emotional screed with no merit.

By Andy May

Tinus Pulles critique of our paper begins by admitting that, at present there are no adverse effects from climate change, but that we ignored possible future climate change effects. This was deliberate, as we wanted to deal only with established and observed facts and data. Climate model projections of the effects of climate change are highly speculative because the climate change models they use as input are incorrect and project too much warming as documented in the paper and in AR6 (McKitrick & Christy, 2018), (McKitrick & Christy, 2020), and (IPCC, 2021). I do not think there is any need to respond to projections from the critique. //

Pulles acknowledges that AR6 shows that present levels of global warming are moderate, but claims experts project that that will not be the case in the future. The IPCC’s AR6 admits that their models run too hot, and that the AR6 models are worse relative to observations than the AR5 (2013) models were. Their models are getting worse with time, so their projections should not be believed. When new versions of a model get worse, it is a sure sign that the premises the models are based upon are wrong (see here and here). //

I see nothing in this critique that invalidates anything in our paper, but feel free to read Pulles comments and decide for yourself.

In 2018, a study of aerial photos of 700 Pacific Islands showed that 89% were the same size or growing. This rather destroyed the idea that sea levels were swallowing small nations. The New York Times said nothing. Indeed, the only Pacific things shrinking were deserted sand drifts. No islands bigger than 10 hectares were getting smaller. Measured in square kilometers that’s “0.1”. Despite the media headlines and delegations from Kiribati and Tuvulu begging for money to hold back the tide, no islands with people living on them were shrinking. None, not one island in the Pacific big enough to matter, was disappearing. The largest 630 islands in the Pacific were had not being touched by climate change for decades.

In 2023 another study of 1,100 islands came to the same conclusion. To find that many islands they included things as small as one thousandth of a square kilometer — we’re talking about spits of sand 10 meters square. (There are whales larger than that.) //

They’re still not asking the sea level experts any hard questions, like, why didn’t you tell us this before, since we’ve had satellites since 1979? Didn’t you notice?

They’re not wondering if the UN knew this years ago and did nothing to inform the world.

The Times doesn’t question the sacred cow of rising sea levels — are the estimates of annual sea level rise really accurate? I mean, if no islands are disappearing, could those satellite estimates be wrong? Why do 1,000 tide gauges show seas are rising only 1mm a year, whereas the satellites say it’s 3mm a year? Is that because the satellite data was calibrated to a falling tide gauge in Hong Kong? Is it true that the raw satellite data showed very little rise in the 1990s, and that a lot of the rise is due to man-made adjustments?

There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems

Andy May, Marcel Crok
First published: 29 May 2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12579

Abstract

Prior to the mid-19th century, Earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age. Since then, temperatures have on average trended upward. At the same time, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased, and the interest of scientists has turned to consider the extent of the relative contributions of anthropogenic CO2 and natural forces to warming.

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II (WGII) claims that human-caused climate change or global warming is dangerous. According to the report, “Human-induced climate change … has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability. … The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt (high confidence)” (IPCC, 2022a, p. 9).

The AR6 WGI and WGII reports measure climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850. The period before these dates is commonly referred to as the “pre-industrial period.” The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. Arguably today's climate is better than then, not worse.

None-the-less, the IPCC claims that extreme weather events are worse now than in the past, however observations do not support this. Some extreme weather events, such as the land area under extreme drought (Lomborg, 2020), is decreasing, not increasing. Globally the incidence of hurricanes shows no significant trend (IPCC, 2013, p. 216; Lomborg, 2020).

Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

the question becomes, "Is this critical enough to require actions that will badly damage the global economy and make life harder and more expensive for most of the population?"

Well, a recent peer-reviewed paper released in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology looked at the issue. Their answer? No.

The journal is the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article title is perfectly clear: “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems”.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12579

“Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.”

The authors are Andy May and Marcel Crok and as the first parenthetical reference above indicates they are building on prior work. Their 53 References are not paywalled and quite interesting. //

The primary arguments in this study are not scientific but rather economic, and they are good ones; the final section reads in part:

Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor. Should we do nothing? If so, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget projects that three degrees of global warming will cause a decline of <1% in U.S. GDP. Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by <.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time. Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice? //

This paper, although it looks very good from what is available for us to view, isn't the be-all and end-all. It's not a magic bullet that will end the debate. It's based on economic arguments, with an eye on data over the history of the planet's climate. But it's a good argument, another arrow in the quiver of those of us who contend with the climate scolds who daily try to legislate and regulate us back to the 19th century. And that makes it worth the effort. //

Musicman
17 minutes ago
Ask anyone you know what an ice age is. I can almost guarantee they'll something about 10,000 years ago when glaciers were as far South as where St. Louis is today. But guess what: the definition of an ice age is any time there are glaciers on the poles. Aha. We are now IN an ice age. The current ice age PEAKED 10,000 years ago. And why is there a special name for it? Because it's abby-normal. Since the Cambrian explosion (of life forms) some 541 million years ago, the earth has been in ice ages about 25% of the time. That means the normal state of planet earth is NO ICE ON THE POLES!!! The idea we will die if the polar ice caps melts is absurd. It does men dislocation, rising oceans, etc. The earth is constantly changing. Even if the current warming was caused by burning fossil fuels, it makes no difference. The earth will warm up eventually one way or another. And humans need to be prepared for that and for the ice peaking again and creating another 10,000 lakes in Minnesota. //

media is corrupt
an hour ago
The amount of CO2 is 420ppm (parts per million). That translates to .042% of the total atmosphere. It is literally a drop in a pool. We went from 280ppm to 420ppm in roughly 120-100 years and that, my friends, is the freak-out. However, as Al Gore accidentally showed, CO2 is a trailing indicator of heat. When the Earth warms, CO2 goes up with temps. NATURE.

The Earth has had 2%, 4% and more CO2 in the past (geologic history) and there was NO greenhouse effect that boiled the atmosphere and destroyed the Earth for all life. There is absolutely no evidence of that ever happening. There is, however, documented evidence of life exploding on Earth. Abundant life and new species with heat and relatively high levels of CO2. What the atmosphere does do is rebound. It self-corrects. Frankly, .042% CO2 is NOT going to hurt anything. Even if it went up to .08% or .12%, that would do NOTHING but supply more food for plants, which (in turn) would increase crop yields resulting in more food for ourselves.

We have been duped to think that CO2 is a danger to us all. The opposite is true. CO2 is life-giving. If plants could protest our efforts to curb CO2, they would. It's their food. If CO2 dropped below .018%, plant life would begin to die. That would be a true climate emergency because it would cause mass starvation for all life on Earth. One could actually conclude that CO2 is currently TOO LOW. Over the last 650 million years, the levels of CO2 have been well over 1% for the vast majority of the time. Thus, .042% is LOW and yet again the media has been pushing lies about this since Dan Rather kicked-off the hysteria 42 years ago (42 years of no change).

Go check out co2coalition(dot)org. I pray for the day when people wake up and realize they've been lead astray by a bunch of cry wolf dip sticks.

"It's hard to communicate how unbelievable this is." //

Officially, of course, the Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1, But most years, the tropics remain fairly sleepy for the first month or two, allowing coastal residents to ease into the season.

Yes, a tropical storm might form here or a modest hurricane there. But the really big and powerful hurricanes, which develop from tropical waves in the central Atlantic and roar into the Caribbean Sea, do not spin up until August or September when seas reach their peak temperatures.

Not so this year, in which the Atlantic Ocean is boiling already. The seas in the main development region of the Atlantic have already reached temperatures not normally seen until August or September. This has led to the rapid intensification of Hurricane Beryl, which crashed through the Windward Islands on Monday and is now traversing the Caribbean Sea toward Jamaica.

Beryl is, to put it mildly, a freak storm.

It intensified on Monday night into a Category 5 hurricane, with sustained winds of 165 mph. Like other meteorologists, I had to check my calendar to verify that it really just was the first day of July. Remember, we're still in the traditionally "sleepy" part of hurricane season. Prior to Beryl, in more than a century of hurricane records, the earliest a Category 5 hurricane has ever developed in the Atlantic was July 16. That was Hurricane Emily, in 2005, the notorious hurricane season that delivered Katrina to New Orleans about a month later. //

For this year, forecasters have been consistently predicting a hyperactive season due to the combination of roasting sea surface temperatures and the onset of La Niña during the critical months of August, September, and October. That forecast seems to be right on track and will be of concern to all coastal residents in the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands. If Beryl is smashing records from 2005 and 1933 already, we're in "this is fine" territory.

On January 15th, 2022, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga Tonga for short) erupted underwater, in the territory of the Pacific Kingdom of Tonga. Hunga Tonga triggered a tsunami that prompted warnings around the Pacific basin and sent shock waves all around the planet.

Hunga Tonga also, being an undersea eruption, shot about 150 million tonnes (yes, metric, I know) of water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas - much more so than carbon dioxide. //

Note, though, that the impact of Hunga Tonga - 150 million metric tons (that's 165 million or so good American tons) had some measurable effect in northern Australia and may result in milder winters for a few years to come across the northern hemisphere. That doesn't seem like a world-ending catastrophe. //

What does Hunga Tonga tell us? That everything that happens has an effect, but also that there's no reason to panic and, essentially, throw away our modern, technological lifestyle. A volcano's output makes us feel pretty puny, and well it should. But the Earth abides, its cycles can't be easily altered, and right now we're in a warming trend coming out of the Wisconsonian glaciation, which peaked about 20,000 years ago. Before that glaciation was the Sangamonian Interglacial, which began about 125,000 years ago and during which the Earth was, again, warmer than now; in fact, the Sangamonian would have been a pretty pleasant time to live in. //

Humans have done amazing things to clean up the planet since I was young. There's more we could do - nuclear power, for instance - but the bleating of the climate scolds should be disregarded. Calmer heads should prevail. Hunga Tonga is a lesson in that. We can have both - clean air and water, a decent climate, and a modern, technological society powered by abundant, reliable, and cheap energy. And bear in mind, the climate scolds seem little concerned about their own effect. They will retain their private jets, their yachts, and their filet mignon with spotted owl appetizers. It’s not the climate they are pushing for – it’s power, the power to control what the hoi polloi say and do, and that’s for sure and for certain.

Did the massive scale of death in the Americas following colonial contact in the 1500s affect atmospheric CO2 levels? That’s a question scientists have debated over the last 30 years, ever since they noticed a sharp drop in CO2 around the year 1610 in air preserved in Antarctic ice.

That drop in atmospheric CO2 levels is the only significant decline in recent millennia, and scientists suggested that it was caused by reforestation in the Americas, which resulted from their depopulation via pandemics unleashed by early European contact. It is so distinct that it was proposed as a candidate for the marker of the beginning of a new geological epoch—the “Anthropocene.”

But the record from that ice core, taken at Law Dome in East Antarctica, shows that CO2 starts declining a bit late to match European contact, and it plummets over just 90 years, which is too drastic for feasible rates of vegetation regrowth. A different ice core, drilled in the West Antarctic, showed a more gradual decline starting earlier, but lacked the fine detail of the Law Dome ice.

Which one was right? Beyond the historical interest, it matters because it is a real-world, continent-scale test of reforestation’s effectiveness at removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

In a recent study, Amy King of the British Antarctic Survey and colleagues set out to test if the Law Dome data is a true reflection of atmospheric CO2 decline, using a new ice core drilled on the “Skytrain Ice Rise” in West Antarctica. //

Scientists estimate that about 60 million people inhabited the Americas before European contact. There’s archaeological evidence for numerous cities and settlements, such as miles of now-overgrown urban sprawl that was recently mapped in Amazonian Ecuador, or the city of Cahokia in Illinois, which is estimated to have been larger than London was at that time, or Llanos de Mojos in Bolivia. The Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana also described seeing cities in the Amazon in 1542.

Even today in overgrown parts of the Amazon, vegetation carries the imprint of past occupation in an overabundance of cultivated species such as Brazil Nut trees.

A century after the first European contact, some 56 million people had died according to one widely cited estimate. “What we're looking at here is first contact, and [then] 100 years when 90 percent of the population, basically, dies,” said Professor Mark Maslin of University College London, who was not involved in King’s study. They succumbed to wave after wave of pandemics, as smallpox, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, malaria, diphtheria, typhus, and cholera spread through populations with no natural immunity. People who survived one disease outbreak died in the next. With too few people to work them, cities and farms were abandoned and overgrown. //

Wheels Of Confusion Ars Legatus Legionis
15y
65,758
Subscriptor

Magog14 said:
A strong argument for limiting the human population to under one billion.

We're talking a drop of ~10ppm CO2.

If it happened today it would get us roughly back to where we were in the year 2010.

swiftdraw said:
I have a modest proposal in regards to the population…
Then we must act Swiftly! //

Ushio Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
13y
6,642
Felix K said:
I can’t believe how much death and destruction my ancestors unleashed on the natives of the Americas. It must be the greatest genocide in history.

Not really sure what to do with the feelings it brings up except that none of this land is ours. It is all stolen.
Was it a genocide when it was accidental? The first people from Europe to land in the America's didn't set out to genocide anyone. Yes conquering and killing but when it was done in Asia and Africa there wasn't genocide.

Genocide's seem to be more a 19th century onwards thing with Native Americans and Aboriginals getting the worst of it long after the USA, Australia and New Zealand had been fully formed. //

A_Very_Tired_Geek Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
1,290

freitzkreisler said:
Egad <Racist Rant Lacking evidence or merit and doesn't bear repeating>

Could you be any more trollish or racist?

Native Americans were humans, and none of them were these 'heathen savages' that Eurocentric arrogance saw them as. They engaged in warfare just like the rest of the world. But what you're going off on is demonstrably untrue while the rest is bigoted unsupportable opinion. Spiritually inferior? Seriously this is BS I'd hear spouted in some throwback fundamentalist Christian church (and why I became an atheist because I unfortunately grew up in such).

The fact of the matter is that Native Americans taught the European immigrants how to grow native crops in this land because many of their European techniques, plants, and livestock wouldn't work or grow here without changes. It's to the world's detriment that Europeans weren't more receptive to what they had to teach because slash and burn along with hunting species to extinction is mainly a European thing. Most of the modern agricultural advances used today are NOT from the colonial era. They are innovations that came out of America's Dust Bowl during the Great Depression (arguably caused by colonial era practices) while some are revivals of tenants of Native American or Aboriginal practices - don't screw with the natural order. (Who knew predators improves the general ecology of an area? Native Americans. Who knew beavers improved the soil and water quality on farm lands? Native Americans. And on and on...) //

A_Very_Tired_Geek Ars Scholae Palatinae
5y
1,290

Mad Klingon said:
Besides reforestation, having 10s of millions of people die and stop using firewood and coal for cooking and heating probably had something to do with the CO2 drop.

Also, several of the groups practiced planned burns as part of their crop and living space management. When they died off, no more planed burns.

The planned burns were more to keep nature from doing it for them when the underbrush collected to the point where it could begin with any random dry lightning strike. Native peoples weren't stupid. People died from uncontrolled wildfires then as now. Planned burns minimizes the loss of life in the short and long term. That way they could plan to move their village if needed. Wildfires could come up unannounced. That could cause panic and panicky people die in fires.

Edit to add: I don't think the planned burns were a major factor in CO2. They would have occurred naturally regardless and in greater range and intensity. Rather it's probably somewhat (although how much I wouldn't guess) CO2 from cooking, midden, and perhaps to a lesser extent religious rites fires.

That said, what bothers me is that the researchers seem to be assuming the CO2 content in the atmosphere is uniform, and it's not. It would have varied even in Antarctica in different areas simply due to atmospheric movements and what those areas are downwind from even if it's 10,000 mi downwind. (Example Dust from the Sahara regularly blows all the way to North America. Or the Deccan traps would have spewed megatons of sulfur into the air millions of years ago, but particularly any areas directly downwind on the jet streams would have had high sulfur oxides, carbon oxides, etc in any sediment layers.) It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that CO2 levels varies in ice cores. What matters is having enough point data to form valid statistical analysis rather than relying on the data from a handful of point sources as if they are broad indicators. //

This graph shows the number of sunspots seen each year for 400 years (from 1600 to 2000). There were almost no sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. During the Dalton Minimum, there were fewer sunspots than normal. //

The first written record of sunspots was made by Chinese astronomers around 800 B.C. Court astrologers in ancient China and Korea, who believed sunspots foretold important events, kept records off and on of sunspots for hundred of years. An English monk named John of Worcester made the first drawing of sunspots in December 1128. //

It would appear that sunspots not only have a connection to geomagnetic activity at Earth, but they play a role in climate change as well. In the last thousands of years, there have been many periods where there were not many sunspots found on the Sun. The most famous is a period from about 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum. This period corresponds to the middle of a series of exceptionally cold winters throughout Europe known as the Little Ice Age. Scientists still debate whether decreased solar activity helped cause the Little Ice Age, or if the cold snap happen to occur around the same time as the Maunder Minimum. In contrast, a period called the Medieval Maximum, which lasted from 1100 to 1250, apparently had higher levels of sunspots and associated solar activity. This time coincides (at least partially) with a period of warmer climates on Earth called the Medieval Warm Period. Sunspot counts have been higher than usual since around 1900, which has led some scientists to call the time we are in now the Modern Maximum.

Study tracks the past costs of climate events and projects them into the future

In 2023, China really knocked the wind out of the sails (hah) of the renewable-energy crowd. In that year, China built some new coal-fired electrical generation facilities. In fact, they built a lot of coal-fired electrical plants — as in...more than twice that of the rest of the world combined.

China ramped up coal power capacity last year, according to new analysis, despite a pledge to "strictly control" the dirtiest fossil fuel.

The country added 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in 2023, more than double the amount added by the rest of the world combined.

What is the Nenana Ice Classic?

The Ice Classic is Alaska's greatest guessing game!

In Nenana during1917 a group of engineers surveying for the Alaska Railroad bet $800 putting in their guesses when the river would break up. This fun little guessing game has turned into an incredible tradition that has now continued for over 100 years!

Buy and turn in your $3.00 ticket between February 1st and April 5th to be involved in this long running Alaskan tradition.

The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women's rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address "critical gaps" in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial. //

The court's judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could "influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK," the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally. //

In a partly dissenting opinion, ECHR judge Tim Eicke warned that there could be a downside to the ECHR ruling creating "a new right" to “effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change.” Climate litigation attempting to force states to act could end up bogging down government, Eicke said, proving "an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the national and international authorities, both executive and legislative, in that it detracts attention from the ongoing legislative and negotiating efforts being undertaken as we speak to address the—generally accepted—need for urgent action."

Ryan Maue
@RyanMaue
·
Follow
Wow. Guyana's president tells the climatists to shove it.
Anas Alhajji
@anasalhajji
A must watch!

This is my hero!

He is Mohamed Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana.

#Oil #Guyana
Embedded video https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1773813984015127005
4:46 PM · Mar 29, 2024 //

BBC host Stephen Sackur essentially asked him during an interview isn't it a bad thing for you guys to extract $150 billion of oil and gas off your coast because of the carbon emissions that would ultimately be released into the atmosphere?

Ali's response is just pure gold. He stops Sackur cold and then just rips him a new one. //

First, Ali tells him they have a huge forest in Guyana that basically makes them carbon neutral because of how large it is, "a forest we have kept alive."

Sackur says, "Does that give you the right to release all of this carbon...."

Ali interrupts him, "Does that give you right to lecture us on climate change?"

"I will lecture YOU on climate change!" he said, pointing his finger at Sackur. Then he ripped him to pieces, using their own terms on him.

"Because we have kept this forest alive, that stores 90.5 gigatons of carbon. That you enjoy. That the world enjoys. That you don't pay us for...That you don't see a value in...Guess what? We have the lowest deforestation rate in the world." He said even with the greatest amount they could extract, they would still be "net zero." //

There was a little bit more that didn't make the above clip, where Ali explained the importance of paying for the development of the country.

Sackur complained that Greenpeace said the world needs to keep the majority of the world’s remaining fossil fuels in the ground.

But Ali was not having it.

“You just said that we are 6-feet below sea level. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? Who is going to pay for the drainage and irrigation? Who is going to pay for the development and advancement of our country?” The President questioned. //

anon-pabn
a minute ago
That is perfect. We need to shame these climate alarmist, hypocrites. Set aside the current arguments, they are telling little Guyana not to drill after the rest of the world has drilled and prospered because of it. What balz! Drill, Baby, Drill. And congrats on your forest....better than any other countries efforts

The goal of the proposed “Nature Restoration Plan” is….Climate Neutrality by 2050. //

The last time I checked on the European farmers’ protests, it had appeared the continent-wide demonstrations made an impact, as the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, nixed some of its unrealistic green plans for a global utopia. Gone, for example, are rules to force the reduction of nitrogen (essential for fertilizers) and methane (generated by cattle) and plans to persuade European citizens to eat less meat.

The demonstrations have continued, and now a major European Union climate change plan for the 27-nation bloc has been postponed…indefinitely. //

What would “climate neutrality” even look like? Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history has examples of significant changes to the global climate, the vast majority occurring before the first hominid walked on the planet. //

The original environmental agency’s mission of reducing needless pollution is a reasonably achievable goal.

“Climate neutrality” is a faith-based quest that misuses science, creates cult-like behaviors, and generates destructive policies.

We all want a future where humans can thrive in a clean environment. But as the eye-opening documentary “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth” reveals, while we hear dire warnings that we must rapidly eliminate fossil fuels to avoid a climate catastrophe, we are manufacturing a humanitarian crisis of our own.

https://youtu.be/zmfRG8-RHEI //

Wealthy countries built their economic resilience on coal, oil, and gas. Denying the same benefit to poor countries for the sake of hypothetical climate risk is immoral.

As Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser bluntly puts it, “It’s all a crock of crap.”

The documentary shows that the goal of energy policy should be to provide clean, reliable, and resilient power to raise standards of living, both in America and overseas.

That means maintaining an energy mix that can handle nature’s curveballs. It means maximizing our options, not banning entire categories of energy the world still needs. But as environmentalists seek to ban fossil fuels, they are raising the price of electricity for some and depriving others in emerging economies of that valuable resource.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/colonization-antarctica-ice

Correlation does not equal causation, and King is leaning on correlation and, worse, inference. Ice cores can, yes, provide some interesting data on CO2 ratios and, very broadly, trends in temperature. But that's quite a lateral arabesque to go from "CO2 ratios changing," which has happened continually since the Earth formed, and "CO2 ratios changing due to human activity," which to my modest scientific background can't be concluded from the data presented here.

Science is supposed to be data-driven. If one's data doesn't support the hypothesis, one changes the hypothesis and then it's back to the drawing board. This article - not a peer-reviewed journal article, but a consumer piece for popular consumption - makes a lot of logical leaps that the data and the original study just don't appear to support.