Tag: climategate

Recent calculations by the distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C. Even assuming the climate modelled feedbacks and temperature opinions of the politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the rise would be only 0.28°C. Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth. “It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists.

In the U.K., the current General Election is almost certain to be won by a party that is committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons. The Labour party will attempt to ‘decarbonise’ the electricity grid by the end of the decade without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas. Britain is sitting on huge reserves of hydrocarbons but new exploration is to be banned. It is hard to think of a more ruinous energy policy, but the Conservative governing party is little better. Led by the hapless May, a woman over-promoted since her time running the education committee on Merton Council, through to Buffo Boris and Washed-Out Rishi, its leaders have drunk the eco Kool-Aid fed to them by the likes of Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion and the Swedish Doom Goblin. Adding to the mix in the new Parliament will be a likely 200 new ‘Labour’ recruits with university degrees in buggerallology and CVs full of parasitical non-jobs in the public sector.

Hardly any science knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO₂ – perfectly good plant fertiliser – and bury it in the ground. As a privileged, largely middle class group, they have net zero understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages. All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.

They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wild flowers where food once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion cars and stop granny visiting her grandchildren in the United States. On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilisers, plastics and cleaning products. It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than produce one where they are present. Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.

Keep reading

The financialisation of nature’s resources as an asset class in South East Asia has several manifestations, including carbon credits, green bonds, and other initiatives that promote so called “sustainable development and environmental conservation.” Within the altruistic trappings of tapping into humanity’s desire to “save the planet” and for the perpetual quest to attain “the greater good” mythos, this dystopian road paved with green gold, is nothing short of a giant Ponzi scheme. It is a system of tyrannical control over (complicit) corporations and (unwilling?) citizens, whom shall be herded into a system of carbon tax, carbon credits, lifestyle choice curtailment, and ultimately, deprivation and despair.

Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin wrote:

In a 2023 article, Lockton’s head of Digital Integration and Special Projects, David Briscoe, wrote that making carbon credits “a stable and trusted currency” would “require the support of the insurance market.” This is because, as Briscoe notes, “voluntary” carbon markets come with risks, particularly because “of the financial values involved.” Per Briscoe, these risks include “non- or under-delivery of forward purchased carbon removal credits,” “start-ups involved in the voluntary carbon market may face insolvency risks,” and “fraud and negligence.” Indeed, mismanagement and fraud has been a major driver of why carbon markets have failed to catch on despite relentless promotion and the adoption of ESG and climate change plans by many of the most powerful names in finance and industry. Instead of addressing the rampant fraud in carbon credits directly, it appears that the high probability of fraud and insolvency has been seen as an opportunity to create a new market for the insurance industry, with carbon credit insurance being framed as the only “feasible” means of de-risking the fraud-prone world of carbon markets, which have been criticized by environmental groups and have been shown to have a negligible impact on climate.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been exploring the creation of a regional carbon market to facilitate the trading of carbon credits among member states. This initiative aims claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development, and generate revenue for participating countries. The ASEAN Carbon Market would allow companies to purchase carbon credits from other companies within the region, incentivizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the use of renewable energy sources.

Keep reading

While in France observing the 80th anniversary of D-Day and honoring the thousands of brave soldiers who gave their lives fighting the existential threat that was Nazi Germany, President Joe Biden could not help himself from descending into crass political talking points by comparing the most destructive and deadly war in human history to climate change.

“The only existential threat to humanity, including nuclear weapons, is if we do nothing on climate change,” Biden declared. Due to the “existential threat of climate change, which is just growing greater, we’re working together to accelerate the global transition to net-zero. It is the existential threat to humanity,” Biden reiterated.

In reality, climate change is nowhere near an existential threat. In fact, in many ways, the slight warming that has occurred over the past half century or so has made life better for humanity. For instance, NASA satellite data show a significant rise in global plant growth in recent decades — what some call global greening. A slightly warmer planet is also beneficial because it produces greater crop yields.

However, one can make a compelling argument that climate alarmism, and the policies that climate alarmists support, actually comprise an existential threat to humanity.

First and foremost, climate alarmists are hellbent on ending the use of affordable and reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels. This alone is a horrendous stance that puts millions of lives at risk.

Like it or not, the advent of fossil fuels, namely oil, coal, and natural gas, has been the biggest boon for humanity in all of history. The harnessing of these resources to supply virtually unlimited energy in cost-effective terms has raised billions of people from abject poverty.

Without ample access to fossil fuels, our modern way of life would literally cease to exist. Not only do fossil fuels provide abundant and affordable energy. As the U.S. Department of Energy notes, “Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices possible.”

Second, climate alarmists demand that the world immediately transitions to so-called renewable energy and achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is that renewable energy from solar panels and wind farms is too expensive, unreliable, and not nearly scalable. If the world were to shun fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar, the amount of energy available to use would plummet. This would result in devastation across many fronts.

Third, climate alarmists constantly call for degrowth, both in terms of the economy and in terms of population. Somehow, the climate alarmists have convinced themselves that the solution to the nonexistent problem of a slightly warming planet is for humanity to cull its population growth. This is extremely short-sighted and fails to consider that many developed countries are currently experiencing a stark population decline. If this is not reversed, and soon, many of these once-thriving nations will experience severe demographic problems.

Keep reading

An assumption made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in its most recent report is that the warming caused by the increase in long-wave back radiation was due solely to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

The IPCC attributes 100% of the warming to this effect and justifies this with model calculations.  However, a study published in 2021 proved this to be incorrect.

The analysis of the measured data by Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt showed that the warming due to the decrease of short-wave radiation and the increase in long-wave radiation is mainly attributable to the cloud effect.

“The direct aerosol effect is rather small, but the indirect effect via the cloud formation may be larger,” the researchers noted in their peer-reviewed paper.

The two researchers investigated the Earth’s radiation balance over the last 20 years in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Atmosphere in September 2021. The study titled ‘Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 – 2020’ brought to light that the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation. The authors came to this clear conclusion after evaluating the CERES radiation data.

“The warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by change in the clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect,” they said.

Adding, “The time span of 20 years is still too short to be able to decide conclusively whether the current heating phase is a temporary or permanent development. In the former case, climate forecasts will have to be fundamentally revised.”

The study is technical and difficult for a layman to understand.  However, Vahrenholt and Dübal explained what it all means in an article which you can read HERE.  Dr. Joseph Fourier recently highlighted the study’s findings on LinkedIn.  

Keep reading

We hear it over and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to warming will soon lead to a collapse of the AMOC, making it difficult for it to “restart”.

The salt content in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools down and sinks due to the higher salt content, which is the “pump” that makes circulation possible in the first place. It also transports very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic.

Scenarios  have been published that calculate a drastic cooling of the greater area (especially Europe) around it if the AMOC is “switched off”. The “Day after Tomorrow” scenario.

A more recent summary of these “tipping point” assumptions comes from Prof. Rahmstorf. It refers to reconstructed phases of such collapses, especially during “Heinrich Events” in the last ice age. At that time, large quantities of icebergs advanced far to the south, where they melted and thus probably brought the AMOC to a standstill through sweetening.

New paper finds no alarm

A completely new paper sheds light on these events in detail and reconstructs the freshwater inputs very precisely. A very detailed discussion can be found here.

Keep reading