Politics

The Biden Administration Has Swallowed the “Climate Kool-Aid”

The Biden administration thinks they can stop global warming (aka climate change) by eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and switching electrical generation to wind and solar installations. Biden says “follow the science.” If he did follow the science he would realize that there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature (see posts at the end of this article).

Biden wants 80% hydrocarbon-free electricity generation by 2030, 100% by 2035 and elimination of fossil fuels from all sectors of the U.S. economy by 2050.

According to Paul Driessen (senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow), “ this would send the nation’s annual electricity requirement soaring from about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (the fossil fuel portion of total U.S. electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh per year by 2050. Substantial additional generation would be required to constantly recharge backup batteries for windless, sunless days, to safeguard society against blackouts, cyberattacks and wholesale collapse. Generating all that electricity without new nuclear and hydroelectric plants would require tens of thousands of 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines, hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of somewhat smaller onshore turbines, and billions of photovoltaic solar panels. All these turbines, panels, batteries and power lines would require tens of billions of tons of non-renewable iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements, plastics, limestone and other materials. That would necessitate mining, crushing, processing, refining and transporting tens of billions of tons of ores – from thousands of mines and quarries, using gigantic gasoline and diesel equipment – followed by smelting and manufacturing, all with fossil fuels. None of this is clean, green or sustainable.”

So, how is “global warming” doing. We can consult with Dr. Roy Spencer who manages the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. This satellite system measures global atmospheric temperature daily. The latest results are seen here:

You should notice that global atmospheric temperatures in April, May, and June, 2021, were below the 1991-2020 average and similar to temperatures in 1983. According to the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 340ppm in 1983 versus about 418ppm now. Although there has been deviation from the average due to things like the El Nino-La Nina cycles, there has not been any overall warming in spite of the increase in carbon dioxide.

Biden and other climate alarmists have swallowed the climate “Kool-Aid” and claim that reducing just one, small, insignificant factor will be the panacea in controlling global temperature, but it’s not that simple:

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter,Third Assessment Report, IPCC 2000.

While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living. The greatest danger of climate change is that politicians think they can stop it. But the climate has always been in a state of flux. In my opinion, the debate over global warming is truly a scam designed to control (and tax) production and use of energy from fossil fuels.

The alleged “climate crisis” is just a scam perpetrated for political gain.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

(Note to younger readers: The term “Kool-Aid” used in this context refers to cult leader Jim Jones who, on November 18, 1978, instructed all members living in the Jonestown, Guyana compound to commit an act of “revolutionary suicide,” by drinking poisoned punch. Link )

For the real science, see these articles from my blog:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

President Biden’s Agenda Will Have Adverse Consequences

A View from an Arizona Rancher:

by Jim Chilton, an Arizona Rancher and Chairman of Pima Natural Resource Conservation District

In my opinion, President Biden’s Executive Orders and policies will result in more federal regulations and actions impacting Pima Natural Resource Conservation District farmers, ranchers and other resource users. The following are three examples of President Biden’s anti-production initiatives:

The Biden 30 by 30 project advocates that 30% of the nation’s land be “protected” by 2030. Does the Biden policy mean additional government land purchases, new wilderness designations or just control of private and public property through forceful regulation by multiple government agencies? It is probable that all of the above will adversely affect production on private and federal land. Ranchers and farmers have traditionally been conservation leaders; however, there is a danger that the 30 by 30 environmental agenda will promote further moving the Nation, which was founded on private property principles, to an administrative state.

Expansion of the Endangered Species Act. Animal and plant endangered listings can adversely impact farmers’ and ranchers’ future productivity and sustainability. New species listings and the naming of critical habitat have in the past harmfully impacted farmers and ranchers on private, state and federal land. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s new listing process and changes in rules and regulations must be carefully monitored.

Rewriting the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to expand federal jurisdiction over land use will undeniably cause some farmers, ranchers, miners and other landowners a problem.

The current Navigable Waters Protection Rule recognizes that, in our area, a significant nexus with the navigable Colorado River does not exist. Very infrequent Altar Valley Wash and Santa Cruz River flood water spreads out and disappears in the flats south of Eloy approximately 68 miles distant from any possible confluence with the generally dry Gila River and about 150 miles more from the Colorado River.

In reality, Pima Natural Resource Conservation District lands do not have a “significant nexus with a navigable water.” An expansion of the Corps of Engineers’ and EPA’s current regulatory jurisdiction back to the 2015 Rule or beyond can result in limitless control over dry washes and an expansion of federal bureaucracy.

For more information from Jim Chilton see:

Rancher Jim Chilton Has to Police the Border Himself

An Arizona Rancher’s Request of President Biden

Examining the Effect of the Border Wall on Private and Tribal Landowners ☼

See more in the People for the West newsletter for July 2021

To Save Education, Legislators MUST Fund Home Schools

This post by my friend Barney Brenner suggests a solution to our education system. As Barney opines: “The Left is openly flaunting their grip on our kids and has changed education’s three Rs into racism, reparations and revolution.” Below are the first three paragraphs of the article followed by a link the the whole article.

There’s a window of opportunity and realization which is closing on America’s parents and their school-aged kids. For well over a year, families have had video glimpses of the drivel and anti-American evil being foisted in America’s government-run classrooms. They’ve also gotten a feel for what it takes to educate their children at home. But unless they make their move this summer to exercise their authority in deciding where, what and how their kids are taught, this unprecedented chance will likely be lost. 

Despite many parents not believing that they can educate their own kids, those naysayers are not appreciating the fact that all parents are teachers by definition and necessity. Additionally, Proverbs tells us to train our children in the way they should go, and Deuteronomy says we should diligently teach our children. And that wasn’t just the simple ABCs, but the laws of Moses! 

In truth, the biggest problem for most is money, both in the associated costs as well as the possible lost employment involved in staying home. But there’s a simple solution which can mitigate both drawbacks: state funding. There’s no good reason why parents, or even neighborhoods or other organizations, should not be paid well for taking over the government school mission.

Read whole article

An Alternative to Statehood for Washington, D.C.

On April 22, 2021, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a bill paving the way to grant Washington, D.C. statehood. This has long been a Democrat party goal in order to gain two more Democrat Senators. The touted reason for this change is to grant citizens of Washington D.C. the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution established a federal district independent of any state. The Founders established such a federal district because they didn’t want states interfering with the seat of federal government. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to change the situation and that is not likely.

There is a simpler processes to provide residents of the federal district the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states. That is to redraw the boundaries of the federal district which Congress can do. Residential and business areas of the District of Columbia could be ceded back to the state of Maryland. Washington, D.C. residents would then become citizens of Maryland with all the voting and representation rights enjoyed by other citizens of Maryland. Only the two to three square miles that contain federal buildings and the National Mall would remain as an independent federal district. That, of course, would frustrate Democrat goals of power. Perhaps the citizens of Washington, D.C. could take a vote on whether to take this alternative or to remain as is.

Jaguars and more junk science

A new study, published by Cambridge University Press, “A systematic review of potential habitat suitability for the jaguar Panthera onca in central Arizona and New Mexico, USA,” claims that large areas of Arizona and New Mexico may be suitable habitat for wild jaguars.

From the study abstract:

“Here we present a systematic review of the modelling and assessment efforts over the last 25 years, with a focus on areas north of Interstate-10 in Arizona and New Mexico, outside the recovery unit considered by the USFWS. Despite differences in data inputs, methods, and analytical extent, the nine previous studies found support for potential suitable jaguar habitat in the central mountain ranges of Arizona and New Mexico. Applying slightly modified versions of the USFWS model and recalculating an Arizona-focused model over both states provided additional confirmation. Extending the area of consideration also substantially raised the carrying capacity of habitats in Arizona and New Mexico, from six to 90 or 151 adult jaguars, using the modified USFWS models. This review demonstrates the crucial ways in which choosing the extent of analysis influences the conclusions of a conservation plan. More importantly, it opens a new opportunity for jaguar conservation in North America that could help address threats from habitat losses, climate change and border infrastructure.” (Link to full paper)

The study has 17 authors, 14 of which (in my opinion) belong to radical environmental groups.

As stated in the abstract, the researchers did no on-the-ground research, but instead used models to “cherry-pick” previous publications. Reports of this study appeared in the Arizona Republic and in the March 19, 2021 print edition only of the Arizona Daily Star.

This study renews a very controversial topic. My take on the study is that the authors are campaigning for establishment of more critical habitat. Even if larger areas of Arizona and New Mexico could support Jaguar habitat, there is still no reason to formally establish “critical habitat” which would have many bad effects on property rights and natural resource production. The natural habitats in Mexico, Central America, South America are sufficient to provide for the species.

In my previous article on this subject Proposed Jaguar Habitat in Arizona and New Mexico Is Scientifically and Legally Indefensible, I provide a report from the Pima Natural Resource Conservation District (PNRCD): which “shows that the proposal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to designate Critical Habitat for the jaguar under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is scientifically indefensible because it is based on flawed data, and it violates laws such as the Data Quality Act.”

PNRCD requested that FWS withdraw its proposed rule “because habitat ‘essential’ to the conservation of the jaguar as a species does not exist in either Arizona or New Mexico under any scientifically credible definition of that term, because designation of critical habitat therein cannot possibly help save jaguars, and because the economic consequences of adding yet another layer of regulation and restriction on national security, resource production, water use, hunting and recreation during the worst recession on record since 1929 far outweigh any possibly discernible benefit to jaguars as a species that might be gained by designating critical habitat for them north of the Mexican border where they are but rarely transient…”

“For Critical Habitat to be established under ESA, the FWS must show that the area in question is essential to the jaguars conservation and survival as a species, not merely whether the area in question could host or has hosted individual, transient jaguars.”

 

White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis)

[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]

[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:

 These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.

Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]

January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 

Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.  

Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.

Introduction(Dr. David Legates)

Alternate link: White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis) « Roy Spencer, PhD

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Sun-Climate-Connection

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels)

Alternate link: WH brochure Systematic-Problems-in-the-Four-National-Assessments-of-Climate-Change-Impacts-on-the-US

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy)

Alternate link: WH brochure record temperatures

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer)

Alternate link: WH brochure Radiation-Transfer

Is There a Climate Emergency(Dr. Ross McKitrick)

Alternate link: WH brochure is there a climate emergency

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue)

Alternate link: WH brochure Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo)

Alternate link: WH brochure Climate-Climate-Change-and-the-General-Circulation

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex)

Alternate link: WH brochure Can-Computer-Models-Predict-Climate

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Faith-Based-Nature-of-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

See also my Wryheat post: A Review of the state of Climate Science

 

Glass recyclers have concerns over Tucson’s new plan

As I wrote in a previous article, Comments On Tucson City Council’s Plan On Recycling Glass, the City of Tucson plans to stop collecting glass in the recycle bins. Instead the City will provide sites around the city for residents to drop off glass. The glass will be ground to sand and used to fill sandbags or as an aggregate for construction projects. That plan has drawn the ire of glass recycling companies.

In response to that article, I recently received an email from Laura Hennemann, Vice President, Strategic Materials, the largest glass recycler in North America. The email contained three attachments, all letters to the Tucson City Council, that show the folly of the City plan.

Ms. Hennermann writes, “We are saddened to also learn the City’s glass will be pulverized and used as aggregate, ending the life of glass. Glass is 100% recyclable, endlessly. Glass does not belong in the ground or the landfill.” Read her full letter (click back arrow to return): View Fullscreen

The second letter is from Angus E. Crane, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, NAIMA (North American Insulation Manufacturers Association). His main point is that recycled glass is necessary to manufacture fiberglass insulation. Since 1992, when NAIMA started collecting recycled data, 61.8 billion pounds of recycled material have been diverted from the waste stream.

Read his letter: View Fullscreen 

The third letter is from Scott DeFife, President of the Glass Packaging Institute. His 4-page letter goes into detail on the flaws of Tucson’s plan. “The glass reuse plan is missing several key points in the underlying facts and analysis concerning removal of glass from curbside recycling, including its positive impact on carbon emissions, versus the proposed alternative, downcycling glass for sand substitute.” Read his letter: View Fullscreen

Tucson City Council members should rethink their plan. As I wrote before, I am skeptical that most residents will bother to find one of the city’s planned drop-off bins. I think that under the proposed plan, most glass will wind up in the landfill.

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Tucson City Council and the “Climate Emergency”

On September, 9, 2020, the Tucson City Council unanimously passed a very politically correct resolution that declares a “climate emergency” and vows that Tucson will become “carbon neutral” by 2030. You can read the entire 14-page resolution here. In my opinion, this quixotic resolution demonstrates the incredible ignorance of the council on matters of climate and energy. So far, I have not seen any figures on what this quest will cost the taxpayers.

The first eight pages of the resolution contain the “whereas” clauses citing the reasons for the resolution, most of which are political propaganda that have been scientifically debunked.

For instance: “WHEREAS, in April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement, agreeing to keep global warming “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C;”

Debunked: If the Paris Agreement were to be fully implemented by the whole world it will cost only $12.7 Trillion and prevent global warming of 0.17°C by 2100. (Source)

See also: Who Is Afraid of Two Degrees of Warming?s (We’ve been there and done that already.)

The “be it further resolved” section begins on page 9. These are what the Council hopes to do.

A sample: “…the City of Tucson commits to a citywide urgent climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming and the ecological crisis, which, with appropriate financial and regulatory assistance from local, state and federal authorities, reduces citywide greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible towards carbon neutrality by 2030; immediately initiates an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere through massive tree planting…and the Tucson Million Trees campaign. ” Where will the water come from? One of the “whereases” is to reduce water use.

The effort will be very, very politically correct: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Tucson recognizes that the full participation, inclusion, support, and leadership of community organizations, faith communities, youth, labor organizations, academic institutions, businesses, non-profits, Indigenous groups, and racial, gender, family, immigrant, and disability justice organizations and other allies are integral to the climate emergency response and mobilization efforts;”

 

For some real science, see my blog article: A Review of the state of Climate Science

This will give you an overview of climate issues and provide links to more detailed articles.