Archives mensuelles : novembre 2024

climate-debate

Research: “103 Of 302 Weather Stations In United Kingdom Do Not Exist At All!

by P. Homewood, Nov 27, 2024 in NoTricksZone

Paul Homewood wrote about poorly sited weather stations in Great Britain, thus making readings and climate data rather questionable.

The European Institute for Climate And Energy (EIKE) now reports of Great Britain’s phantom weather station network: one third of all its stations don’t actually exist. 

By Maurice Forgeng. Original article: Epoch Times here.

“All climate forecasts are based on more or less long-term documented measurements from weather stations. They can be used to determine past developments as well as possible trends in future local temperatures. Meteorologists also compile national and international trends based on the data from many measuring stations.”

“But what if much of this basic data is incorrect – or even made up? This is what journalist Ray Sanders claims about the measured values in the UK. According to his research, 103 of the 302 weather measuring stations in the United Kingdom do not exist at all. Nevertheless, they provide official data that is available to everyone on the website of the national weather authority.”

Sanders investigated the weather stations listed by the British Meteorological Service and found discrepancies in the data. For example, the Dungeness weather station supposedly on a nuclear power plant doesn’t exist. In fact, four out of eight stations in Kent do not exist  Also, coordinates for many stations are inaccurate.

…

…

Full report at EIKE

climate-debate

Dear Climate Alarmists, Welcome to Your Worst Nightmare

by A. Watts, Nov 27, 2024 in WUWT

…

…

Americans are finally starting to understand the truth about climate change while simultaneously becoming aware that climate alarmists have ulterior motives at hand, many of which are in direct opposition to the fundamental best interests of everyday Americans.

Thanks to courageous truth seekers like my colleagues at The Heartland Institute and many allied organizations, Americans are more able than ever to receive accurate information dispelling common myths and lies pushed by climate alarmists. As anyone can read at ClimateRealism.com, the seas are not rising and weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, etc. are not becoming more frequent nor deadlier. In fact, in many cases, the exact opposite is occurring.

Another huge factor that helped Americans realize the dubiousness of the climate alarmist narrative is that their solutions make no sense, do not address the so-called problems, and all too often end with less liberty and more government. Apparently, Americans are beginning to understand that climate justice, for instance, is mostly about wealth redistribution and has little to do with a cleaner environment.

A few weeks ago, Americans went to the polls and clearly rejected the climate alarmist nonsense that has been hoisted upon the nation over the past four years. Without a doubt, the Biden-Harris administration has been the most zealous when it comes to climate alarmism. From nixing the Keystone XL Pipeline to mandating electric vehicles to deciding the type of appliances Americans can purchase, the Biden-Harris administration has been all-in on climate alarmism.

But this is not what the American people want. To be clear, nearly all Americans want to protect the environment and desire clean air and water.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Unexplained heat-wave ‘hotspots’ are popping up across the globe

by Columbia Climate School, Nov 26, 2024 in ScienceDaily

Summary :  A striking new phenomenon is emerging: distinct regions are seeing repeated heat waves that are so extreme, they fall far beyond what any model of global warming can predict or explain. A new study provides the first worldwide map of such regions, which show up on every continent except Antarctica like giant, angry skin blotches.

Earth’s hottest recorded year was 2023, at 2.12 degrees F above the 20th-century average. This surpassed the previous record set in 2016. So far, the 10 hottest yearly average temperatures have occurred in the past decade. And, with the hottest summer and hottest single day, 2024 is on track to set yet another record.

All this may not be breaking news to everyone, but amid this upward march in average temperatures, a striking new phenomenon is emerging: distinct regions are seeing repeated heat waves that are so extreme, they fall far beyond what any model of global warming can predict or explain. A new study provides the first worldwide map of such regions, which show up on every continent except Antarctica like giant, angry skin blotches. In recent years these heat waves have killed tens of thousands of people, withered crops and forests, and sparked devastating wildfires.

“The large and unexpected margins by which recent regional-scale extremes have broken earlier records have raised questions about the degree to which climate models can provide adequate estimates of relations between global mean temperature changes and regional climate risks,” says the study.

“This is about extreme trends that are the outcome of physical interactions we might not completely understand,” said lead author Kai Kornhuber, an adjunct scientist at the Columbia Climate School’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “These regions become temporary hothouses.” Kornhuber is also a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria.

The study was just published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

…

…

Climbing overall temperatures make heat waves more likely in many cases, but the causes of the extreme heat outbreaks are not entirely clear. In Europe and Russia, an earlier study led by Kornhuber blamed heat waves and droughts on wobbles in the jet stream, a fast-moving river of air that continuously circles the northern hemisphere.

…

Also here

climate-debate, Cooling

Greenland Surface Temperatures Fall for 20 Years in Fresh Blow to Climate Alarm Narrative

by C. Morrison, Nov 27, 2024 in WUWT

Further evidence that surface temperatures across Greenland have been cooling for around 20 years has emerged with the recent publication of findings from a group of Thai scientists and mathematicians. Processing 31,464 satellite recording from 2000-2019 over the entire area, they found that the average temperature fell by 0.11°C. This is said to indicate a “non-significant change in LST [land surface temperature]”. The latest evidence of actual cooling over a significant area of the Arctic will not be news in scientific circles since it backs up previous findings of recent temperature falls. But the information is of course kept out of the mainstream since it casts doubt on the key Net Zero scare about soaring sea levels caused by the catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

There are some crumbs of comfort for alarmists since the Thai authors found that the ice-free sub-regions of Greenland are warmer than the ice-covered sub regions. But perhaps not – the authors attributed it to “population density”. Urban heat yet again corrupting the temperature data, even in Greenland. The illustration below charts the temperature record for all areas of Greenland.

The World Economic Forum recently reported on a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet within a few months. This suggestion is only slightly more ludicrous than the scares routinely published to induce mass psychosis in populations with the aim of promoting a collectivist command-and-control Net Zero solution. The recent farce around the COP in Baku showed the conspiracy operating in plain sight. Stop the developing word developing with hydrocarbons, then invent a number of fake scares such as island states disappearing beneath the waves. Everyone knows this and most of the other scares are false as scientists have shown on numerous occasions, but no matter. Invent some ridiculous composite figure – say $250 billion a year, or $1.3 billion by 2035 – then pretend your taxpayers can be rinsed even though the only country that could conceivably afford it is leaving the party in January.

…

climate-debate

COP 29 diplomacy delivers perfectly vague promises a decade away

by  D. Wojick, Nov 25, 2024 in WUWT

In Cop 29’s “Finance agreement” diplomacy is truly the art of agreeing to nothing. There is no agreement of substance here because there is no substance to this agreement. Each side gets its number someday and that is all there is to it.

Let’s look at the actual text to see the nothing. But first recall what was supposed to happen. The Paris Agreement committed the developed country members to providing $100 billion a year to the developing countries through 2025. COP 29 was simply supposed to revise that annual payment up beginning in 2026. That did not happen, not even close.

The fiasco started when the developing countries demanded huge impossibly sums centered on $1.3 trillion. That set in motion a series of side steps leading to the present agreement which is very different from the intended goal.

To begin with the $1.3 trillion annual payment is there but it is “by 2035” so ten years from now not in 2026. I can see delaying it until a few years after Trump leaves office but these folks are wedded to their five year plans.

Moreover this money need not come from the developed countries and certainly not from their governments. First it is to come “from all public and private sources.” Second the eligible sources have been expanded to include all the developing countries as well as the developed ones.

These two provisions have fundamentally changed the concept of climate finance. It used to just include mostly government money going from developed to developing countries. Now it sounds like any climate related investment or contribution that winds up in a developing country counts.

Working this out will be supremely challenging. For example if China builds itself an offshore wind array, and they are building plenty, is that climate finance? How about if they build it in Indonesia?

Oh and it looks like coal fired power plants count too. In early drafts of the agreement counting coal plants was ruled out because people were doing that in the name of adaptation. Having electricity certainly helps when extreme weather hits. But that prohibition does not appear in the final agreement so the practice looks allowable.

Then there is the other big number, the $300 billion a year. This is widely assumed to replace the $100 billion a year mandated by the Paris Agreement through 2025. For example CBS has a headline that yells “deal reached at UN’s COP29 climate talks for $300 billion a year (up from $100 billion).”

This is incorrect as here too the new agreement says the goal is “by 2035.” Nor is all (or any) of this distant sum necessarily coming from developed countries as the yearly $100 billion had to. The new agreement just says “with developed country Parties taking the lead.” (Parties means to the Paris Agreement.)

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #621

by K. Haapala,  WUWT, Nov 25, 2024

Scope: This Week begins with Richard Lindzen’s discussion on recent political movements that falsely claim to be based on science. Vijay Jayaraj discusses a conference of important nations that the legacy media missed, or misrepresented. Delancyplace.com discusses a few issues in Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Roy Spencer and John Christy discuss corrections needed to the measurements by satellites when the satellites drift too far from the planned orbit. Owen Klinsky alerts the US to the Winter Reliability Assessment by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Roger Caiazza continues to express concern over New York’s future reliance on Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFR), that appears imaginary. A brief discussion on a Bomb Cyclone concludes this Week.

Rumors State: Some of the most misleading arguments for drastic action to “combat climate change” include phrases such as “The Science says.” Science says nothing; in physical science it is the physical evidence that reveals the validity of a claim. Writing in the American Mind, MIT Professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen reveals “How a political movement invented its own scientific basis.” He begins with:

“Modern political movements have frequently laid claim to being based in science, from immigration restriction and eugenics (in the U.S. after WWI), to antisemitism and race ideology (in Hitler’s Germany), to Communism and Lysenkoism (under Stalin). Each of these falsely invoked a scientific consensus that convinced highly educated citizens, who were nonetheless ignorant of science, to set aside the anxieties associated with their ignorance. Since all scientists supposedly agreed, there was no need for them to understand the science.

Of course, this version of “the science” is the opposite of science itself. Science is a mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority. However, the success that science achieves has earned it a measure of authority in the public’s mind. This is what politicians frequently envy and exploit.

The climate panic fits into this same pattern and, as in all the preceding cases, science is in fact irrelevant. At best, it is a distraction which has led many of us to focus on the numerous misrepresentations of science entailed in what was purely a political movement.”

…

climate-debate, energy and fields

Germany Urged To Return To Nuclear As Wind And Solar Fail, Prices Soar

by P. Gosselin, Nov 25, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

german nuclear plant
Germany phased out its entire fleet of nuclear reactors over the past years and hoped to rely on renewable energies, claiming they were cheaper and cleaner. [emphasis, links added]

However, the transition has not gone smoothly as grid revamping has not kept up and prices for wind and solar power have made German electricity among the most expensive worldwide.

At the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has warned that: “Germany can no longer turn its back on nuclear power and that a reorientation of energy policy is necessary. The government must reopen the debate on nuclear power.”

“Countries that have nuclear energy want more of it. And many that don’t have any want it,”  said Grossi.

“The timing of his comments is no coincidence. Germany’s economy is suffering from energy problems while the government is consumed with internal disputes,” comments Blackout News.

“The political focus has recently been on the disputes within the coalition government, while the electricity market has continued to show new weaknesses.”

Blackout News describes how the prices of electricity “exploded” in early November during a period of calm winds and no sunshine.

This forced Germany to fall back on gas and coal (energy sources that the government is currently working to phase out as well).

“Fossil fuels supplied 71% of Germany’s electricity at the beginning of November – a figure that has not been reached for over a decade.”

Read the entire article here (German).

climate-debate

COP29 Leaves Poor Countries Fuming

by P. Homewood, Nov 24, 2024 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

So the whole charade trundles on for another year:

…

 

But it is all academic anyway, as they won’t even get that much if the US pulls out, as expected to.

The UK’s share of $300bn, if averaged out by GDP, would be about $18 billion, or $36 billion if Trump pulls out, which is nearly three times the current Overseas Aid budget.

In all likelihood, most of the money will be provided, as now, by repayable loans and private sector investment. Neither of these are of much use for the Third World, as they cannot afford the repayments or the profits businesses will look to extract.

Needless to say, developing countries will not be obliged to cut emissions in return for their Danegeld. Back in the heady days of 2009, the naive Barack Obama believed that throwing dollar bills around would magically lower the world’s emissions. We now know the reality!

Nor is there any obligation for China, India or Middle Eastern oil states, all still classified as “developing”, to cough up a penny.

And more fundamentally, COP29 never even addressed the issue of emission reductions. No new pledges were made, no NDCs updated. No even a timetable for discussing them in future.

Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Conference was the first day agreement on carbon markets.

As the BBC explain, a poor country with lots of trees can sell carbon credits to richer nations, so they can continue to burn fossil fuels.

Apparently carbon emissions are alright, as long as you pay a penance!

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Climate Scaremongers: BBC Admits It Lied About Vanishing Polar Bears

by P. Homewood, Nov 22, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

polar bear mother and cub
In August, the BBC published a news item about a Canadian worker killed by two polar bears. [emphasis, links added]

The article claimed: ‘There are about 17,000 polar bears living in the country – making up around two-thirds of the global population of the species, according to the Canadian government.

‘The species is in decline, and scientists attribute it to the loss of sea ice caused by global warming – leading to shrinking of their hunting and breeding grounds.’

No doubt in BBC World, they actually believe that polar bears are dying out. It is, after all, an article of faith for the global warming cult.

However, far from declining, the world’s population of polar bears has tripled since the 1960s, thanks to the ban on hunting in 1973.

Source

The BBC has now formally upheld the complaint I submitted at the time, and has posted this on their Complaints Page:

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

They’re Trying to Silence Us: The G20’s War on Climate Skepticism

by C. Rotter, Nov 23, 2024 in WUWT

n yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.

Bringing together countries, international organizations, and stakeholders worldwide, it aims to promote and defend information integrity on climate change, address disinformation, and enhance climate change awareness and action. It includes a global fund which will finance research into disinformation on climate change and initiatives to promote information integrity.

https://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change

Let’s call this what it is: a blatant attempt to silence anyone questioning the so-called climate crisis narrative. Under the guise of combating “misinformation,” these global bureaucracies aim to crush free thought and erase critical voices from the public square. This isn’t just an attack on skeptics—it’s an assault on open discourse itself.

The Initiative: A Wolf in Green Clothing

According to their public statements, the Initiative seeks to fund nonprofits for “research” and “public awareness campaigns.” They’re also creating what they call an “international research network” to identify and suppress so-called disinformation. In other words, they’re building an apparatus to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous lies and to justify censoring them into oblivion.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with his characteristic paternalism, declared disinformation a threat to climate action and even democracy itself. The not-so-subtle subtext? If you dare question their dogma, you’re the problem.

The History: Silencing Skeptics Since Day One

This isn’t the first time climate skeptics have been targeted. As far back as 2010, Google began manipulating search results to demote skeptical voices. A French study highlighted how skeptics dominated online search rankings at the time, leading to a concerted effort to bury their views beneath mountains of alarmist propaganda. Blogs like Pensée Unique and works by Claude Allègre drew enough attention to provoke the ire of the establishment.

Now, thanks to collusion between Big Tech, governments, and nonprofits, the “censorship industrial complex” has become a powerful and insidious force. Groups like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the United States, along with private entities like NewsGuard, routinely conspire to flag, suppress, and delegitimize dissenting voices.

We’ve seen this play out before. The Twitter Files laid bare the extent of this collusion, revealing how social media platforms partnered with government agencies to suppress stories and deplatform users who strayed from the approved narrative. This is not about protecting the public from falsehoods—it’s about eliminating debate.

Why the Fear?

…

climate-debate

COP 29: The big UN money grab

by C. Rucker, Nov 23, 2024 in WUWT

The sums of money being demanded at the UN climate conference in Azerbaijan are staggering.

The UN estimates that the world currently spend $3 trillion per year on climate and wants to dedicate $3.5 trillion to energy transition per year by 2050.  This would skyrocket total annual global climate spending to $5 trillion.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

They are pushing for something they call the “new collective quantified goal” at COP 29 in Baku.  This mainly means a fortune in climate redistribution from the developed to the developing world.

Delegates are all too aware that this spending largess in no way squares with President-elect Trump’s “America first” agenda, but they are hoping to wait him out as they did once before.

One surprising positive development, is that in the process of demanding redistribution, developing nations have woken up to one of the key absurdities of the UN climate regime.  Nations such as China and India are given a pass on emissions reductions and paying out funds.  This, despite the fact that China is the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases and boasts the second largest economy, while India’s economy is all the way up at number five.

This is due to something the UN calls “common, but differentiated responsibilities,” which has been baked into the climate regime going all the way back to 1997’s Kyoto Protocol.  China, meanwhile, holds $8.16 trillion of U.S. debt.

Wherever climate policy goes next, China should equally bear the pain and shoulder the responsibility they advocate for us.

President Obama shoveled $1 billion over to the UN’s Green Climate Fund shortly before President Trump began his first term.  This included $500 million transferred just three days before inauguration day.

Will the Biden Administration try to top that?

The last time President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement it took four years.  Under the terms of the Agreement, this time he can do it in one.

Let’s hope President Trump resurrects climate and energy reality for the U.S. and the world before much more damage is done.

better to know...?, climate-debate

News Outlet Relies On Flawed ‘Attribution Studies’ To Blame Climate Change For Extreme Weather

by A. Watts, Nov 19,2024 in ClimateChaneDispatch

On Monday, November 18, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled “How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?” This is false. [emphasis, links added]

Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

The narrative that severe weather events are worsening due to climate change has become a mainstay in today’s media. However, a closer look at the data and the science behind these claims often reveals inconsistencies that should give us pause.

Attribution studies, which are widely used to link specific extreme weather events to climate change, frequently lack rigorous peer review and are published hastily to garner headlines, raising significant concerns about their reliability.

Attribution studies work by using climate models to simulate two different worlds: one influenced by human-caused climate change and another without it. These models then assess the likelihood of extreme weather events in each world.

Yet the validity of such studies is only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them.

This methodology is prone to overestimating risks because climate models often reflect overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Moreover, these studies are often published without proper peer review. Climate Realism has documented how media outlets run stories based on these model-driven studies, ignoring real-world data that often contradicts the alarming conclusions.

For example, articles frequently cite reports that heatwaves, floods, or hurricanes are “worsening” without disclosing that these claims rely on theoretical simulations rather than measured evidence.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather. In fact, long-term trends for many extreme weather events have remained stable or even declined.

According to Climate at a Glance, heatwaves in the United States were most severe in the 1930s, with temperatures and frequency outstripping recent records.

The number of strong hurricanes making landfall in the United States has not increased either. The country even experienced a record 12-year lull in major hurricanes between 2005 and 2017.

Additionally, droughts have not intensified in the U.S. The nation saw historically low levels of drought in recent years, with 2017 and 2019 setting records for the smallest percentage of the country affected by drought. These data points highlight a crucial disconnect between what is reported and what is actually happening.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant

by P. Gosselin, Nov 19, 2024 in NoTricksZone

The CO2 scam and “climate denial”

German researcher concludes CO2 warming immensely exaggerated…. IR radiation of clouds considerably reduces the greenhouse effect of CO2.”

The prosperity and political stability of our countries are in grave danger. The reason for this is an ideology that claims catastrophic climate change caused by the alleged “greenhouse gas” CO2 and is intent to destroy our civilization and prosperity. Its supporters are spreading a witch-hunt atmosphere against anyone who questions their ideology. So-called “climate deniers” are also denied any scientific expertise.

Every Swiss person can already see the first financial consequences on their electricity bill: In this country, the price of a kilowatt hour has shot up by up to 300% for some households in just four years. And this is just the beginning, as the Swiss government is pursuing the goal of switching to solar and wind power and thus to sources that cost 20 instead of 6 rp/kWh.

…

…

Conclusions

In his summary, Prof. Reinhart comes to the following conclusions:

“- The heat retention (“forcing”) by atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) causes a maximum temperature increase of 0.24 K (0.24°C) when the concentration doubles from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, based on a simplified absorption model that is independent of climate.

– This value depends only on the accepted mean earth temperature, T = 288 K, and is relatively insensitive to its uncertainty of 2 K.

– The temperature increase since the industrial revolution amounts to a maximum of 0.12 K, which is within the range of measurement accuracy. The anthropogenic contribution is therefore practically insignificant.

– The behavior of glacial and current temperature trends is not causally linked to carbon dioxide concentrations.

– The causes of global warming have not been clarified. However, they are most likely linked to the solar system and the water cycle.

– Measures to control CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature are unsuitable, even dangerous means”.

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate scientists officially declare ‘climate emergency’ at an end

by ClintelGroup, Nov 20, 2024 in WUWT

The Chamber of Deputies in session

Climate scientists have issued a shock declaration that the “climate emergency” is over.

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague, “declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end”.

The communiqué, drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference, makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have  systematically exaggerated the influence of CO2 on global temperature.

The high-level scientific conference also declared:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.”

The declaration supports the conclusions of the major Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC [presented to the Conference by Marcel Crok, Clintel’s co-founder].

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

Finally, the conference “calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion”.

The full text of the communiqué follows:

The International Scientific Conference of the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague assembled on the Twelfth and Thirteenth Days of November 2024, has resolved and now declares as follows, that is to say –

  1. The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
  2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
  3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists

Continuer la lecture de Climate scientists officially declare ‘climate emergency’ at an end →

better to know...?

The Climate Case of the Century

by L. Bergkamp, Nov 14, 2024 in WUWT

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims.  Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.

Climate science

Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem.  In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.

The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.

…

better to know...?

Climatologists Shocked By Nature Op-Ed Arguing Objectivity In Climate Science Is Problematic

by K. Killough, Nov 13, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

protest 15 degrees

Three climate researchers took to the pages of Nature to argue that objectivity in climate science is problematic because it hinders their political advocacy, which they argue is too important to deny. [emphasis, links added]

Therefore, the authors argue, the values of objectivity in scientific research should be reconsidered.

“The public has watched as national and sub-national governments have declared climate emergencies, all the while continuing to grant new permits for the extraction of fossil fuels, seemingly ignoring increasingly urgent scientific messages that this locks the world into passing 1.5 °C of warming above preindustrial levels by 2030, if not sooner,” the researchers explain.

While the researchers equate a refusal to stop the production of fossil fuels with ignoring science, energy experts argue these policies will result in enormous economic problemsand widespread poverty.

The authors of the Nature op-ed, seemingly unaware or unconcerned with the impacts of such policies, argue that it’s unfair to expect climate researchers not to get emotional when governments don’t adopt these policies. 

“Scientists who express their feelings and worries about climate change are often not encouraged by their colleagues and are instead expected to carry on without acknowledging or communicating the continued inadequacy of action required to secure a liveable and sustainable future,” the authors state.

By just about every measure — including life expectancy, wealth, and deaths from natural disasters— the human race is doing better than ever. Despite this, the authors believe their fears are based on indisputable facts. 

Climate advocacy versus straight reporting

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Azerbaijan’s COP29 Speech: A Masterclass in Irony So Thick, It’s Flammable

by C. Rotter, Nov 13, 2024 in WUWT

Picture this: COP29, the annual climate circus where the world’s leaders gather to wag fingers and wring hands over carbon emissions, is hosted in none other than Azerbaijan—a country whose economy runs on fossil fuels like a muscle car guzzling premium gas. Then comes the pièce de résistance: Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev steps up to the mic and declares oil and gas to be “God’s gift” to his nation.

…

You can’t make this up. It’s like hosting a vegan potluck and having the guest of honor arrive with a tray of prime rib.

The “Climate” Conference in an Oil Nation

Let’s start with the hilarious choice of venue. Azerbaijan is one of those countries where crude oil isn’t just a commodity—it’s practically a national sport. Hosting COP29 in Baku is akin to holding a Weight Watchers meeting in a donut shop. And yet, the global climate elites packed their bags and flew to the Land of Hydrocarbons to sit through speeches about how we’re all doomed unless we ban the very thing that keeps Azerbaijan afloat.

The irony was lost on precisely no one except, apparently, the COP29 organizers.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Green Grifters: Another elite-laden conference demonstrates the staggering hypocrisy of climate-change activism

by H. Mac Donald, Nov 12, 2024 in /CityJournal

The latest global climate conference opened Monday in Azerbaijan. The timing is excellent. Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone. Here are tens of thousands of well fed, well-dressed members of the global elite—activists, employees of lavishly funded NGOs, armies of government bureaucrats, hundreds of heads of state—who have all travelled via jet and private plane to this remote corner of the Earth and who expect that every minute of their day will be supported by abundant, magically available energy. None has sacrificed a single personal comfort to save the planet. They assume that their smartphones will draw on an invisible web of transmitters and that they will be able to search the Internet and run AI queries at will, notwithstanding that doing so requires voracious energy use from a growing archipelago of server farms. They expect their PowerPoints to be well lit and their conference and hotel rooms to be heated or air conditioned as needed. They’re never without their bottled water, which is carried thousands of miles by carbon-emitting trucks and planes and kept sterile by plastic containers whose manufacture requires petrochemicals and plenty of energy. They do not wait on the sun to shine or the wind to blow to light their rooms, run their elevators, or power up their devices; they want energy now and without interruption.

You don’t have to be a “climate denier” to see that climate-change politics have become the largest global grift in history, one that grows in proportion with each new conference. It was just a matter of time before Third World basket-case countries exploited the First World’s virtue signaling. This year’s UNFCC COP 29 conference in Azerbaijan (COP stands for Conference of the Parties) features the demand that developed countries fork over billions, if not trillions, more dollars to the Global South, ostensibly to help it adjust to climate change. Those billions will follow all previous foreign aid into the same sinkhole of corruption and incompetence.

…

better to know...?

Hague court denies claim for reduction in Shell’s CO2 emissions

by The Hague, 12 November 2024, in deRechtspraak

The Hague Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in the appeal proceedings between Milieudefensie and Shell. At issue in the appeal was whether Shell must have reduced its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. The court of appeal ruled that Shell is obliged to reduce its CO₂ emissions, but that it was unable to determine which percentage should apply. The court of appeal therefore rejected the claims of Milieudefensie.

According to Milieudefensie, Shell is acting unlawfully. Milieudefensie is of the opinion that under the social standard of care, Shell is obliged to reduce its CO2 emissions. Milieudefensie and several other environmental organisations submitted a claim for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. This includes Shell’s own CO2 emissions as well as those of its suppliers and customers, known as scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

The Hague District Court upheld the claim of Milieudefensie, after which Shell lodged an appeal. The Stichting Milieu en Mens joined as a party in the proceedings before the court of appeal on the side of Shell.

In today’s judgment, the court of appeal held that Shell has an obligation towards citizens to limit its CO2 emissions. This obligation is based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change. It is first and foremost up to governments to ensure the protection of human rights, but indirectly those rights also have a bearing on the social standard of care which companies like Shell must observe. In its assessment of whether Shell is acting unlawfully, the court of appeal therefore took as a starting point that citizens also have a right vis-à-vis Shell to protection from dangerous climate change.

Nevertheless, the court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage. There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere. Moreover, Shell is already working to reduce its own scope 1 and 2 emissions. Lastly, the court of appeal is of the opinion that an obligation for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products, scope 3 emissions, by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade. This would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, The Hague Court of Appeal overturned the district court’s judgment and denied the claims of Milieudefensie. An appeal in cassation against this ruling may be brought before the Dutch Supreme Court.

Also here

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits

better to know...?, climate-debate

Media Hypes Report That 2024 Will Break 1.5°C Limit, But Data Doesn’t Back It Up

by L. Lueken, Nov 11, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

valencia flood aftermath

Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since preindustrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. [emphasis, links added]

This is mostly false.

Although 2024 will likely have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there is limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters.

The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption.

As for the 1.5-degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel who came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is a bit of sleight of hand, cherry-picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of the Little Ice Age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia.

When you pick an unusually cold period for comparison, modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly here, here, and here, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons.

There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. The world has likely warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

One would think that if warming causes more extreme weather there would be solid data and identifiable consistent trends showing an increase in extreme weather, but there is none.

Three of the weather events CNN cites at the end of their article as proof of a supposed climate emergency, Hurricane Milton, the flooding in Spain, and low snow amounts at Mt. Fuji are not proof of a climate emergency.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Human Contribution To Enhancement Of Earth’s Greenhouse Effect A Negligible 0.2 Percent

by K. Richard, Nov 12, 2024 in NoTricksZone

“[T]he contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4% – 5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20% – a negligible effect.” – Dr. Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)

New research exposes the vacuousness of the “imaginary world” models proclaiming CO2 the dominant regulator of the Earth’s climate.

A CO2-less or CO2-only atmosphere…an imaginary-world thought experiment

An oft-heard claim is that, due to the prominence of CO2 as the Earth’s climate “control knob” (see Lacis et al., 2010), the greenhouse effect could not exist – indeed, it would collapse – if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, it should go without saying that this CO2-less atmospheric condition itself is an imaginary-world conceptualization. Thus, fantasizing about what would happen if the atmosphere was comprised 0 ppm CO2, 1,000,000 ppm CO2, 0 ppm water vapor…are all just untestable, never-observable thought experiments. They cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Thus, they are unfalsifiable.

CO2’s climate effects are undetectable

Of course, this very unfalsifiable thought experiment is what believers in the CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob narrative rest their case on. But even if we do use this imaginary-world premise, the existing models (MODTRAN, HITRAN) that allegedly support the CO2-controls-climate orthodoxy actually undermine it.

For example, as Dr. Koutsoyiannis points out in his extensively-referenced paper, the MODTRAN data show that the Earth’s temperature remains at the default greenhouse-effect value if the water vapor scale is adjusted upwards slightly, by just 30%. The greenhouse effect does not “collapse” as claimed by Lacis et al. disciples – the control-knob believers.

The HITRAN database also indicates the imaginary-world condition of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would only alter the radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere by -1.1%, a hypothetical realization that could not even be detected in future macroscopic measurements (if the atmosphere ever were to reach a CO2 concentration of 800 ppm).

MODTRAN models further affirm that (1) there is only a 1% temperature difference between either doubling (800 ppm) or halving (200 ppm) the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and (2) the change in the downwelling radiation resulting from an increase from 300 ppm (1900) to 420 ppm (2023) is only 0.5%. These tiny changes “could not be discerned by observations.”

…

climate-debate

Despite Media Panic, There Is No Reason to Think 2024’s Warming Is Disastrous

by L. Lueken, Nov 10, 2024 in WUWT

Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since pre-industrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. This is mostly false. Although it is likely that 2024 will have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is actually some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters. The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row, while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption. As for the 1.5 degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel that came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is bit of sleight of hand, cherry picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of a little ice age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia. When you pick an usually cold period for comparison, a modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly, here, here, and here, for example, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons. There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. It is likely that the world has warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

…