Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked

By Ross McKitrick

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”

While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

Top court rejects Exxon’s bid to block probe into whether oil giant knew for decades fossil fuels’ role in climate change 

Terence Corcoran: Toronto floats the idea of making Big Oil pay for climate change damage. What damage? 

Terence Corcoran: We get ‘Carbon Tax for Dummies’ because they think we’re... dummies 

A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.

Pielke’s public presentation begins with a recounting of his rise and fall in the field. As a young researcher in tropical storms and climate-related damages, he reached the pinnacle of the academic community and helped organize the so-called Hohenkammer Consensus Statement, named after the German town where 32 of the leading scientists in the field gathered in 2006 to sort out the evidence. They concluded that trends toward rising climate damages were mainly due to increased population and economic activity in the path of storms, that it was not currently possible to determine the portion of damages attributable to greenhouse gases, and that they didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 report, largely agreeing with the Hohenkammer Consensus, while cherry-picking one unpublished study (and highlighting it in the Summary for Policymakers) that suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But the author of that study — who just happened to be the same IPCC lead author who injected it into the report — later admitted his claim was incorrect, and when the study was finally published, denied the connection.

In 2012, the IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather came out and echoed the Hohenkammer Consensus, concluding that once you adjust for population growth and economic changes, there is no statistical connection between climate change and measures of weather-related damages. In 2013 Pielke testified to the United States Congress and relayed the IPCC findings. Shortly thereafter, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren accused him of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.

So where did the science end up?

In the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.

Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.

The bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather, despite Trudeau’s claims to the contrary. The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-this-scientist-proved-climate-change-isnt-causing-extreme-weather-so-politicians-attacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Barbie tries to spin the garbage:

“Anchors aweigh! The containers of garbage have departed the Philippines and will arrive in Canada in four weeks — where the waste will be turned into energy that'll power homes in British Columbia”

 

Why don’t we do this in the first place??.  .... like most of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 9:22 AM, st27 said:

Climate Barbie tries to spin the garbage:

“Anchors aweigh! The containers of garbage have departed the Philippines and will arrive in Canada in four weeks — where the waste will be turned into energy that'll power homes in British Columbia”

 

Why don’t we do this in the first place??.  .... like most of Europe.

 

B00D87E3-5D13-4772-9470-EF17DE6AC8D4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been saying this for years.  Kill 2 birds with one stone.  Build efficient incinerators like Sweden.  Direct about 99% of your trash to the incinerators and use them to create electricity.  That is about the best renewable energy money can buy because we will never stop creating trash.

This will reduce groundwater pollution from Landfill sites as well as other environmental factors.

This is not rocket science.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deicer, don’t say this often, but I agree 100%..... maybe Trudeau and climate Barbie could get around to tweeting Brazil and Malaysia about the eco effects of deforestation instead of lecturing the elites at Davos.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st27 said:

Deicer, don’t say this often, but I agree 100%..... maybe Trudeau and climate Barbie could get around to tweeting Brazil and Malaysia about the eco effects of deforestation instead of lecturing the elites at Davos.

Be very careful what you wish for. Before you know it Trudeau will be sending them BILLIONS of CANADIAN taxpayers BORROWED MONEY just because he can 🤬🤬

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is something we as a planet should be involved in.  Yes, volcanoes and such have always belched co2 and ash into the air, but it is mankind, in the last 100 years that has been not only adding to it at an ever increasing rate, but also methodically removing and polluting the natural mechanisms that have been cleaning it up and keeping the balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

I believe this is something we as a planet should be involved in.  Yes, volcanoes and such have always belched co2 and ash into the air, but it is mankind, in the last 100 years that has been not only adding to it at an ever increasing rate, but also methodically removing and polluting the natural mechanisms that have been cleaning it up and keeping the balance.

Lots of luck in your dream of getting the Planet as a whole involved.  Thus my belief that our efforts are as meaningful as the bite of a flea to an elephant as least when you consider C02.  😀  I however, back the bans on single use plastics.  I remember the paper straws I grew up with and see no reason why the plastic ones could not be replaced, the same of course with single use plastic shopping bags (unless they are compostable), clamshell food containers (the paper ones worked well)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful....unless the straws and bags are made from recycled plastic or paper, it will mean more trees will be cut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, deicer said:

I believe this is something we as a planet should be involved in.  Yes, volcanoes and such have always belched co2 and ash into the air, but it is mankind, in the last 100 years that has been not only adding to it at an ever increasing rate, but also methodically removing and polluting the natural mechanisms that have been cleaning it up and keeping the balance.

The equation will eventually balance itself out.. It's natures basic law.  The planet will fight back by making itself uninhabitable by humans.  Then nature will fix itself as it always does.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course adding to the confusion:

Quote
 

The latest disinformation threat online? Old news stories

 
‎Today, ‎June ‎13, ‎2019, ‏‎5 hours ago | Kaleigh Rogers

Legitimate news stories are playing a role in the spread of disinformation online. The problem isn't the source, but the date: the stories were published years ago and are being shared as if they're new, falsely stoking debate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marshall said:

Of course adding to the confusion:

 

I see this all the time.  People comments get all fired up and then you have to pipe in and say "ummm this happened in 1994"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW...Talk about shooting yourself in the head. Trudeau effectively guarantees he will get ZERO seats from Alberta.

 

Liberals will impose carbon tax on Alberta by January 1st if re-elected

The Trudeau government has announced that the federal carbon tax will go into effect on January 1st.

Since being elected, Alberta’s UCP Premier Jason Kenney has tabled legislation to do away with the province’s own self-imposed carbon tax which sat at $30/tonne. 

Since Kenney promised that he would do away with the carbon tax, the federal government has warned that it would level the federal tax on the province. 

Now the federal government has announced to the province that the federal levy will go into effect on January 1st of 2020. However, Alberta’s Environment Minister Jason Nixon remains hopeful citing the fact that there will be an election in October 2019.

“The fact is, we’re going to remain having the lowest gas prices in the entire country,” said Nixon. “Many things can happen between now and January 1.”

Under opposition leader Andrew Scheer, the Conservative Party of Canada has promised that if they are elected they will be doing away with the federal carbon tax.

“It’s unfortunate because Alberta had a made-in-Alberta plan to put a price on pollution and we clearly need Alberta to be part of our national climate plan as Alberta has the highest emissions in the country,” said Environment Minister Catherine McKenna about the decision.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-liberals-hope-to-impose-carbon-tax-on-alberta-by-january-1st/

 

 

0532E292-6124-46B0-8262-EBEB35AFC7D6.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the PBO claims it needs to be $102/ton meet the targets.

“A total carbon price of $102 per tonne — which includes the government's carbon price and this new, PBO-suggested levy — would result in an additional hike to gas prices of as much as $0.23 per litre by 2030.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-50-tonne-emissions-1.5173609

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jaydee said:

WOW...Talk about shooting yourself in the head. Trudeau effectively guarantees he will get ZERO seats from Alberta.

 

This probably hurts the NDP in Alberta too.  They have touted the 'Carbon Tax' as a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently informed that in the United States they are no longer able to teach in public schools that climate change is even a debate. Since every education system in the modern world is dominated by the Left, it therefore follows that they force / "teach" leftist ideologies. One only has to look at the pathetic behaviour by students at most universities for proof.

I guess then that the only way to have your children get a well rounded education which looks at both sides of every argument,,allowing the student to decide what is right and what is wrong is through home schooling or private schools that are not tied to political strings.

My question is....At what point does the "education" system become an "indoctrination" system?

Where does reasoned thought draw the line?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I was recently informed that in the United States they are no longer able to teach in public schools that climate change is even a debate. Since every education system in the modern world is dominated by the Left, it therefore follows that they force / "teach" leftist ideologies. One only has to look at the pathetic behaviour by students at most universities for proof.

I guess then that the only way to have your children get a well rounded education which looks at both sides of every argument,,allowing the student to decide what is right and what is wrong is through home schooling or private schools that are not tied to political strings.

My question is....At what point does the "education" system become an "indoctrination" system?

Where does reasoned thought draw the line?

Based on the posts in this thread, reasoned thought, does not exist. Both sides have dug in and nothing other than looking back in 2050 or later will convince either side that they are / were wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Marshall said:

Based on the posts in this thread, reasoned thought, does not exist. Both sides have dug in and nothing other than looking back in 2050 or later will convince either side that they are / were wrong.

The debate is Who is wrong?  You can find studies equally credible on both side of the argument.  Mind you I tend to trust the studies that are not funded by governments as people tend to not bite the hand that feeds them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this