SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Triffin's Market Diary

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Triffin who wrote (544)6/8/2019 7:50:23 PM
From: Triffin  Read Replies (1) of 561
 
BC: CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICAMENT
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

Last Updated
June 7, 2019
6:28 AM EDT

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.

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.

======================================================================

There is NO increase in extreme weather.

Let us know when alarmist scientists actually prove an extreme storm relationship to increasing CO2.

I was going to quote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I found that it was penned by Carl Sagan. I also found that he’s right up there with Paul Erlich for making goofy predictions. Kuwaiti oil fires causing nuclear winter for instance. These people are wrong more than they are right, but folks don’t seem to notice. So, we have the spectacle of Roger Pielke Jr. being de-platformed for being right while failed prognosticators are celebrated. If that’s not corruption, I don’t know what is.

The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists
and they are the great killers of our age

‘Climate change’ as used today is completely absurd. Undefined. People who use the term depend on their audience to fabricate a meaning for it. It can mean anything they want it to.
Stop it. Make people who use it provide a definition. Demand a definition.

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.”
Is there no end to this idiocy? – send us your money (correction – we’ll take it from you compulsorily), and we’ll stop all this nasty weather – droughts, hurricanes, heavy rain – oh yes, birds will twitter and sing and life will be beautiful………
I see a lot of mathematical arguments, reference to gas laws and so forth on websites such as this this. Nowhere do we see CLIMATE discussed in detail. Are there actually any regions on Earth where the climate has actually changed to any extent? Where are the figures and descriptions to support this?
As I’ve posted before, I’m 70 years old, and live in the UK. Subjectively, the climate hasn’t changed over all those years – the weather is as variable as ever – warmer winters, colder winters, the occasional hot summer (1959, 1975, 1976, and 2018) – and life goes on, despite all the CO2 horror stories.
One meteorology book I’ve read (Stirling, R: The Weather of Britain) mentioned that on the coldest winter days, freezing temperatures can extend up to the stratosphere – if correct (and I have no reason to doubt this observation), then so much for the alleged dangers of CO2.
Temperatures don’t define climate – I suggest that it’s time to discuss some real-world observations from local weather stations around the world.
So I ask: where are the changes of any significance during the last 60 years?
There’s also the matter of the message in this header article – ‘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.’
So why are the politicians sticking to their nonsensical pronouncements?

================================================
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext