Here’s a down-to-earth perspective on the global warming “apocalypse.” Norman Rogers, writing in American Thinker (he’s proud to be a “denier”): “Since World War II, the increasing flow of big money from Washington has contributed to a gradual change in the character of research universities. Money became more important than science. Administrators who were focused…
If you believe the rhetoric of mayors and city council members in coastal cities, their areas will be under water in only a few decades. But when they sell their own bonds, these dire predictions are nowhere to be found in required disclosure statements.
Buyers of coastal city bonds appear not to believe the predictions either. There is no statistically significant difference in long term If you believe the rhetoric of mayors and city council members in coastal cities, their areas will be under water in only a few decades. But when they sell their own bonds, these dire predictions are nowhere to be found in required disclosure statements.
Buyers of coastal city bonds appear not to believe the predictions either. There is no statistically significant difference in long term bond rates between coastal cities and cities in the interior of the country.
A Government Accountability Institute report says:
For example, the City of Oakland, the City of San Francisco, and San Mateo County, in filing individual lawsuits against ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other major oil companies, made specified claims of damages to their cities due to the impacts of climate change… [Oakland] claimed the threats were so real that “by 2050, a ‘100-year flood’ in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur… once every 2.3 years … and by 2100 … once per week.”
However, language used to disclose risks to investors in a 2017 bonds document states,
“The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm, could occur, when they may occur, and, if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”
This is Dick McKenzie, writing in Regulation magazine:
The gremlin in climate scientists’ gloomy narrative is the prospect of a “tipping point”: an abrupt worsening in environmental change, looming in the next dozen years or (at most) the next few decades—if the tipping point has not already been reached. Once climate change has “tipped,” global warming (and an array of other changes in the global climate) will be self-perpetuating, self-accelerating, and irreversible, no matter how drastic the adopted future emissions-abatement policies are….
Beyond the tipping point, many scientists say, there is one inevitable outcome: environmental Armageddon, at which point the climate will become so degraded that all of life will be hellish, if species can survive that long. Effectively, Earth will gradually become a second Venus, which at one time, long ago, was likely as habitable as Earth, but is not today because of its (natural, not man-made) greenhouse-gas self-perpetuating cycles. Venus’s surface temperature is now close to 900 degrees.
Regulation is published by the Cato Institute.
No. That’s not a misprint. It’s the same think tank that has been telling us for years that climate change is no cause for alarm.
Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, suggested at a recent meeting that prominent scholars who were skeptical about global warming are being replaced by a generation of students of climate science—which, he says, is often not science at all.
For the past 30 years, ever since global warming became a public issue, Lindzen has questioned the apocalyptic view of climate change. As the topic rose to public attention in the late 1980s, Lindzen was so prominent that his views could not be ignored. Richard Kerr wrote in Science magazine in 1989 that “no other U.S. skeptic has such scientific stature.”
But over time, Lindzen became a target of hostility from advocates of global warming extremism. More disturbing perhaps were sometimes subtle attacks by his colleagues, including editors of peer-reviewed journals. For example, as he recounted in 2008, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a paper, written with colleagues, that found a strong cooling effect from clouds. But the Bulletin then published a paper disputing this cooling effect without giving Lindzen and his coauthors the opportunity to respond in the same issue (the normal practice). And American Scientist, the journal of the scientific honor society Sigma Xi, refused to publish an article by Lindzen unless he found as a coauthor someone who differed with him on global warming!