- Land is being reclaimed from the ocean as countries build ports and resorts.
- Three reasons why electric vehicles cannot prevent climate change.
- Could offshore wind turbines be causing the surge in East Coast Atlantic whale deaths?
- Scranton, Pa., rejects proposal for a solar farm—the sixth solar rejection this year.
- Is CO2 really a danger to human welfare? No, says lawsuit against the EPA.
- Antarctica sea cover is lowest in 40 years . . . But Antarctica is not getting any warmer.
Search Results for: climate change
Friday Highlights
- Will offshore wind energy overwhelm the electric grid? Here’s why it might.
- Adviser to multi-million-dollar climate change group is an official of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Iowa legislature is considering strict limits on solar facilities (such as requiring a 1250-foot setback from a residence or livestock facility).
- ‘The Environmentalist Assault on Civilization.”
- Is nuclear power about to make a comeback? Here’s why it might not.
- Are lawsuits against oil companies for “greenwashing” just efforts to suppress free speech? Yes.
- Al Gore gave us “pork and propaganda.”
What Do California and Australia Have in Common?
Periodic fires. Environmental regulations that make things worse. Climate change alarmists who want to blame anyone who doesn’t think like they think.
‘I Get Attacked from People on Both Sides of the Issue’
Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In a recent post on his blog he wrote:
One would think that the practice of science would be objective. I once believed this, too. As a fresh post-doc at the University of Wisconsin, when I discovered something new in satellite data, I was surprised to encounter NASA employees who tried to keep my work from being published because they feared it would interfere with a new satellite mission they were working toward. I eventually got it published as a cover article in the prestigious journal, Nature.
But the subject I was dealing with did not have the profound financial, political, policy, and even religious import that climate change would end up having. Furthermore, 35 years ago things were different than today. People were less tribal. There is an old saying that one should not discuss politics or religion in polite company, but it turns out that social media is far from polite company.
From a practical standpoint, what we do (or don’t do) about human-caused climate change supports either (1) a statist, top-down governmental control over human affairs that involves a more socialist political framework, or (2) an unconstrained individual-freedom framework where capitalism reigns supreme. So, one could easily be a believer (or non-believer) in the ‘climate emergency’ based upon their political leanings.
Municipal Bond Markets Don’t Believe the Global Warming Alarmists
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.”
Trump Has Backed Off Freezing 2020 Fuel Efficiency Standards
Replacing the Obama administration/California standards for vehicle CO2 emissions with the Trump administration’s Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule would have insignificant impacts on climate change. This is Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
As explained in my congressional testimony this week, according to the Obama administration’s own climate modeling, replacing the current CO2 standards with the SAFE rule would add only 0.003°C to global average temperatures 81 years from now—an undetectably small and climatically inconsequential change.
However . . .