Columnist.
Solar jobs are a tragic waste of human labor because it takes so much more to produce so much less.
For years I have been pointing out that the super-sophisticated computer climate models on which the IPCC, national environment agencies, national academies of science, and of course the many climate-alarmist advocacy groups and journalists depend for their predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) predict, on average, two to three times the warming actually observed over the relevant periods; failed to predict the complete lack of statistically significant global warming from about early 1997 to … whatever the end date, right up to late 2015 (after which a super-El Niño shortened the "pause" for a few months, though rapid cooling in May/June and the likelihood of a strong La Niña taking over is likely to restore the "pause" to full length and then draw it out longer); and — my focal point for this blog post — 95% predict more warming than observed, which implies that their errors are not random (in which case they'd have been about as frequently below as above, and by about the same amounts) but driven by some kind of bias (whether honest mistake or dishonest fudging) written right into the models.
The influx of Middle Eastern immigrants to the United Kingdom through the European Union undoubtedly played a significant role in Brexit, coupled with many British citizens' resentment against what they perceived as intrusive and ill-advised rules imposed by unelected and unaccountable European Union officials and bureaucrats (among other reasons).
For generations economists have recognized the "problem of the commons." The phrase harks back to when villagers all shared a common pasture. The natural incentive for each villager was to graze as many livestock on it as he could, because if instead he restricted his herd so the demand on the pasture's grass growth was sustainable, his neighbors would run more livestock, the commons would still be exhausted, and he'd be left behind. When instead each person must own the land on which he grazed livestock, his incentive changed from short-term but fleeting gain to long-term sustained gain, so he grazed as many livestock as his pasture's growth could sustain year after year, but no more.
Just got word through the grapevine that Republican Party leadership is talking of adding to the Party platform the affirmation that "climate change" is real. There are two ways in which that could be taken, each with serious risks.
Der Spiegel reports ... that the German Green Party has announced that it intends to get petrol-driven (gasoline and diesel) vehicles off German roads, aiming to have no more such vehicles registered from 2036 onward.
The New York Times has just published an article claiming that global warming is (partly) to blame for the spread of various "tropical" diseases to the U.S. and other areas where previously they had been eradicated or had never existed. Donald G. McNeil Jr. begins his article titled "U.S. Becomes More Vulnerable to Tropical Diseases Like Zika" thus: "Tropical diseases — some of them never before seen in the United States — are marching northward as climate change lets mosquitoes and ticks expand their ranges."
Coming to Grips With the Paris Climate Agreement
After running for president on a hard-Left environmentalist platform in 2008, Barack Obama neither attempted nor achieved much in his first term — and for good reason. Actually *doing* what he'd promised would alienate huge numbers of voters as they saw jobs disappear, incomes fall, and costs rise under the increasingly tyrannical bureaucracy of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and of course he wanted a second term.
Whenever we quote the alarmists using the term that way, we should follow it with [sic:; actually carbon dioxide, an odorless, colorless, nontoxic gas essential to plant photosynthesis and animal respiration] the first time, and [sic; actually carbon dioxide] every following time in the same article. I know, I know, that might seem pedantic. But we need to do this to drum out of the public's mind (as the alarmists have drummed into it) the false equation of carbon and carbon dioxide, and drum into its mind (as they've drummed out of it) the true distinction between the two.
Climate.gov "is, in short, propaganda. Pure propaganda."
Many climate scientists argue that we need to mitigate global warming because otherwise it will be the poor who will be hurt the most. Apparently these scientists do not understand their own models. Projections from climate models are based on the rates of poverty reduction, with the highest ('worst') temperature projections resulting when the poorest people in the world increase their incomes from $246 (measured in constant 1990 USD) to $49,000 per year (approximately equal to U.S. GDP per capita in 2014) by the end of the 21st century.
A subscriber to Cornwall Alliance's e-newsletter recently wrote asking us if we have replies to the various graphs at "Climate Change: Global Temperature," on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate.gov web page. Oh my goodness; the misrepresentations of facts in those graphs are awful!
As the UN climate summit in Paris draws near, people are asking us for questions they can raise at various public meetings — at churches, schools, universities, community organizations, etc. — to expose the errors of climate alarmism. Here are five...
Deepak Lal, one of the world's leading development economists, wrote in his book *Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty*: "The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. … [I]t is mankind's use of the mineral energy stored in nature's gift of fossil fuels … [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia."
Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, combined with economic freedom and limited, responsive government according to the rule of law, are indispensable to overcoming poverty. No society has risen out of poverty or can long stay out of it without both. That is why I oppose policies to prevent or reduce global warming allegedly caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.
A $Trillion here, a $Trillion there — pretty soon you're talking real money. No, I'm not talking about the U.S. national debt, now at over $18 trillion. That's a very bad thing that threatens to impoverish our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
Each month when RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) updates its global average temperature data, Lord Christopher Monckton calculates how far back one can go in the RSS record without showing a positive trend, i.e., how long "the pause" is. It's been lengthening for several years and as of the end of August had reached 18 years and 8 months. Now, with a strong El Niño developing in the Pacific, the calculation yields a new starting point — not January of 1997 but February. We might say we've hit a "pause in the lengthening of the pause."
The Earth Day Network hosted what it touted as a major rally for action to stop "climate change" today (timed to coincide with Pope Francis's visit with President Obama yesterday and his address to Congress) on the National Mall in Washington. Only it wasn't. It was reported that organizers said beforehand they expected "up to 200,000 people" to attend. Well, I guess what they said was true. The number didn't exceed 200,000. By my guess, it didn't exceed 5,000 or 6,000, but I'm no expert at estimating crowds, so though by my naturally generous nature I thought to give them double that — 12,000 — I now find that their faithful allies at ClimateProgress gave them only "hundreds." So I'll let that suffice.
