Climate Hype Hurts the Environment and Undermines Our Society

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Climate hype is profoundly damaging the environment and society; the evidence for this is compelling and discussed in this blog.

I have always been an environmentalist, worried about the protection of our natural environment. And I am concerned about global warming and its effects on humanity and the health of the planet.

Thus, I have become increasingly apprehensive about apocalyptic climate change hype, which is profoundly damaging the environment of our region and undermining the well-being of many.

Picture courtesy of Cristian Ibarra Santillan

Damage to the Northwest Environment from Climate Change Hype

There is substantial damage being done to the Northwest environment from the unfounded hype found in the media, some politicians, and several activist groups.  Consider a few examples:

Wildfires and Lack of Forest Management.  

Prominent politicians in our state and some media/activist groups have stated that climate change (a term used to mean human-caused global warming) is the predominant cause of the increase in regional fires and smoke.  

This is simply not true.  Regional forest experts (e.g., here and here) are emphatic that the key problems are unhealthy dry side forests, overgrown and explosive after decades of fire suppression, the invasion of flammable invasive grasses, and increasing fire ignitions by the rapidly growing population of our region.   Some knowledgeable local environmental leaders (e.g., Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz) have said the same thing.

Picture courtesy of Bureau of Land Management

To deal with the dangerously flammable forests, we must thin them and bring back fire (e.g., proscribed fires).   Their ecological health DEPENDS on fire. We must also work to reduce invasive grasses, limit human expansion into wildland areas, and take steps to limit fire ignition (e.g., improved powerline infrastructure).

But with many politicians and advocacy groups pushing the dominance of climate change for increasing wildfires, only very limited and totally inadequate attention has gone into restoring our eastside wildlands to a more natural and ecologically healthy state.  And human ignition on the western side has not received acutely needed attention.

The bottom line:  Climate hype has given us bigger fires, more smoke, and more danger to our citizens.

Disturbed and Degraded Shorelines from Shellfish “Farms”–  Protected By Climate Hype

A very large shellfish industry has grown in our region and it has had profoundly negative effects on our coastal environment. Our ecologically critical coastal areas have been physically disturbed to “farm” non-native species, such as the Pacific oyster.  Herbicides have been sprayed to kill native eelgrass and pesticides distributed to kill native sand shrimp because native grasses and shrimp got in the way of the shellfish aquaculture industry.  In addition, the shellfish industry has been responsible for extensive plastic pollution.  Some information here and here.


This ecological degradation has been tolerated, if not supported, by the State and some media/activist groups, because the shellfish growers claimed that increasing CO2 was acidifying local waters and killing shellfish, and thus they came under the “green mantle”, with some major WA state politicians publicly supporting shellfish industry claims.  
As I have noted in earlier blogs, the science is clear;  increasing CO2 concentrations from human emissions were never the problem for the oysters, but rather, the culprits were mistakes in using high-CO2 upwelled water in commercial oyster nurseries.  The Seattle Times was particularly active in pushing a false narrative in their series, Sea Change, and certain local climate advocacy politicians have a close relationship with the industry.  The Seattle Times never forgave me for pointing this out in this blog.

Air and Water Pollution over Puget Sound

Much of the marine traffic in Puget Sound uses dirty bunker fuel or diesel, which produces substantial particle pollution that is potentially harmful to local residents.  An alternative exists: Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), which not only burns much cleaner but also puts less greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere. Furthermore, bunker oil and diesel can spill when ships dock at the fueling barges.  Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is planning a LNG terminal in Tacoma to help clean the air and reduce global warming, but a number of local climate activist groups (e.g., 350Seattle) and politicians (e.g., our Governor) are opposing the facility because it involves a fossil fuel.

This is a disturbing example of unrealistic, naive climate advocacy opposing a provable good (clean air, less greenhouse gas emissions) and serves as a potent example of a climate change movement losing its bearings.

Picture Courtesy of Seattle City Council
Undermining Our Civil Society And Democratic Freedoms
The groups and individuals hyping climate change are so sure of their noble cause that they are willing to undermine essential foundations of our society, such as freedom of speech and rule of law.  
 I experienced this myself at KNKX.  A local climate “justice” group 350Seattle was unhappy with my discussion of climate (peer-reviewed material by the way) and started a petition to get me kicked off the station.  The management of the station, unwilling to defend science or freedom of speech,  rapidly surrendered to the activists, agreeing to have my science evaluated–and even appointed one of the group’s members to oversee it.
Of course, they did not find anything wrong with my science, but nevertheless, the station head, Joey Cohn, told me that would have fired me, except there would be a lot of complaints.  As soon as they had some cover (my blog opposing violent rioting in Seattle) KNKX terminated my segment.  The climate activists got their wish… silencing of someone they disagreed with–and you can read their gloating on Twitter.


Local climate activist groups such 350Seattle do not believe in freedom of speech or the importance of diversity of viewpoint.  They do not believe in the scientific process. They are certain that they possess the truth and anyone with a different viewpoint must be silenced.
One of the most prodigious name-callers in the local media is Charles Mudede of the Seattle Stranger, who viciously attacks individuals who differ from him on climate change.  He proposed using a “strong hand” to force people to follow his vision of climate action.  Charles Mudedd doesn’t hide his undemocratic views, calling himself a “green Mussolini.”  

Reprinted from the SeattleStranger
Another potent example of anti-democratic climate actors is the decision of Governor Inslee to veto key sections of the Clean Fuel act that were approved by the legislature.  This may well be illegal and even many Democrats were furious.  He did not feel it necessary to honor precedent, legislature authority, or State law: the portions of the climate change bill he and activists were interested in were more important.


The climate hypesters have used climate change as a cudgel to attack those with differing political views, such as conservatives and Republicans, undermining the potential for bipartisan climate action.  And let’s be clear, many Republicans and conservatives are committed environmentalists, including youthful conservatives in the American Climate Coalition to a recent Republican gubernatorial candidate (Bill Bryant) and the current minority leader of the Washington State house of Representatives (J.T. Wilcox).  I have talked to all of them and they are determined to deal with climate change and to protect the environment.
When there was a real chance to act in a bipartisan way on climate (Initiative 732, a revenue-neutral carbon tax in WA state), the environmental hypesters were against it–a tragedy for both the environment and bipartisan climate action.

Power Outages and Inequity:  A Major Product of Climate Hype
Climate activists have pushed for draconian steps like the immediate cessation of using natural gas in new buildings, phasing out natural gas in standing structures, the legislated termination of gas powered-car sales, and a precipitous increase in solar and wind power.  They have also opposed nuclear energy.
The trouble is that they have not thought through the energy problem, nor have come up with a viable plan.


The move to end sales of gas-powered cars will demand massive new electric power sources, and there is no way that renewables can provide it. Plus, renewables are intermittent, so huge storage is required.  Nuclear could play a critical role, but the climate justice community is against it.  
So they are pushing people to give up fossil fuels but have not figured out where to get the power from.  Not unlike defunding the police without getting something else in place.  You end up with more crime and homeless camps.  But in this case,  you end up with power outages and rapidly escalating prices.
We have a prime example of what will happen because California is ahead of us in effecting the new energy approach, leading to frequent power outages and rising electricity rates.  High power rates hurt low-income folks the most and lead them to less use of life-saving air conditioners.  In short, the activist green agenda undermines equity.  But the green elite doesn’t care.


California has the highest and most rapidly rising electricity prices in the western U.S.  Our future?
Psychological Damage And Anxiety
The endless apocalyptic statements in the media and elsewhere have induced considerable climate fear and anxiety in the population.  This is something I have learned about firsthand, as fearful people call me to ask about the coming climate “crisis”.  One woman was afraid to move to southern CA to care for her sick mother because her kids would be exposed to extreme heat and drought.  Others ask me whether they should have kids.  Several colleges, like UW Bothell, have climate anxiety classes, and NPR did a recent segment on climate fears that are spreading through the population.
For several decades, major media has featured increasingly end-the-world headlines.  If something is not done in ten years, two years, or six months, the world will face a non-reversible slide into climate disaster.  The Seattle Times is particularly guilty of this.


The truth is that global warming will slowly unfold and that many weather extremes will be unaffected or become less extreme (e.g.. cold waves), something stated explicitly in the recent UN/IPCC report.  Adaptation (e.g, more AC, additional reservoirs, better use of water, restoring forests) can help greatly, and better weather prediction affords great protection from extremes.  There is a reason that deaths from environmental extremes are down precipitously around the world.
Climate activists are trying to scare people with unrealistic scary scenarios to “get them to do the right thing.”  They don’t care about the harm they are doing to people’s psyches, and particularly the most psychologically vulnerable.  Scaring people also makes folks turn off to the issue and less likely to take coherent, science-guided steps.

Science as Victim
One of the most serious victims of the “climate crisis” hype is science itself.  
When the apocalyptic predictions don’t come true, people realize they were deceived.  15 years ago, activists predicted the catastrophic loss of Cascade snow, but it hasn’t happened.  Ten years ago, there was talk of ocean acidification causing immense loss of shellfish harvests, but harvests are now fine, with oyster nurseries now avoiding the use of untempered upwelled water.  
Some scientists and science reporters have clearly crossed into political and policy advocacy (e.g, the climate attribution industry), and people can sense something is wrong.  And the hypocritical actions of the “climate elite”, who enjoy high-carbon lifestyles, are noted by the general population.  (revelation:  climate scientists are notoriously for their carbon-intensive lifestyles–lots of travel, vacation homes, etc.)
Climate change has morphed from an area of science to one of a quasi-religion.  
One is asked whether you “believe” in climate change (are you ever asked that about gravity?).   Those with differing views are called “deniers.”  Individuals with less extreme views are attacked in a very personal way, as if they are bad people.  Climate “adherents” note that their beliefs are the same as the “consensus” of 97% of climate scientists (this is total nonsense, but something I can discuss in a future blog).  The science is “settled” and thus can not be debated (science is not science without debate, by the way). 

Science doesn’t work this way
And like most religions, there is a future apocalypse that can only be avoided or survived by having the “right” views.     Particular anger is directed at apostate priests (e.g., climate scientists with alternative takes on implications of the science), like the writer of this blog.
Summary
An apocalyptic future looms before us, but it has little to do with increasing greenhouse gases.
A future with catastrophically burning forests, of media providing increasingly apocalyptic warnings, of polluted coastal areas and poisoned shorelines, weakened democracy, attenuated and undermined science, omnipresent fear of the future, increasing power blackouts, and decreased equity in society.
But we do not have to have this future.
But to do so will require that we honor diversity of viewpoint and refrain from demonizing folks with different ideas or political backgrounds.  That we stop politicizing science and use the best science to guide our adaptation and mitigation activities.  That we stop pushing a false apocalyptic vision to encourage the “unanointed” to do the right thing.  That we support technological research and considering the value of nuclear power as part of the energy mix. And that the media, such as KNKX and the Seattle Times, move from advocacy to providing coverage that is both factually correct and representative of the diversity of ideas in the real world.
I am convinced that global warming is a technical problem that will be solved with technical innovation.  And that using it as a wedge issue to promote political and ideological goals will not only fail, but undermines our society in profound ways.

Avoidable

5 19 votes
Article Rating
69 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chaswarnertoo
August 17, 2021 10:07 am

All morons who believe CO2 damages the planet must stop exhaling it, now.

n.n
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 17, 2021 7:46 pm

Or wear respirators with source control and sequestration. And they should not forget to cap methane emissions, which is a powerful radiative gas.

Last edited 4 months ago by n.n
Smart Rock
August 17, 2021 10:08 am

Cliff, please note that “proscribed” means forbidden. In the line after the second image, I assume you mean “prescribed fires”

Now I’ll go back to reading what looks like a very informative post.

August 17, 2021 10:21 am

With all the climate hype, none of them are willing to answer the one basic question at the heart of climate alarmism … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6rAWcjTyw

Ron Long
August 17, 2021 10:28 am

Cliff, if you just blurt out the truth, especially given your Seattle location, the Climate Taliban will come for you. Concealed carry?

griff
Reply to  Ron Long
August 17, 2021 12:02 pm

What utter nonsense

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 12:52 pm

Among your other faults, you are obviously also humor impaired.

How does it feel to be a pariah?

commieBob
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 3:05 pm

From the above story:

One of the most prodigious name-callers in the local media is Charles Mudede of the Seattle Stranger, who viciously attacks individuals who differ from him on climate change. He proposed using a “strong hand” to force people to follow his vision of climate action. Charles Mudedd doesn’t hide his undemocratic views, calling himself a “green Mussolini.”

Fascism and Marxism have at least one thing in common. No matter how well you toe the party line, they will eventually come for you. That includes you my dear Griff. Chew on that for a while.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 8:38 pm

[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 9:31 pm

Cliff will face death threats like the nice canadian woman who appeared in republican ads in 2008 saying our Medicare system isn’t all that great. She had to go into hiding, for telling the truth

Progressives are terribly vindictive

MarkW2
August 17, 2021 10:43 am

The entire “climate change” movement is now out of control. The majority of media are no longer offering any form of balance, with more and more outrageous claims being accepted as “the new norm”.

While this is crazy it might not be such a bad thing. There’s an old saying that “if you give people enough rope, eventually they will hang themselves”; and signs of this are starting to appear for the net zero zealots.

First, the picture now being painted is so apocalyptic that honest Joes are seriously questioning the validity of the claims being made. Second, as the hype intensifies so the pressure “to do something about it now” also intensifies. This is forcing people to look seriously at the real costs of achieving net-zero, with the inevitable reality of the eyewatering sums required hitting them squarely in the face. Third, promises “to fight climate change” are great for achieving sound bites but coming back to haunt politicians who made them as the reality of putting them into practice sinks in.

The Democrats are already being found out, with the latest calls for OPEC to reduce oil prices revealing total hypocrisy. The UK Government is also coming under mounting pressure as the real costs of achieving net zero are finally being realised. It’s a similar picture in Australia, Germany and other countries claiming to “lead” the climate change revolution.

The more the hype builds the more exposed the politicians become and the greater the cynicism builds in all but the staunchest environmentalists in a classic feedback loop.

Duane
Reply to  MarkW2
August 17, 2021 12:13 pm

Per Aesop’s fables, “be careful … you may get what you wish for” certainly applies to the massive hysterics over climate that pervade the popular media today. As people look around and say, “WHAT crisis?” the credibility of the warmunistas naturally declines.

DocSiders
Reply to  MarkW2
August 19, 2021 11:06 am

AND….Germany and Australia didn’t even come close to meeting CO2 Emissions Targets. The US beat them all….without even trying AND while achieving historic low energy prices…while theirs doubled to quadrupled. BIG LIES are everywhere when Democrats and Leftists are around.

The BIG LIE that Wind and Solar are cheaper than Fossil fuels and Nuclear was a lie of an order of magnitude (when energy reliability costs…for PEAK Energy Demand is included).

Vuk
August 17, 2021 10:45 am

Climate hype hurts my bank account.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 11:26 am

The sale of new boilers that run exclusively on natural gas could be banned by 2026 in the UK’s push to hit climate goals. 
According to Mat of Telegraph all letter boxes will have to be replaced too because the energy bills will be much bigger by then.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 11:34 am

Burning natural gas in the home is the most efficient use of the gas.

Vuk
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 17, 2021 11:53 am

Some clever clogs said on TV, “hydrogen for domestic boilers will be extracted from natural gas”. Mind boggles. He also said his company is called ‘Element 2’, My chemistry teacher said Hydrogen is element No. 1, not to mentioned that “Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen.” 

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 2:09 pm

He also said his company is called ‘Element 2’,

Hilarious!

Good luck to him trying to burn helium…

WXcycles
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 17, 2021 3:18 pm

It’s pretty close though, remember, these guys can’t tell the difference between carbon and carbon-dioxide. Cancel anything with carbon in it.

Eventually they’ll figure out that means cancelling all life on Earth (especially themselves).

Fixed!

TonyG
Reply to  WXcycles
August 18, 2021 1:15 pm

WX I’m not so sure that’s not their end goal anymore…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 17, 2021 8:28 pm

Helium walks into a bar.
Bartender yells “Get out of here you bum!”
Helium didn’t react.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 11:11 pm

Hydrogen = Element No 1. Helium + Element No 2. Oxygen = Element No 3. Carbon = Element No 4, apparently that is a Universal constant, Universally speaking of course, as we do need to take a Universal view on things, being such a puny life-form, a minor infestation on the surface of a minor planet, in a minor Star System, in the spiral limb of a minor Galaxy!!!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 18, 2021 5:36 am

in a minor Star System, in the spiral limb of a minor Galaxy

I ink it was the “unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy”, at least according to Douglas Adams.

beng135
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 18, 2021 7:29 am

As galaxies go, ours is pretty impressive — a co-dominant in a “group”. Far more smaller galaxies than bigger than ours.

markl
August 17, 2021 10:48 am

“I am convinced that global warming is a technical problem that will be solved with technical innovation. And that using it as a wedge issue to promote political and ideological goals will not only fail, but undermines our society in profound ways.” Both wrong assumptions. There is no AGW, only natural climate variations. “Undermining our society” is the goal of AGW proponents.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  markl
August 17, 2021 11:12 pm

It’s called Socialism!!!

2hotel9
Reply to  markl
August 18, 2021 3:41 am

Quinn’s First Law, leftists always produce the exact opposite of their stated intent.

Steve Z
August 17, 2021 10:56 am

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a somewhat complex issue. There is no question that, given the abundance of natural gas from fracking (particularly in PA and OH), it would be wise to build LNG terminals along the east coast (in order to export LNG to Europe to supply them if the Russians shut off the pipeline).

An LNG terminal in Tacoma would also be helpful to residents of the Pacific Northwest, since natural gas from British Columbia or Alberta could be either used in Washington State or exported using an LNG terminal.

But using LNG to replace bunker fuel or diesel on ocean-going ships may not work very well. Although its use would reduce pollution from spills or particulate emissions in a sheltered harbor such as Puget Sound, for a trans-Pacific voyage, the LNG would have to be kept cold (about -260 F) for the entire voyage, requiring expensive insulation and refrigeration systems, which are not needed for diesel or bunker fuel (which occupy less volume for the amount of heat released).

Tankers designed to transport LNG across oceans are generally equipped with such refrigeration systems, but trying to retrofit diesel-burning container ships with heavily insulated tanks, cryogenic LNG refrigeration systems (using potentially explosive refrigerants), and the larger tanks required for a trans-Pacific voyage would be prohibitive.

An LNG-powered ship would also have to worry about whether a supply of LNG is available (including all the compressors and other equipment required to liquefy natural gas) at the other end of their voyage (somewhere along the east coast of Asia or Australia or Indonesia) for refueling.

The international regulations on Marine Diesel or bunker fuel used in trans-oceanic ships are usually less stringent (in terms of sulfur content or particulate emissions) than US or European regulations on Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) used in trucks on land. This is due to the fact that most of the SO2 and particulate emissions from ships occur over the open ocean, where no one actually breathes the emissions (other than crew on the ships).

If Washington State wants to cut down on pollutant emissions from ships in Puget Sound, it could impose regulations requiring the use of Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel while navigating inside the harbor, while allowing the use of Marine Diesel or bunker fuel out on the open ocean. This would only require the ships to carry a relatively small tank filled with ULSD for navigating inside the harbor, instead of the expensive retrofit required to use LNG.

Robin Betteridge
Reply to  Steve Z
August 17, 2021 11:17 am

The UKs biggest cruise liner, the IONA, is powered by LNG so I guess that the problems you haver raised have been addressed

Oldseadog
Reply to  Robin Betteridge
August 17, 2021 12:08 pm

No, the vessel has a very limited area of operation.

Climate believer
Reply to  Robin Betteridge
August 17, 2021 12:34 pm

…and they have the gall to call it “eco-friendly”.

Think of all the “eco-friendlyness” they would have created if they hadn’t built the monstrosity in the first place.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Robin Betteridge
August 17, 2021 1:03 pm

The retrofit issue raised by Steve Z here is a show-stopper and is most definitely not addressed in this example of a new cruise liner designed from scratch for LNG.

Duane
Reply to  Steve Z
August 17, 2021 12:17 pm

LNG is used practically speaking only as a mass fuel storage and transport medium … the actual vessels plying Puget Sound would not need to use LNG fuel tanks, rather they could simply uses pressurized gas as has been used for decades in wheeled vehicles. It’s not as if a typical working vessel on the Sound would have to have transoceanic range.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve Z
August 17, 2021 2:12 pm

most of the SO2 and particulate emissions from ships occur over the open ocean, where no one actually breathes the emissions (other than crew on the ships).

I’m pretty sure the exhaust will never affect the crew or passengers on a ship since it is left behind. And by the time anyone else gets near to it, it will be thoroughly dissipated.

Gary Pearse
August 17, 2021 11:09 am

The MSM, a core of activist scientists and designer-brained social scientists are the forces behind the hype. A few formerly ‘all-in’ scientists, having lived through the 18yr Dreaded Pause and seeing us 6+ years into a cooling trend with stubbornly persistent cold water in ENSO zones and a disquieting quiet sun, have taken a giant step back.

James Hansen, “Father of Global Warming” opined a couple of years ago that we can’t rule out a 30yr cooling period! His protegé and replacement Gavin Schmidt as head of NASA’S GISS (a climate modeler) stated two weeks ago that climate models are running away too hot and he helplessly stated ‘we have to do something about it!

The temperature “Control Knob CO2”, falsified by sceptics in early years of the new millennium, has now become untenable in the eyes of the chief promoters of end-of-world-CO2 warming. Watch the exodus unfold!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 17, 2021 11:20 pm

Don’t worry, they have a veritable arsenal of excuses as to why their dyer predictions failed to materialise, most likely that the simple reductions in Western democracies emissions have solved the issue, without of course producing any evidence of it!!!

Lance Wallace
August 17, 2021 11:09 am

Cliff– You are a brave person. Thanks for continuing to tell the truth, much as it results in difficult times for you. I recall growing up how the Seattle Times was such a stalwart ally against the Hearst-owned P.I. Sad to see the decline of the Times.

Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2021 11:18 am

“Hype” is far too weak of a word to describe what the Climate Liars do.

Duane
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2021 12:18 pm

“Hysteria” is a much better word.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2021 12:33 pm

“Criminal” is the correct word.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
August 17, 2021 11:55 am

The climate hype serves a useful role for inept, incompetent politicians everywhere as the
Be All, End All Excuse for their malfeasance in governance.
Because it is so useful to Democrats, it is not going away.

Vuk
August 17, 2021 12:01 pm

 UK’s is building first battery gigafactory !
Britishvolt has begun construction on a new factory on the site of an old power station at Blyth on the northeast coast to manufacture enough batteries to power 300,000 zero-emission electric cars a year by 2027.”

If you are resident in Blyth (Northumberland) perhaps you have to read small print in your life insurance policy.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 2:14 pm

to manufacture enough batteries to power 300,000 zero-emission electric cars a year by 2027.

I wonder when they’ll figure out that batteries don’t ‘power’ anything unless they have been charged first

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 18, 2021 6:50 am

According to carmagazine.co.uk there are over 40 million vehicles on the road in the UK of which more than 35 million are cars.

Going to take an awful long time, over 100 years, at 300,000 batteries a year to replace them.

Last edited 4 months ago by Dave Andrews
LdB
Reply to  Vuk
August 17, 2021 6:57 pm

“Britishvolt is the start-up with ambitious plans” …. what could possibly go wrong

griff
August 17, 2021 12:01 pm

‘Forest management’ isn’t the reason for more wildfires…. take Sweden which saw unprecedented forest fires in recent years: one of the planet’s most efficient forest management programmes. so too Greece: regular forest management.

Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 12:35 pm

Has the griffter been visiting Sweden?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 12:54 pm

In griff’s world, if bad forest management is not the problem in one place, that proves that it’s not a problem anywhere.

That’s assuming that for once, griff’s assertions have any basis in reality in the first place.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 1:00 pm

Arson is the primary cause of the fires in Greece, it has been all over the internet, how did you miss it?

Sweden has been getting a lot of arson fires as well in recent years, all this is easy to find in a search.

You a poor researcher and a shooter from the hip with unsupported nonsense, when will you EVER make a single rational comment?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2021 8:32 pm

Well if it ever happens THAT will be unprecedented.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2021 11:26 pm

That’s the trouble with those pesky eco-bunnies, they’ll do anything to promote their cause, up to & including destroying the environment to prove a point!!! From what I have read, the Australian fires were started deliberately, as were those in Greece several years ago!!!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 1:11 pm

The “unprecedented forest fires in recent years,” which I would assume to mean in less than the last 50 years, is attributable to what then? There has been an average global increase of about 0.5 deg C in the last 50 years, with the majority of that in the Winter and at night. So, an increase of less than 0.01 deg C per decade in daytime temperature in “recent years” is leading to “unprecedented forest fires?” That seems improbable to me. I think that a reasonable person would look for alternative explanations.

In this day a reasonable person is almost as difficult to find as an honest man during the time of Diogenes. Were Diogenes alive today, he might well be looking for a reasonable person. I doubt that you would pass his lantern test.

beng135
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 18, 2021 7:54 am

You’ve got 4 references to numbers there. Griffy, like all the useful idiots, ain’t too good with numbers. It’s all about “feelings”.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 1:43 pm

“Forest management’ isn’t the reason for more wildfires…”

In some countries it is, in the ones you mentioned it’s weather that increases the risk, not climate, (you’re still having problems with that concept I know).

There is no wildfire numbers trend in Sweden.

(Data EFFIS)

Sweden number of fires history.png
Climate believer
Reply to  Climate believer
August 17, 2021 1:45 pm

There is a wildfire numbers down trend in Greece.

Greece number of fires history.png
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
August 17, 2021 8:13 pm

Griff
You use the words “extreme” and “unprecedented” all the time

“I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean”
Inigo Montoya

7BC8DB10-52C5-4C03-9D5F-C5B2D6A34E22.jpeg
2hotel9
Reply to  griff
August 18, 2021 3:43 am

And more lies spewed by the lie spewing liar.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
August 17, 2021 12:02 pm

In a related story on political malfeasance:

Wildfire Season: PG&E Warns It May Black Out Customers to Reduce California Risks
“PG&E Corp. warned that it may cut electricity Tuesday to about 48,000 customers in heavily forested parts of Northern California to reduce the risk that its power equipment will spark wildfires.
The utility company said it may begin implementing so-called public safety power shut-offs Tuesday evening in small parts of 18 counties north of San Francisco in anticipation of wind gusts up to 40 miles an hour, conditions that can cause fires to rapidly spread.
The proactive shut-offs, the company’s first so far this wildfire season, may last through Wednesday afternoon. The exact number of people who may be affected is uncertain but could top 140,000, based on census data on people per household in California.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wildfire-season-pg-e-warns-it-may-black-out-customers-to-reduce-california-risks-11629216000

Peta of Newark
August 17, 2021 12:26 pm

But the hype is needed – for reasons Mencken ventured about ‘hobgoblins’

The hype is needed because Socialists have been running the show in Europe for A Long Time and in the UK for nigh on 30 years now.

And They Are Running Out Of Money

But they are so <expletive> dim & incompetent, as socialists always are, that The Only Solution they ever see to any problem, is to throw money at it.

‘Climate’ is their, hardly a get-out-of-jail card but it lets them hang onto power for that little bit longer.

But you’re absolutely right because the longer they cling on, the more damage they do and the messier it will be when it all does fall apart for them. and us. and everybody, not least our kids.

NO, things have NOT never been better

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 17, 2021 2:17 pm

NO, things have NOT “never been better“

Things are better every day!

Tomorrow was better than today. Today is better than tomorrow…

Thomas Gasloli
August 17, 2021 12:42 pm

“I believe global warming is a technical problem…”
And therein lies the problem. If you are going to be part of the CO2 causes global warming fraud, claiming the fraud has gone to far is ridiculous. If you play with fire you can’t complain when you get burned.🔥

fretslider
August 17, 2021 1:11 pm

The climate hype bores me to tears

It makes the gullible mentally unstable

August 17, 2021 1:37 pm

Corona Committee: “COVID-19 is a Super-PsyOp … against civil societies’

It’s not only about Corona, not directy linked to climate change, but linked to fear spreading we also see day by day about climate change with the same reason and possible background presented here in the really long, translatedt text.
There exist a video of the meeting, but only in German, unfortunately without subtitels.

Last edited 4 months ago by Krishna Gans
WXcycles
August 17, 2021 2:32 pm

A Global Vulnerability Assessment: Vulnerability of Coastal Areas to Sea Level Rise – 1993

https://www.academia.edu/615387/A_Global_Vulnerability_Assessment_Vulnerability_of_Coastal_Areas_to_Sea_Level_Rise

This report predicts a sea level rise, in 2100, of between 30 cm (lowest prediction) and 110 cm (highest prediction), caused by glacial melt and thermal expansion.

But what we see is that the natural background rate of sea level rise is about +3.3 mm per year, and is not detectably accelerating at all for the past century.

It’s 107 years from 1993 to 2100, thus …

107 * 3.3 mm = 35.3 cm of natural sea-level rise by the year 2100.

In other words, the natural linear rate of observed sea level rise would be ~5.3 cm higher than IPCC’s predicted lower rise prediction of 30 cm by 2100.

So much for the touted CO2 AGW effect on sea level!

And their upper prediction, of 1,100 mm rise within 107 years = 10.28 mm per year sea level rise required!

Which is 3 times higher than observed and that rate is nearly constant, so that prediction is clearly wrong and totally unachievable by 2100. In other words, there’s ZERO evidence of a CO2 AGW driven sea level rise ‘crisis’.

Zip!

It’s simply not happening and actually can not happen at all, based on what we have seen so far of +3.3 mm/year.

The main danger perceived in the 1991 assessment was from projected sea-level rises, but it’s not happening – at all. So why is anyone listening to the IPCC now, about anything? Their predictions of emerging global climate crisis have been consistently wrong for 30 years already. There’s no extra sea-level rise above background level detectable.

So why is anyone bothering to fund the UN IPCC nonsense or even give them the time of day? They’re time and money wasting failures, and leading everyone astray, into a completely fake fantasy-‘crisis’.

Sheep, jumping over what’s not even there.

Peter W
Reply to  WXcycles
August 17, 2021 5:33 pm

Based on my personal study of the matter, I expect to see sea levels start to fall in the near future. It will be interesting to see the results of that, although given my age, I might miss it.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  WXcycles
August 17, 2021 8:09 pm

3.3mm per year is wrong, based on garbage satellite data

Pat from kerbob
August 17, 2021 8:08 pm

Right on Cliff
Hopefully you are allowed to continue living after telling so much truth.

The climate scientologists do not tolerate dissent, especially from former inmates.

All the best

2hotel9
August 18, 2021 3:38 am

“Climate hype is profoundly damaging the environment and society” Which is precisely what the political left intends to do, no matter what they claim they intend. Quinn’s First Law.

AGW is Not Science
August 18, 2021 1:55 pm

(LNG), which not only burns much cleaner but also puts less greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere

Sorry Cliff, but CO2 is NOT “pollution,” it is, in fact, the basis of all life as we know it today.

determined to deal with climate change and to protect the environment

Code for “embrace the stupidity to a slightly smaller extent.” Color me unimpressed. “Dealing with climate change” is as futile as “dealing with the sun rising and setting” or “dealing with the tides coming in and going out.” WE are not in control of the effing climate. Never have been, aren’t now, never will be. CO2 from whatever source has never, does not, and will never drive the climate.

As for the second piece, that is truly laughable – the “dealing with climate change” piece is diametrically opposed to the “protecting the environment” piece. If you don’t believe that, look over the rain forests being clear cut for “biofuel” crop farming, the trees being removed for wind farms, the landscapes being ruined, the health impacts being ignored, and the mass slaughter of birds, bats and insects being summarily ignored all to “save us” from nothing – a false “crisis.”

When there was a real chance to act in a bipartisan way on climate (Initiative 732, a revenue-neutral carbon tax in WA state), the environmental hypesters were against it–a tragedy for both the environment and bipartisan climate action.

The only tragedy is the attempt to unnecessarily increase the cost of energy to accomplish absolutely nothing. The defeat of I732 was a beautiful thing, and I hope the same fate greets every other “carbon tax” scheme.

An apocalyptic future looms before us

Only IF the Climate Nazis get their way!

Last edited 4 months ago by AGW is Not Science
%d bloggers like this: