Climate Change Weekly #418


Edited by H. Sterling Burnett

Like this? Forward to friends and urge them to subscribe.


Hypocrisy, Not Climate Concern, Dominated COP-26

Global elites regularly decry the supposedly “existential” threat purported human-caused climate change poses to the environment, civilization, and even human survival.

These elites propose policies intended to avert global climate disaster, almost all of them involving ending the use of fossil fuels and fundamentally changing how people live, forcing us to live in high-density urban settings along mass transportation nodes and eat locally supplied vegetarian diets. But the elites don’t act as if they believe their rhetoric.

The alarmed climate elites’ hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do; hair shirts and gruel for thee, but not for me” attitudes were on full display at the U.N. climate conference, COP-26 for short, held in Glasgow, Scotland from October 31 through November 13.

If world leaders and the mandarin bureaucrats who supposedly serve them and the wider public were really concerned human greenhouse gas emissions endanger the Earth, they could have hosted the entire conference, backroom negotiations and all, via Zoom, Skype, Streamyard, or any of the numerous other conferencing services. After all, the world just spent a year on lockdown with media interviews, international negotiations, and legislation still getting done.

Barring virtual communication, COP-26’s participants could have arrived via commercial or shared transport and eaten only locally sourced vegetarian or vegan meals, as they propose for the unwashed masses. They didn’t do that. Instead, according to the Scotsman, carbon dioxide emissions from COP-26 were more than double those of COP-25 and more than any previous international summit in history. Sixty percent of the conference’s more than 100,000 tons of emissions was from transportation alone, with the remainder coming from water use, heating and cooling of five-star accommodations, and meat-heavy gourmet meals made with food flown or shipped in from around the world.

The world’s leading climate scolds, those wealthy, self-appointed saviors of the Earth who would have common people give up air travel and private cars, arrived in a stream of more than 400 private jets, spewing more emissions in two weeks than is emitted by more than 1,600 average people in the United Kingdom in a year. If their own pronouncements of planetary doom are to be believed, it seems Bank of America, Jeff Bezos, and other multibillion-dollar businesses and individuals feel you must first kill the Earth before you can save it.

Conference host Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom, jetted in from a meeting of the G-20 in Rome (where climate was also discussed), only to berate the world for its profligate use of fossil fuels.

Johnson harangued the assembled attendees for their nations’ alleged climate crimes, saying, “When it comes to tackling climate change, words without action, without deeds are absolutely pointless.” Yet, after being on the ground in Glasgow for about a day, he took a private jet back to London instead of taking the train, which emits far less carbon dioxide. Later, near the conference’s end, Johnson jetted back to Glasgow to express his belief that hard commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly were vital to saving the world. His actions spoke loudly, and they belied his words.

To be fair, COP-26 is hardly the first time those in power—who are constantly telling the poor of the world they must live with less to save the planet—have declined to live up to the ideal they set for others. President Joe Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, is famous for using his family’s private jet to attend climate negotiations and award dinners. His excuse: he’s important! Evidently, this somehow means he is to be held to a lower standard than others. BTW, John, usually if you want to set an example you hold yourself to a higher standard than others. Just a thought.

Then there is actor/activist Leonardo DiCaprio, who once again made an appearance at a climate summit. We all know actors set the lifestyle example to which an environmentally conscious person should aspire. To his credit, for once DiCaprio flew commercial. Perhaps his image needed burnishing. After all, he is widely known for travelling repeatedly for pleasure every year via private planes and private yachts. DiCaprio has real chutzpah. As detailed in Luxury Launches,

Despite coaching viewers to “work together” to fight climate change while accepting his first Oscar in March, DiCaprio chose to fly private to pick up an award from a clean-water advocacy group at the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball and back to Cannes to attend an AIDS benefit gala 24 hours later.

DiCaprio excuses his personal carbon profligacy by saying he pays someone to plant trees on his behalf. That reminds me of the medieval Catholic Church selling indulgences to wealthy sinners who could afford it.

Then there is our climate Cassandra-in-chief, former vice-president Al Gore, who profited handsomely off fossil fuels, raking in $70 to $100 million for the sale of his cable news network, Current TV, to Al Jazeera.  After years of claiming we must abandon oil and gas production and promoting legislation and lawsuits to force people to do so, Gore sold his station to a company primarily owned by the government of Qatar. That government makes most of its annual revenue from oil production and is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It’s akin to Baptists taking donations from bootleggers.

Not to be outdone, former president Barack Obama appeared at COP-26 to complain about climate hypocrisy. “For most of your lives you’ve been bombarded with warnings about what the future will look like if you don’t address climate change, but you see adults who act like the problem doesn’t exist,” Obama opined. “You are right to be frustrated.”

With whom should they be frustrated? Obama spent eight years as president warning climate change was causing the seas to rise rapidly and they would soon swamp much of the U.S. Eastern seaboard. Upon retiring, however, he bought an $11.75 million beachfront home in Martha’s Vineyard, just inches-to-feet above sea level. As far as I can tell, he isn’t investing in sea walls to keep out the supposedly rising tides.

None of the famous people who claim we are causing planet-killing climate change through human energy use, housing infrastructure, and agricultural systems live as if they believe this is true.

That’s something to think about the next time such a person gives a speech or appears on television saying you should give up your car, air travel, hamburgers and barbeque, and standalone single-family home in order to save the planet. They aren’t including themselves among those who should be forced to give up things.

The policies elitists are proposing will impose higher energy costs, which many people—the working poor, those on fixed incomes, and those on lower-middle incomes—will struggle to pay for. Yet the elites make no sacrifices themselves. Even if they did, the cost of their policies to them would be beneath their margins of error at the bank.

Wealthy climate alarmists apparently have a two-year old’s self-awareness and ability to delay gratification. They remind me of Democrat apologists who claim inflation is a good thing or at least not so bad, admonishing the poor to “suck it up” and pay the higher costs without complaint. It’s not a good look, and it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence that they really believe the Earth hangs in the balance.

SOURCE: Liberty and Ecology




Writing in the National Interest, Hector Schamis notes if climate change is in fact a serious problem, youth protestors such as Greta Thunberg are complaining to the wrong countries or, more importantly, the wrong types of governments. While democratically governed countries are responding to these youths’ climate concerns, autocratic countries, many of which did not even show up at COP-26, are the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and make no real effort to abate their emissions.

“[D]emocracy pollutes less than autocracy,” writes Schamis. “Preventing global warming requires institutions that the planet’s biggest polluter [China] does not have and rejects.”

China, by itself, emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the next four greatest-emitting countries combined.

Schamis points to a recent investigative report published by Bloomberg News revealing some individual companies in China emit more carbon dioxide than entire countries.

China Baowu, the largest steelworks in the world, emitted more CO2 in 2020 than Pakistan. China Petroleum & Chemical spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than Canada and Spain combined. SAIC Motor Corporation, China’s large automobile manufacturing company, emits as much CO2 as Argentina.

Bloomberg estimates the emissions of these companies are even higher than reported. For these state-owned or -controlled companies, the government suppresses accurate emissions data. The reason for the large emissions from these and other companies in China is that the vast bulk of the electric power they use is generated by coal-fueled power plants, which are increasing in number instead of being phased out as the Chinese Communist Party has promised. New coal plants and coal mines are being opened weekly. Emissions from coal power plants grew by 40 percent between 2010 and 2020 and have continued increasing throughout 2021.

Emissions from China’s agricultural sector—from energy use, chemicals, and methane emissions from livestock—are growing as well.

“China’s lack of transparency regarding global warming is consistent with its foreign policy in general,” writes Schamis. “China is a bully that cheats; that is its strategy.”

And because the Chinese government is known for its fierce and rapid responses to protests, youth climate protests in China are negligible and quickly suppressed, while youth protestors outside of China largely ignore the greenhouse gas-spewing elephant on the global stage.

SOURCES: National InterestBloomberg News


Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) show Arctic sea ice in mid-November was approximately 10,000,000 km2 and growing. This marked the second-greatest ice extent measured in the last 15 years.

Based on the rate of freezing, 2021 is likely to become the year with the greatest Arctic sea ice extent of the twenty-first century thus far, the DMI reports. It’s now so cold in the Arctic the Russian government has commissioned two icebreakers to rescue as many as 20 ships struggling to get out.

Data from Antarctica show conditions continue to confound climate model projections. The continent just experienced a historically cold winter. Climatology journalist Stefano Di Battista writes that between April and September the South Pole averaged a temperature of -61.1C (-78F)—the coldest six-month spell ever recorded there. Di Battista notes the winter temperature was -2.2 °C lower than the average temperature for those months between 1981 and 2010 and -2.5 °C below the average for the 30-year reference period of 1991 to 2020. The previously measured record low for Antarctica for the same period of time was -60.6 °C, measured in 1976 at a time when many scientists were warning an ice age might be on the way.

SOURCES: American ThinkerElectroverseThe Cryosphere


Climate alarmists routinely assert climate change driven by human greenhouse gas emissions is causing the Arctic Ocean to warm, resulting in declining icepack and snowfall and shifting weather patterns. New research published in Science Advances shows the warming of the Arctic Ocean began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the Earth began to emerge from the Little Ice Age, decades before human greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically.

The warming was caused entirely by natural forces, what the researchers who conducted the study call the Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean. Paleoclimate records indicate warm subtropical waters from the Atlantic Ocean have cycled into the Arctic Ocean periodically over the past 800 years. This began occurring again in the late nineteenth century, picking up pace early in the twentieth century.

The result of this Atlantification has been a temperature increase of approximately 2℃ of the waters of the Arctic Ocean in the region studied since 1900.

The warm Atlantic waters began to enter the Arctic region when a weakening in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) began just as the Little Ice Age began to wane in the mid-1800s.

Climate models, which attribute the warming in the Arctic to human greenhouse gas emissions, fail to account for the AMOC Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean.

“The Arctic Ocean has been warming up for much longer than we previously thought,” study coauthor Francesco Muschitiello, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Cambridge, told CNN. “And this is something that’s a bit unsettling for many reasons, especially because the climate models that we use to cast projections of future climate change do not really simulate these type of changes.”

SOURCES: CNNScience Advance

Climate Comedy

via Townhall

Video of the Week

Anthony Watts: Data Manipulation Shows Nonexistent Climate Emergency

Anthony Watts, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, takes the stage at the 14th International Conference on Climate Change to discuss how data is being manipulated to make temperatures higher than they appear.

Surface temperature stations that are clearly in areas that are artificially warmer than normal are having their data mixed in with proper data. This causes temperatures to skew hot. Broadcast live from Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 16, 2021.

Watch the video. And be sure to like this video and share with friends!

Recommended Sites

Climate at a GlanceClimate Realism
Heartland’s Climate PageHeartland’s Climate Conferences 
Environment & Climate NewsHealth Care News
Watts Up With That (Anthony Watts)Heartland’s Energy Conferences
Junk Science (Steve Milloy)Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
CFACTCO2 Coalition
Climate Change DispatchGlobal Warming Policy Forum (Benny Peiser) (Cooler Heads)Climate Audit
Dr. Roy SpencerNo Tricks Zone
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)JoNova
Master ResourceCornwall Alliance (Cal Beisner)
International Climate Science CoalitionScience and Environmental Policy Project 
Bishop HillGelbspan Files
1000Frolley (YouTube)Climate Policy at Heritage
Power for USAGlobal Warming at Cato
Science and Public Policy InstituteClimate Change Reconsidered NIPCC)
Climate in Review (C. Jeffery Small)Real Science (Tony Heller)
WiseEnergyC3 Headlines
CO2 ScienceCartoons by Josh
5 12 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 7, 2021 3:05 am

I think the expression “Science is settled” should be replaced with “IPCC´s science is settled”.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  JonasW
December 7, 2021 3:32 am

The “settled” part is that current warming is caused by increasing CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.
The magnitude of warming as it plays out regarding feedbacks and resulting consequences
Are not settled.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 4:45 am

The “settled” part is that current warming is caused by increasing CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.


So 100% percent of the small warming we have experienced is caused by CO2 and nothing else.

Do you have proof of this?

I don’t think so

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Redge
December 7, 2021 5:41 am

“I don’t think so”

Assertion via personal incredulity is not science …. well anywhere but on here anyway.

And what’s more the settled bit is that concluded by the vast majority of people investigating the physics of the issue.
That doesn’t need to include you or ideologically motivated denizens.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 6:19 am

Do you have proof of this?

Apparently not

A consensus is political, co-opting it into science is meaningless

Science isn’t settled at all and it never will be.

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 6:25 am

Assertion via personal incredulity is not science

Neither is assertion via climate model.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 7:22 am

Speaking of “ideologically motivated denizens”-


Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 8:28 am

“And what’s more the settled bit is that concluded by the vast majority of people investigating the physics of the issue.”

that’s not what people mean when they say it’s settled- what they mean is that it’s proven

as for the vast majority- totally irrelevant- science isn’t a democracy so that the majority win

as for ideology- the alarmists are more ideologically driven than the skeptics

it may very well be true, what you said in your first post in this thread, but it may not be true- thus, it ain’t settled, regardless of who and what % thinks so

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 8:34 am

“the physics of the issue”

climate “science” isn’t a subset of physics, the way astronomy is

according to Wikipedia (yes, I know, Wikipedia has its weakness and politics but it’s useful at times):

“Climatology (from Greekκλίμα, klima, “place, zone”; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the scientific study of Earth’s climate, typically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of at least 30 years.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry.”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 9:09 am

But your personal credulity is a valid assertion?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 11:11 am

Assertion via personal incredulity is not science

Except when you do it?

And what’s more the settled bit is that concluded by the vast majority of people investigating the physics of the issue.

Ignoring the bit that consensus is an abomination in real science, show us your proof, show us your data, show us the papers that clearly states empirically “that current warming is caused by increasing CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels

Bet you can’t

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 8, 2021 12:39 am

Giant fusion reactor in sky converting millions of tons of hydrogen into helium every second, possessing 99.9%+ of the mass of the Solar System has no effect upon the Earth’s climate, FACT, the UNIPCC says so!!! We will see, or more likely my children & grandchildren will see as the nearest star appears to have resumed a shut down phase, as it did just before the onset of the Little Ice Age 400 years ago, when most rivers around the known world froze solid for weeks/months on end during winter, try reading some history & watch some old black & white movies. PS The vast majority of people investigating the “physics” (new word on the block for greenalists) are not scientists!!! Frankly the capability of so-called scientists today are not worthy of the title because they all talk about carbon emissions by Human beings, when nature emits far more!!! As I have said before, when reviewing engineering graduates work, their presentations at student competitions, etc, the poor things are compelled to mention “carbon emissions” every other paragraph to “fit in” with the brainwashed culture within their respective colleges/universities!!! I would seriously take a very close look at their engineering work, as I am concerned for the safety to life & limb which should govern ALL engineering designs & decisions!!! Still unable to find that letter written by Sir Joseph Banks, in 1817, to the Lords of the Admiralty, upon returning from an expedition to the Arctic Circle, in which he states that the ice which has encompassed the region for centuries, appears much abated, suggesting a new source of warmth had occurred!!! Rather worrying when contradictory evidence starts to disappear from the web without explanation, or worse still, keeping very quiet about it, presumably in the hope that nobody will notice!!! For accuracy, the UNIPCC stands for the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, NOT the International/Independent Panel on Climate Change, whenever the word “government” is mentioned in anything, it is political!!!

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 6:24 am

Not according to the leaders of the AGW cult.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 7, 2021 10:50 am

Anthony Banton,

I completely agree with you.

Except I expect that you have totally discounted the likelihood that the ‘magnitude‘ of the warming may be close to zero, or even negative … given the feedbacks (or that the resulting consequences may be overall positive, with respect to humanity).

If you want to see the ‘settled’ prophesy fulfilled, then you will need to continue to advocate for policies that will trash the local and world economies … leading to more pollution.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 8, 2021 12:07 am

We all know that the only solution to manmade global warming, is the creation & establishment of a one-world global guvment, run on Socialist lines whereby the ruling intellectual elites will claim all the wealth they can get their filthy mits on, & the peasants will live in poverty, & neo-modern enslavement!!! Yet again to the point of boredom, UN Agenda 21 rules!!! Open your blinkered eyes, Sir!!!

Reply to  JonasW
December 7, 2021 5:04 am

I think the IPCC should be replaced

Reply to  Redge
December 7, 2021 5:44 am

If you say “canned” or “dismissed”, I’d agree completely. They are a waste of time, fuel energy, and money. They are only there for the opportunity to slap each other on the back and drink overpriced alcoholic beverages.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sara
December 8, 2021 12:57 am

Respectfully I must disagree!!! They are not a waste of time, fuel, energy, & money, those parties must be great occasions with all that back-slapping, consuming all that free booze & fine food, all funded by the Western World’s taxpayers, just wish I was invited to a free booze/food laden freebee, after a fabulous First-Class plane flight & a weeks stay in a First Class hotel!!!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  JonasW
December 7, 2021 8:23 am

no science is ever “settled”- the fact that they’d say that proves how ignorant they are- and/or it proves that this is a political fight, not about “the science”

Reply to  JonasW
December 7, 2021 9:10 am

The only thing that’s settled is the IPCC’s arrogant stupidity. The science is settled meme started with the first AR by concluding that they had to be right and while there was no definitive science supporting 3C from doubling CO2, they figured that science would eventually establish their REQUIRED conclusion. All they had at the time was anti-theoretical positive feedback that amplified a small effect that could be supported (0.3C +/- 10% per w/m^2) into a large effect that otherwise had no support (0.8C +/- 50% per w/m^2). Of course, that eventuality never happened, never will and the IPCC can’t admit their errors since correcting them precludes their reason to exist.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 7, 2021 4:26 am

The comparison with Cassandra to characterise Al Gore in the hypocrisy piece is unfortunate. Cassandra was the tragic future teller whose predictions were right but nobody believed her. Gore’s predictions are nonsense but many believe him.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 7, 2021 5:47 am

So he is the Anti-Cassandra. Kinda like the Anti-Christ. 😉

Theo Richel
December 7, 2021 4:28 am

Does the hammering on the hypocrisy of the elites not implicitly acknowledge that CO2 is indeed a problem? And since the elites get away with it without any problem, what would the effect be if on our side we started to emphasize the fact that all these private jets actually help increase worldwide food production. “The Glasgow COP emitted 100.000 tons of CO2. That hardly increases temperature, but it greens and feeds the planet. Thank you Leonardo and others for feeding the hungry’

Reply to  Theo Richel
December 7, 2021 4:49 am

Some might see it that way, but hypocrisy of the elites is their unwillingness to live in the manner that they espouse for everyone else. This is like a mega-church preacher extolling the virtues of living a frugal life to enable one to give to the church while the preacher wears $2000 suits, lives in a mansion, flies private jets, etc. It’s simply a form of dishonesty.

It’s likely that many elites believe what they say but justify their actions through some convoluted logic. There are those that are just charlatans.

Joseph Zorzin
December 7, 2021 4:29 am

“John Kerry, is famous for using his family’s private jet”

and $1,000 haircuts:

Joseph Zorzin
December 7, 2021 4:32 am

“DiCaprio excuses his personal carbon profligacy by saying he pays someone to plant trees on his behalf.”

I should hope so- to make up for all the trees cut for timber going into his mansions.

“Inside Leonardo DiCaprio’s Real Estate Portfolio”

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 7, 2021 4:52 am

I just need to find another person or two to abstain on my behalf.

John in Oz
Reply to  Scissor
December 7, 2021 1:49 pm

Can I claim the lifestyles of 2 Extinction Rebellion members as my offset?

If so, I will stop complaining about them so they can continue to allow me to drive my small to medium sized petrol vehicle and turn on my a/c whenever I feel the need.

Joseph Zorzin
December 7, 2021 4:38 am

“Data from Antarctica show conditions continue to confound climate model projections.”

How dare does reality confound climate model projections prophecies!

December 7, 2021 5:38 am

Global elites regularly decry the supposedly “existential” threat purported human-caused climate change poses to the environment, civilization, and even human survival.”

If these elitists truly believed that “Climate Change” is a truly EXISTENTIAL threat to civilization, they would adopt a “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” movement to the only PROVEN existing solution…..nuclear fission power plants. It is a pie-in-the-sky illusion that solar, wind, fusion, hydrogen, geothermal, and conservation are going to save the world within a decade. They will be as useful as the sun-screen concession in in Point Barrow Alaska.

These are simply false gods. The fact that a bunch of rich hypocrites believe in them is irrelevant. If they ignore the only real solution let them join their utopia along with Jim Jones in Guyana. If they believe that humans are destroying the earth, let them drink the Kool-Aid, just leave me alone.

Facts are still facts. Their facts don’t fly. It’s just as likely the world will be powered by unicorn farts in the time scale of theirCOP-26 goals. Treat these elitists with scorn and ridicule. It’s likely the only thing that will work.

Mumbles McGuirck
December 7, 2021 5:43 am

“hair shirts and gruel for thee, but not for me”

Mr. Burnett,
Please consider a rephrasing…

“hair shirts and gruel for thee, but silk shirts and steak for me”

I think that is more symmetrical and memorable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mumbles McGuirck
December 7, 2021 6:25 am

Science is a convenient fig leaf; most of the time. But the devout still feel compelled to go way beyond and to distort understanding, for example, by calling Carbon dioxide a pollutant. It’s no mistake, it’s deliberate. Pollutants are bad.

“From pollutant to product: the companies making stuff from CO2”

The narrative is what matters.

Telling people what they need to know

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
December 7, 2021 8:39 am

“calling Carbon dioxide a pollutant”

Didn’t that start when my state of Massachusetts’ sued Obama’s EPA to force it to declare carbon emissions to be a pollutant, so it could be regulated under existing air pollution laws? (the so called “finding”)

December 7, 2021 9:07 am

I liken the greenie hypocrisy to toxic bell peppers. If it could be scientifically proven that growing bell peppers released toxic chemicals which birds and insects and animals spread to the extent that they were an existential threat to mankind, would anyone out up with celebrities speechifying about bell peppers while eating bell peppers?

People always sputter “Of course not, but that’s silly!”, and I agree, global warning angst expressed by celebrities jetting al over the world is hypocritical.

December 7, 2021 9:24 am

Your claim that if such data manipulation happened in the finance industry people would go to gaol, is a bit wide of the mark.
I would ask those who have seen the Big Short to remember the scene in the film with the tower of wooden bricks. The comment of dogshit when referring to subprime diluting the Triple A stock can be used as an analogy with the mixing of temperatures in your speech.

You also lay out your journey from your Alarmist beginnings very simply in the presentation. My journey was just as simple.
I bought my first home computer in 2000. Plugged it in to the internet. Looked at the data from the ice core samples (they went back about 300,000+ years at the time) and asked a simple question……
Why do the graphs swing up and down so dramatically?

N.B., The Global Warming Policy Foundation in your list is now also known as NetZeroWatch…_

Anybody a registered UK voter, please sign and circulate this parliamentary petition…_

Last edited 1 year ago by DiggerUK
December 7, 2021 9:29 am

All of this is favoring China’s expansion.

John Hultquist
December 7, 2021 9:43 am

”  beachfront home in Martha’s Vineyard, just inches-to-feet above sea ”

Why hype this? The house is 9 or 10 feet above the shore (using Google Earth info) and 600 feet along the path to the “beach.”

I’ve read their are some people that believe this house will soon flood. I see no gain in promoting that idea.

Reply to  John Hultquist
December 7, 2021 12:25 pm

How high above the BFE is the home?

Reply to  John Hultquist
December 7, 2021 12:48 pm

I checked … the BFE (base flood elevation; 100 year flood elevation) is 10 (navd ’88).

Only one neighbor has made a correction to the FEMA maps; meaning that they are likely correct and it is assumed that Obama’s home is subject to the BFE.

Based on this, FEMA believes that there is a 25% chance that the home will get wet at some point in the next 30 years.

December 7, 2021 10:04 am

As China overtakes the US in wealth we can see that the increase of CO2 leads to more wealth. Very strong correlation.

Jon R
December 7, 2021 12:32 pm

God bless Leo and the Boris and especially China! Make it green!!

Pat from kerbob
December 7, 2021 9:03 pm

Good to use the pic of Leo, he was recently publicly supporting those trying to block the Coastal Gas Link pipeline in BC that runs to LNG Canada’s plant.

Except the natives are tired of such outsiders claiming to represent them.

Of course, Leo is famous for mistaking an Alberta chinook for climate change, and then actually bragging about how he flew the entire production to southern Argentina, the other side of the planet, just to get a couple more shots with real snow for his precious movie.

And not the slightest awareness on his part of what he had done

William B Handler
December 8, 2021 8:44 am

The critism of Obama for the estate is spurious, yes the web site getmyelevation may well return 0 ft, but simple logic tells you this is wrong, as the property would flood all the time. If you look at photographs it is clearly above the water level and simply demonstrates the Obamas do not believe in the forecasted rises of sea level as they would risk their investment. So the critisim has some teeth, but is not well framed.

Reply to  William B Handler
December 8, 2021 1:31 pm

I checked … the BFE (base flood elevation; 100 year flood elevation) is 10 (navd ’88).
Only one neighbor has made a correction to the FEMA maps; meaning that they (the maps) are likely correct, and it is assumed that Obama’s home is subject to the BFE (and is constructed at or lower than the BFE).

Based on this, FEMA believes that there is a 25% chance that the home will get wet at some point in the next 30 years. It doesn’t mean that there will be damage … it means that the lowest ground next to the home is below an elevation of 10.

It also means that (based on National Marine Fisheries bureaucracy and lies) if the Obama’s do any work around their home without appropriate ESA documentation they should be found to be in violation of the ESA.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights