Essay by Eric Worrall
According to McKibben, even Canada is backsliding and compromising. And Britain’s opposition leader “hates tree huggers”.
Is It Hot Enough Yet for Politicians to Take Real Action?
The latest record temperatures are driving, again precisely as scientists have predicted, a cascading series of disasters around the world.
By Bill McKibben
July 11, 2023We’ve crushed so many temperature records recently—the hottest day ever measured by average global temperature, the hottest week, the hottest June, …
…
So the crisis is everywhere—that’s why it’s called global warming. But the case of Canada is interesting, because it’s a liberal democracy with a strong environmental sentiment—polling earlier this year found that seventy-five per cent of Canadians were anxious about climate change; twenty-one per cent of the population was having fewer or no children as a result. …
…
Yet none of this has been enough to really change the political dynamic, which remains dominated by the fossil-fuel industry. Justin Trudeau’s government had been making noises about a plan to dramatically cut emissions—perhaps by forty-five per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, in line with what climate scientists have set as the necessary targets. But the government quickly began to back down after a meeting in June with officials in the oil-rich province of Alberta, when the Minister of Natural Resources, Jonathan Wilkinson, explained that “we have committed to a cap on oil and gas emissions. But there are lots of different ways to do that. There are flexibilities and how you design it.” The targets may shrink, the timetables may fade, and, incredibly, Canada may decide to count increased exports of fossil gas as a method of cutting carbon.
…
But it’s not fair to just pick on Canada. In the United States, President Biden has laid claim to a powerful environmental legacy by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, but his Administration also approved both a giant oil and a giant L.N.G. project, in Alaska; the Mountain Valley Pipeline, in the Virginias; and lots of offshore leasing—and it may back big L.N.G. terminals on the Gulf Coast. In Great Britain, the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, was quoted in the Times of London on Sunday as saying that he “hates tree-huggers,” probably because they keep pushing for more action than his party wants to commit to.
…
Read more: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-it-hot-enough-yet-for-politicians-to-take-real-action
Bill McKibben himself is not without his own climate controversies. McKibben had a hard time remembering who his sponsors are in “Planet of the Humans“, though McKibben’s supporters strongly denounced the documentary’s portrayal of their climate hero.
You can view the full documentary here.
Note I am not accusing McKibben of financial wrongdoing. As far as I know McKibben has not broken any laws. And for what it’s worth, I think McKibben is a true believer when it comes to climate change.
McKibben claims government support is required because although simple economics is driving the green revolution, economics alone will not drive the transition quickly enough.
We may soon have a chance to test this theory. My crystal ball tells me 2024 will see a strong showing for America First Republicans. In the bloodbath of subsidies which will follow a likely Republican victory, I doubt green projects will continue to receive the same level of support they received under the Biden administration. The test of McKibben’s claim that green energy is economically viable will be whether green energy installations survive the coming withdrawal of government support.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If “renewables” were truly economically viable, they would not need purchase requirements and subsidies.
As Warren Buffett observed –
“For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” -Warren Buffet cited by U.S. News/Nancy Pfotenhauer
Yippeee! More alarmist nonsense from the always nonsensical Bill McKibben.
Regards,
Bob
At Middlebury, he was a big proponent of burning trees for electricity and heat, until he heard Jacobson, at Stamford, was against it, and so McKibben is now also against it.
He is a woke journalism teacher, brainwashing upper income sons and daughters with his climate drivel, changing his ideology more frequently than New England weather.
God, help us.
Burning wood chips- not trees. (subtle difference). And it would have been “junk wood” from slash and thinning out worthless trees from professionally managed forests. I don’t know who Jacobson is but the real leaders of the anti biomass crowd are Mary Booth: https://www.pfpi.net/ and Bill Moomaw, the guy who fantasized a new concept he calls “proforestation”. I’ve been battling with these 2 clowns for years, here in Woke-achusetts. Jacobson probably got his “thinking” from these 2 clowns. All of these clowns then ganged up on Dartmouth College as it was planning to build a 200 MW biomass powerplant that would have cost 200 million dollars and provided a market for much of the “junk wood” within 100 miles. So, by killing that project, they cost that community a lot of construction jobs, did great damage to the forestry industry, and now mountain sides in VT are being covered with wind turbines and the farms are being covered with solar panels. Then, these clowns say burning wood is worse than coal. Like I said, I’ve been battling them for years. They are relentless fanatics of the worse kind.
I wrote several articles regarding the proposed Dartmouth tree burning plant, with Danish boilers, etc.
I live only 20 miles from Dartmouth College
After public hearings, Dartmouth decided to go with GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPS, as I and others had advocated, a common approach in colder areas in Europe
“Slash, thinning out worthless trees” is an industry fable
In Vermont, you can clear-cut 45 acres without a permit, which is done in many areas of the state, including near the country road I live on.
The loggers leave trees standing between the road and the clear-cut, to hide what is going on.
I have walked on those clear-cut areas with some difficulty, as a lot of wood is left behind.
Vermont is cutting far in excess of new growth, so it gets more and more of its wood from next door NH and NY.
Almost all of the particulate of wood burning is less than 1 micron, which can be only partially removed by air pollution control systems.
Such small, toxic, particles enter your bloodstream and settle in various places in your body.
I have worked in the energy sector as an energy systems analyst since 1963
If they clearcut 45 acres- it isn’t to send all the wood to a biomass plant. I don’t like such large clearcuts- but they’re not an Earth shattering catastrophe. Wildlife experts claim some big clearcuts are advantageous to some wildlife species. I don’t care for that excuse. As for “a lot of wood is left behind”- you fail to grasp the complexity of forestry. The state governments actually WANT us to leave SOME wood- it’s called “large and small woody debris” which is claimed to be necessary to protect the soil and good for wildlife. The fact is that even when they want to harvest most of the wood- even without such a demand from the state(s)- even using whole tree logging- much wood gets left behind. The modern world is so many ways is less than ideal for perfect human health. Not only those 1 micron particles but things like disease and war and greed. If we fuss over every tiny thing we’ll all be living back in the Paleolithic. If we want well managed forests- we need to remove the forest weeds. If we want wood products at a reasonable price we’ll need to manage the forests. If this isn’t perfect for human health, neither is anything else. People will want wood products. We can import the wood from the far corners of the planet where they truly rape and pillage the land- and have OPEN FIRES to burn the slash, or we can burn it in biomass power plants with some engineering of the smokestack to reduce the “pollution”. We can burn chips in our homes and businesses or we ban import oil from the MIddle East and Russia. I believe you’re wrong that VT is cutting wood “far in excess of growth” but I’ll research that. In the short term, that isn’t even necessarily a bad thing- given that much of the logging in the early days was poorly done. Heavier logging can actually result in better future forests. You may have been an energy systems analyst since ’63 but that doesn’t mean you understand the forestry world. To understand it- you might try talking to experienced foresters.
The state bureaucrats are for what the industry and its “think tanks” are for.
A 45-acre clearcut, on hilly land, causes rain run off, as I documented on clear cuts near my house, after a recent major rainfall, which are not rare occurrences in Vermont.
The Dartmouth wood chip burning plant, in an urban area, was ditched, because of environmental/health concerns of nearby residents, including the students.
Ground source heat pumps are so much cleaner in urban areas
In Vermont, we have windless nights. Any pollution would just be accumulating in nearby areas, including nearby dormitories.. Sleeping with open windows would no longer be an option.
Vermont has about 4.5 million acres in forest, but only about 2.2 million are available/suitable for logging, the rest is off limits for many reasons.
Vermont’s annual harvest is greater than the annual growth on the 2.2 million acres
As I said, I don’t like such big clearcuts. If you see erosion, call the state forestry agency- they’ll bust those bad loggers. Enviro/health concerns? Grossly exagerated. There is a chip burning facility for heating at the local high school and in the only hospital in Northampton, MA! I don’t see any problems with it. It’s too bad so much forest land is off limits for forestry. If the harvest is greater than the growth- so what???? Then the harvest will slow down and the growth will pick up. It’s NOT an emergency. I know a forester in VT. I’m going to find out from him the actual numbers regarding growth and harvest. Up until about 1830, most of Massachusetts was clearcut for farms, especially sheep. Then the farms were mostly abandoned and the forest grew back. Rather than worry about how heavy the cut is from legitimate logging- worry about clearcutting for wind and solar “farms” and more shopping centers.
Also, you’re probably familiar with the McNeil Generating Station in Burlington. It’s been producing electricity for 39 years. It hasn’t run out of wood yet.
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/mcneil/
It gets half of its wood from NY, already for decades.
so what? It’s not far from NY. Makes perfect sense.
OK, I got a VT forestry consultant to offer comments. His web site is: https://robboholleranforester.org/
The following is his comments regarding your post.
****************************
Joe, I have poor internet after the storm-router issues. I finally have some email connection. My reply- Clearcut does not cause runoff- poor trails do.
Dartmouth plant was shut down by public perception, not fact.
Air pollution form wood burning is incidental- check the Burlington chip plant in Downtown Burlington near the college.
Vermont 4.5 million acres. Over 4 million of commercial timberland.
Very little is “off limits” to logging: 400,000 acre national forest, defacto wilderness about 300k though only 120 as actual “off limits” about 250k high elevation- special permit needed but not “off limits”
some amount in restrictive easements- but most easements allow logging.
Annual harvest does NOT exceed growth on half the acreage/ 2.2 MM acres
Net growth is low because of mortality- due to unmanaged status.
So, just wrong on every count. You can quote me. I’m an expert.
Robbo
Robbo,
Vermont has about 4,288,000 acres of TIMBERLAND, but that does not mean all of that is harvested.
According to BERC, industry consultants, only about 3,080,000 is accessible, ecologically appropriate.
Some of that acreage is NEVER harvested.
I assumed about 2.5 million acres is PRACTICALLY available for harvesting.
All of Vermont’s harvesting takes place on these acres.
The annual growth on these areas is less than the annual harvest, i.e., over harvesting is just as bad as over fishing.
I wrote this article August 29, 2019
VERMONT IS HARVESTING WOOD FAR IN EXCESS OF NET ADDED ABOVEGROUND LIVE BIOMASS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-wood-far-in-excess-annual-net-addition-of
EXCERPT
Vermont has the 4th highest percentage of forest coverage, after Maine, New Hampshire and Virginia. According to the USFS, based on 2015 satellite data, Vermont had about 4,511,000 acres of forest, of which 4,288,000 acres were classified as timberland.
Only about 3,050,000 acres of the timberland acres were considered “accessible, ecologically appropriate for logging” by BERC, a pro-logging industry consultant. However, that does not mean all of the 3,050,000 acres would actually be logged to obtain Vermont’s annual harvests. It is likely about 15% of that acreage would never be logged, i.e., only about 2.5 million acres would actually be logged. See table 3.
About 90% all of the logging takes place on private forests, i.e., only about 10% on government forests; that 10% likely will be increasing in the near future. The USFS has been building access road in its forests due to political pressures that promote electricity from wind turbines and logging for building heating, which are claimed to be renewable. See table 1, appendix and URLs.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg…
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-dartmouth…
NOTE: Dartmouth College initially planned to replace its existing central fuel oil heating plant with a tree burning (biomass) heating plant to provide hot water for building heating, but likely will decide to adopt distributed electrical heating systems, such as ground source heat pumps, as have other progressive universities. The electricity would be largely come from remote wind, solar and hydro systems under power purchase agreements, PPAs.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-s-planned-bio…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-reconsidering…
“over harvesting is just as bad as over fishing”
Not necessarily with forest harvesting. Much of the forest land is in degraded condition due to past high grading or lack of any silvicultural work at all. Robbo wrote an article about this- if I can find it I’ll let you know. If most of the acreage could benefit from good silviculture, it would be best to proceed with that work, even if in the short term, cutting exceeded growth. After such improvement work, the rate of growth of volume and value will increase. Dartmouth didn’t build the biomass plant for fear of not getting enough wood. There is nothing magical about the cut never to exceed the growth. Over the long term, the goal is obviously to get more growth and more cutting and more value returned to the owners of the land. I’m not so sure of your identifying “progressive universities”. What’s so progressive about them? Because they’re woke? Most in New England certainly are woke.
There was plenty of wood in NH, because some tree burning power plants had closed down.
Loggers were jumping up and down to have Dartmouth as a client.
The Dartmouth Central plant folks were on the side of the loggers
Dartmouth finally saw the light regarding ground source heat pumps, as have progressive universities.
In Rotterdam, no high-rise building goes up without ground source heat pumps
That is true in Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki
Read my article
This fellow just doesn’t know how to age gracefully. It’s 17 years since his, “A Deeper Shade of Green” appeared in the August 2006 National Geographic, stating “scientists say” we absolutely positively for-sure will get clobbered by bigger and stronger hurricanes more often. Ace index proves he was absolutely positively for-sure wrong.
Why can’t he just admit it? Facing errors is part of growth. And I very kindly and patiently explained his mistakes about hurricanes here at WUWT eleven years ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/hurricane-warning-mckibben-alert/
I suppose it is hard to admit mistakes when you get paid for being wrong. Paid to stay stupid. They say you can’t take it with you, but stupidity may come with you into the grave.
“And I very kindly and patiently explained his mistakes about hurricanes here at WUWT eleven years ago”
He doesn’t read WUWT. 🙂
I’ve read all his books. They’re low quality. Simplistic. Boring. Emotional. Stupid.
I’ve read some of McKibben’s New Yorker articles. He’s a classic fanatic as Churchill describes it: “Someone who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.”
All of it in the hysterical tone of a tent revival, fire-and-brimstone preacher. “If you immoral filth don’t stop sinning immediately, you’re all going to burn in hell!”
McKibben’s hell is here on earth, of course, in a fiery pit where Cincinnati, Ohio might be as warm as Memphis, Tennessee 200 years from now. Yikes!
As the article points out, McKibben never learns anything; he just churns out the same doomsday propaganda, day in and day out, year after year. In that he conforms to a quip by Dorothy Parker a century ago: “You can’t each an old dogma new tricks.”
You must have a different brand of Crystal Ball than what I have. My CB, unfortunately, predicts Democratic “victories” and more Green spending.
I hope I am wrong
Team Red has the unerring ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I doubt Gropes will still be standing (literally though I hope he has a sedate retirement). Unfortunately between the media engendered and self generated animus around Trump I fear the worst. The economic damage another 4 years of D rule if they take the whole government might not be fixed in my remaining lifetime (+/- 20 winters). I hope I’m wrong but I was optimistic before Nov ’22.
I was optimistic before Nov ’22.
There are a couple of issues that may turn things around in 24. But things are too up in the air and I don’t think I trust any of the polling anymore.
The so called “record” heat was mainly from a rouge weather pattern in Antarctica, in winter…
The poles are were energy goes to escape the system more quickly, and because of the dryness, register as high temperatures.
The gibbon-monkey is clueless as usual
“The so called “record” heat was mainly from a rouge weather pattern in Antarctica, in winter…”
What colour weather pattern would you prefer ??
oops early morning ytpo 🙂
although , it was almost certainly rouge on temperature anomaly maps.
Funny how all these recent warm weather anomalies that are happening around the globe at the same time, such as record low sea ice in Antarctica, record summer temperatures across large parts of the northern hemisphere, record daily warmest global temperatures in the instrumental era (beaten twice in the same week), etc, all have independent micro-‘explanations’.
Perish the thought that there might be a more obvious underlying global explanation for the warming. Can’t have that; scientists would have noticed it by now…
Except it didn’t !
Well, it sort of did.
Wrong. !
Right! Lol.
“are happening around the globe”
Anomalies always happen around the globe, in different places.
Antarctica temps have been explained, a “weather” event… you just don’t comprehend because you have a “locked-in” and brain-washed AGW cultist infection.
If you look at the Antarctic anomalies now.. all that “red” has basically disappeared… replaced with blues and purples
ie.. Its DARN COLD down there
I specifically referred to Antarctic sea ice extent, which is currently at its lowest on record for the time of year. Sorry you didn’t read that properly.
A few years ago, the Arctic was having record low sea ice extents, while the Antarctic was setting record highs. All the alarmists wanted to talk about was the Arctic.
Only data that supports the narrative is real data.
And at that time, all the WUWT crowd wanted to talk abut was the Antarctic.
So let’s talk about real data. Agreed.
When was the last time you saw Antarctic sea ice extent discussed in an article here at WUWT?
Yawn… The WEATHER pattern has been explained.
It is absolutely NOTHING to do with human released CO2.
No-one is harmed by less Antarctic sea ice, just as no-one is harmed by less than extreme high levels of Arctic sea ice.
Not an answer to the question you responded to though…
“Not an answer to the question you responded to though…”
Your question was a totally irrelevant and meaningless change of subject, pertaining to nothing.
And which part of a slightly less frigidly frozen and somewhat less vast polar wasteland, is going to be a crisis for human beings, or human endeavors, or for life in general?
Frozen wastelands are just that…wastelands.
We should be so lucky to get rid of permanently frozen oceans and continents. It is not going to happen.
These fluctuations have been occurring for a very long time, as long as people have been exploring these areas.
Here we are, in 2023, and Arctic Ice is going strong, with all predictions of some open water for a few weeks in Summer now pushed back to the 2030s.
What a huge rotten pile of baloney.
I for one wonder if you are not laughing up your shirtsleeve with every comment you send off.
The open season at the coal port in Spitsbergen went from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year in the late 1930s. There was obviously considerable warming of the Arctic over that time – well before CO2 levels really began to take off.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=antarctic+sea+ice
And of course, nothing to do with undersea volcanoes
5 days ago when YOU last brought it up here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/07/early-sea-ice-breakup-in-w-hudson-bay-caused-by-record-breaking-warmth-in-2023-but-not-2015/#comments
Maybe you were hoping that everybody has the same goldfish memory span that you clearly suffer from.
Believe it or not- most people don’t really care if there is less ice in the antarctic- they have bigger things to worry about.
“Anomalies always happen around the globe, in different places.”
Right, it’s a HUGE planet- every day there MUST be anomalies and that’s NORMAL if you think about it. So, in that sense, on a planetary scale, they’re NOT anomalous- unless we think of that term as some kind of deadly disease, which would be a child like perspective.
every day there MUST be anomalies and that’s NORMAL
And they’ve been happening for eons – it’s just that we very recently have the technology to monitor them. But as I commented elsewhere – there is no perspective on the timelines. ~60 years of satellite data is nothing even compared to just the holocene, but we base all of this panic on that miniscule set of data.
All caused by a tiny, minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere- right – God must be shaking his head at all the climate alarmists that believe they know how to control the climate – simply magical thinking like pixie dust can make the lost boys fly – CO2 from man’s industrial and transportation in the atmosphere amounts to something like 1 one hundredth of 1% of the atmosphere – that tiny percentage of the atmosphere doesn’t control anything except to make plants grow faster
I don’t know what’s causing it any more than you do.
I just consider what fits with the facts better.
Except it doesn’t.
If you look at temperatures vs CO2 levels over the last 150 years or so, you will see that temperatures go up, down and sideways, all while CO2 goes up.
If you look at the last 100,000 years, you will see that temperature goes all over the place, while CO2 is relatively steady.
Going back 10’s of millions of years, and you see that there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Isn’t that what you’d expect in a world that has many underlying natural temperature forcings?
Ditto your other comments.
So you are now admitting that the highly beneficial warming out of the LIA is all down to NATURAL VARIABILITY.
Thanks.. you finally got there.
You said “highly beneficial”. I just said that natural variability plays a role.
That’s the scientific consensus and has been for decades.
Thanks for catching up.
Also glad to see that you now agree that both the slight increase in temperature (out of the LIA) and the increase in atmospheric CO2..
.. have both been HIGHLY BENEFICIAL for mankind and the planet.
Kindly show evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Berkeley Earth is a surface fabrication from all the worst surface sites in the world, by a group of rabid activists.
It is meaningless, and hence proves absolutely nothing about anything to do with climate.
“I just consider what fits with the facts better.”
That would be the most ironic self-satirising nonsense comment you have ever posted.
There are no facts supporting the CO2 fallacy.
When you go into you manic warming PANIC mode, do you also consider the fact that the globe is currently COOLER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years..?
Calm yourself, bnice. I am not the paniky sort.
Your comments say you are in manic panic mode basically all the time.
Where is your evidence that atmospheric temperature variability is anything BUT natural.?
and remember.. try to stop the chicken-little panic you are constantly showing.
“There are no facts supporting the CO2 fallacy.”
And FN continues to put forward NO FACTS !
I just consider what fits with the facts better.
And what exactly are the facts, supported by data, not conjecture?
“there might be a more obvious underlying global explanation for the warming”
The CO2 myth is scientifically unsupportable, you know that.
You will have to get them to “invent” another one.
Who mentioned CO2?
You did.
You are supporting the AGW scam.. that means you by definition are implying CO2
Stop pretending otherwise.
Great to see you now admitting that the warming IS NOT FROM CO2. 🙂
Now change to the other foot, it may have less BS on it. !
Funny how a couple of dozen high temperature records are proof that the whole world is on fire.
On the other hands, hundreds of cold temperature records during the winter is just weather and must be ignored.
Well, it’s just a question of averaging all the temperatures then.
Has anyone thought of that?
Oh, yes. They’ve been doing it for decades.
And manipulating the data to make it little more than an agenda driven fabrication.
And no, the very concept of an “average ” surface temperature, particularly from thermometers that are totally unfit for that sort of calculation…
.. is just plain scientific nonsense.
Better tell Anthony Watts that, then. This site prominently features the latest ‘global average temperature’ as a sidebar on its main page.
I’m sure you wont, though.
Anthony is well aware how shonky the surface sites are.
I don’t need to tell him.
He even did a study of as many he could find in the US..
…., and very few of them were up to par.
Nearly all were substandard to horrific.
Again, you have not been paying any attention whatsoever, have you.
The side bar is an “info” bar…
But Anthony is well aware that the surface data fabrications are complete nonsense.
And just how do you average temperatures?
A large part of the world has no temperature records to speak of, and just to average the few we have got means nothing.
Before 2005, only a tiny fraction of all the SH oceans had any measurements at all, and only a small percentage of the NH oceans
Huge parts of Africa, Asia, Russia, and South America also are extremely sparse, and no-one has any idea of the quality of data from what does exist.
Yeah, let’s average an intrinsic property. That will work. /s
Yes, yes there is TFN.
But earth history deniers are never going to admit that everything that’s happening nowadays has happened many many times before with the weather ( x 30 years = ‘climates’>).
Are you really as stupid as you sound, FN? Or am I reading too much into your continual obsession with temperatures to the complete exclusion of all other weather phenomenon? A few days ago I mentioned an unseasonably warm air mass moving into the Antarctic and inhibiting sea ice formation and all you could talk about was the temperature. I mentioned May storms in the Arctic breaking up sea ice earlier than usual and all you could talk about was the temperature. We mention air moving from one area to another, low and high pressure areas and UMaine’s homogenisation of a massive part of the globe and all you will talk about is the flippin’ temperature. Are you autistic or just bloody stupid? What is it with you and this obsession with temperature?
The 0.13C trend is all they have to hang on to.
What about the many cold records earlier this year? Conveniently forgotten?
It’s the same story every year.
What cold records, Ed? Where? If these were local or even regional, they could easily be swallowed up by warmer temperatures elsewhere, once averaged.
Been plenty, like in the Antarctic a year or so ago.
Pay attention for a change !!
The Antarctic a year or so ago? That’ll be it.
Antarctica Just Had Its Coldest Season Ever. Here’s Why (shorenewsnetwork.com)
Seems you are unaware.. as usual !!
Heck even your beloved far-left CNN was aware of it
Antarctica’s last 6 months were the coldest on record | CNN
And Europe last year
A historically intense April cold snap has descended on Europe, with temperatures plummeting to 20 to 30 degrees (11 to 18 degrees Celsius) below normal. The record-breaking cold has triggered harsh frosts, shocking early-blooming plants and crops in several countries.
Record-setting cold snap hits Europe, France – The Washington Post
And even in Australia only last year
Record tumbles as temperatures plummet across parts of south-east Queensland overnight, BOM says – ABC News
And in the US in November and December
A Record-breaking Cold is Forecast to spread across the United States late this week, a Winter Storm with Historic Snow for the Great Lakes (severe-weather.eu)
The Coldest Temperatures On Record In All 50 States | Weather.com
Antarctica Just Had Its Coldest Season Ever. Here’s Why (shorenewsnetwork.com)
Averages tell you nothing. Averages can be manipulated. Averages can contradict reality:
Max temp = 30ºC, Min temp = 0ºC, average = 15ºC
Max temp = 29.9ºC, Min temp 0.2ºC, average = 15.1ºC
The max came down, the average went up.. what do you think the headlines would say?
Is Bill still weepy?
He will always be Bill the Weepster McKibben or Weepy Bill.
His lies are so obvious,
He lies as there have been many prediction FAILURES and we have seen them posted all over the internet for years now thus he is DELIBERATELY Lying.
Then he drones on with trademark stupid rant,
No, it isn’t as there is NO climate crisis in existence and not everywhere a classic hyperbole statement thus, he is LYING again as usual.
It is so easy to see the reality of NO climate crisis as this and similar has been posted all over the net for several years now:
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
Kibben is full of baloney.
Explain this, Bill.
Warming is NOT everywhere.
Geoff S
Out of the hundreds of thousands of recording stations around the world, a few dozen are setting record highs.
In the mind of the committed, that is proof that CO2 is killing the world.
Geoff, I assume you have seen Bill’s site.
About – http://www.BomWatch.com.au
I watch the dishonest presentation of the “30 million Americans are under heatwave warning” on CNN, with temperatures, for Phoenix, Arizona, of between 110 and 115 deg F. In the late 1980’s I walked five miles in a canyon on the north side of Phoenix (looking at Precambrian massive sulfide prospects, right up to the city limit), and the max temperature that day in Phoenix was 116 deg F. No warnings at all, because it was a normal summer day. The lady geologist with me did have to carry her old dog the last mile, however, and we drank all of our water about half-way.
It was ~108° in San Diego during a Santa Ana and my Mastiff demanded a walk. He drank about a gallon when we returned but that is not a warm weather breed and he seemed unfazed.
It is always that hot in the summer in those areas, but is now presented as unprecedented.
Every extreme weather event is now presented as being unprecedented.
Then you hear them say, “it hasn’t rained this hard since 2012!
Lack of a historic perspective is rampant with today’s climate change alarmists.
I don’t recall the exact year (about late June, 1975), while in Tucson the temp went to 117°F. We visited the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. We walked around with wet cloths on our heads. I thought I’d never be that hot again, but then a year or so ago it got to 116° where I live in Washington State. This year summer is twenty degrees cooler. Go figure.
To Weepy Bill: “Shake it off” [likely Bill is upset with Taylor and all her fans.]
McKibben may be the canary in the coal mine for climate change. He’s seemed feverish for years.
Imagine if politicians took away McKibben’s fossil fuels (for the good of the planet) – how he would shriek!
I’m not sure I buy the premise of any climate fanatic being a “true believer”. It’s like being a true believer in 2 + 2 = 5, or a flat earth. They didn’t get to their position from facts, just emotion and blind trust in other fanatics, and “belief” is not the attraction, just faith.
There’s lots of true believers out there that go on blind faith, they do not understand what they will lose should their faith prevail.
McKibben on the other hand profits handsomely from promoting the faith. No need to actually share the faith when you are lining your pockets from promoting it.
He can weep all he wants, but it doesn’t alter the fact that wind and solar simply can’t keep up with the demand for power when it is hot or cold. In the Southwest Power Pool (middle of the country Great Plains, more or less) we are running 82% coal, natural gas and diesel oil, and another 4% nuclear. Wind is kicking in about 10%, solar is less than diesel, and there are few megawatts of hydro. And we are a windy place! Kansas is an indigenous word for “people of the south wind.” Today isn’t even a particularly hot day, either.
So gullible dullards are not having children. Surely that is a good thing.
If McKibben wants, he could look at temperatures in 1910 or several years of the 1930s – all much hotter for much longer. He could even look at Climate Reference Network temperatures for the lower 48 – very little change for 15 1/2 years. And June 2023 was slightly cooler than May. McKibben seems to be ignorant of actual readily available weather data.
According to UAH, June was slightly warmer than May globally. None of the surface data producers have reported yet. From where are you getting this “readily available” information that supports your claim?
Misdirection again, FN.??
Denis referred to the “Climate Reference Network”..USA lower 48 (try reading and comprehending)
UAH has June 2023 USA48 as -0.36ºC, May 2023 USA48 as +0.57ºC (anomalies)
USCRN for June 2023 was -0.38ºF, May 2023 was +1.51ºF (anomalies)
That is more than “slightly” cooler !
OK, so we’re talking about ~2% of global surface area as opposed to all of it.
Do we all get to pick which 2% of global surface area we want to use as evidence of global temperatures in June?
Also, Nick Stokes, who uses the published NASA method, suggests that June 2023 was by far the warmest in the surface record globally.
He normally gets it spot on. (I think he even corrected them one time.)
The surface fabrication are massively affected by urban warming site changes to airports.
It is totally unfit for comparing temperature over time.
It is all MEANINGLESS GARBAGE.. especially anything from Nick. !
Oh.
“Oh.” ?
Seem you were even unaware of how shonky the surface sites are.
You really have paid any attention to anything have you. !
USCRN is the only pristine surface data, Its trend matches UAH very well.
Do you understand the concept of sample validation ?
Almost certainly NOT. !
Are you aware that the trend in USCRN is warmer than that in US Clim Div?
These things are easily checked – if you’re a real skeptik.
Clim Div is adjusted to match USCRN.
USCRN now controls the US temperature…
… so warming fabrication has now stopped.
Why are you so naive ? !
Only trend in USCRN or the matches ClimDiv, comes from the 2015/2016 El Nino bulge.
Apart from that bulge, no warming whatsoever.
Gotta use those El Ninos… its all you have.
Well FN will start screaming soon then as the next El Nino is under way
Yep, the climate cabal are desperate for an El Nino, because it may provide some atmospheric warming if it is strong enough.
It is as if they are WELL AWARE that CO2 has nothing to do with it.
It really is all just a big CON job !
News Flash, heat waves are caused by incoming radiation, not trapping outgoing LWIR. Pretty sure if you have a heat wave you have a static high-pressure system with no clouds. That has nothing to do with CO2.
Which is precisely what is happening in the Med right now, yet all the news outlets are screaming “climate change!”
https://www.windy.com/-Clouds-clouds?clouds,36.067,19.951,4,i:pressure
oops.. meant to post the graphic..
CO2 is Life,
I have been showing data from Australia for nearly 10 years now, showing that heatwaves in most of Australia’s biggest cities are not predictable as to hottest or longest from the past weather records of those cities. The hottest heatwaves at these cities happen when daily weather conditions are just right to bring hot winds from central Australia, not too slow, not too fast moving, at just the right time when the central Australian source is at or near its hottest.
The central source, shown here for Alice Springs, has itself not been getting hotter heatwaves forming over the last 100 years or so. Caution – there is a lot of uncertainty in these daily temperatures. The older ones are plausibly no better than +/- 2C for 2 sigma normal distribution assumptions. That is, the uncertainty is so large that there is no hard meaning in this graph. Geoff S
The various BOM adjusted efforts, versions of their ACORN-SAT fiddling, show this +/- 2C variation as well as the raw measurement uncertainty.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/aliceadjust.docx
I absolutely love that chart and location. The TASS’s did a video on that location.
https://youtu.be/9gqpD5QZm60
Hey, Billy, be sure to let us know when actual evidence (you know measurements!!) show today to be warmer than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval times!
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (Or show your unwillingness to learn by posting a laughter emoji.)
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief are not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
Hey Jim, be sure to forward us the “measurements” you have from the Minoan period.
So now you don’t understand real proxy evidence either..
You have just destroyed Mann’s fabrication. Well done.
Chile sea surface has been decidedly chilly over the last few hundred years.
It was much warmer 3000 – 10000 years ago.
Since you appear to have been too lazy to check my citations, here is is again – DIRECT FROM MY POST!
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Atlantic equatorial Africa, also much warmer than now.
Wonderful history. Watch the Documentary “How Climate Made History.” They spend 6 hours explaining how climate has been extremely volatile over the Holocene, almost all of the events happened before the Industrial age, proving that climate change is normal. Then in the last 5 minutes, they highlight some recent events and claim this time it is different and man is causing this change. No joke, but it is a documentary series worth watching.
“7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event. ”
Yeah!
All that took was a little logic. Climate Alarmists ought to use some.
I have no use for McKibben if he said my name was Bob I’d have to check it out. What a waste.
Right now in Auckland it’s barely hot enough for me to even want to leave the house, let alone take action to make it colder.
Poor Bill means well, but he’s used to softball partisan interviews and was clearly tongue-tied by questions a thoughtful person in his racket should have been prepared for. Of course he doesn’t know that it is a racket, unlike his consensus climate science heroes.
Twenty-five years ago Bill’s heroes also believed crisis warming was real, but how most of them responded when the hypothesis was soundly falsified is prima facie evidence of scientific fraud. You do not massively change the data, move the goalposts back from 1950 to 1850 for recalibrating the period of warming, cool the past, push down the 1930s-40s 20th century temperature highstand ….to undo the falsification.
Which global temperature data set shows no warming over the past 25 years?
And you can include UAH (lower troposphere)
Thank you.
UAH shows warming ONLY at El Nino events
This totally discounts any anthropogenic effect.
The global temperature is now probably on par with the 1930s,40s…
… and is well below most of the last 10,000 years.
There is absolutely zero evidence of any “climate emergency or crisis”
It is an agenda-driven FANTASY that only the weak minded or paid shill should fall for.
So how does it filter out La Nina events; and where does it explain how it does so?
You just showed you have zero understanding of El Nino and La Nina.
Hilarious, but totally expected.!
“UAH shows warming ONLY at El Nino events”
You are totally unable to show otherwise.
Between those events there is no warming to speak of.
None from 1980-1997, none from 2001-2015, and none since 2016.
UAH: compare 1998 to current.
USCRN: full record (Yeah, i know its not global, but it is the highest quality ground record that exists.
BTY, there ARE NO credible GLOBAL temperature sets because: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lack_of_data.html
AND
ALL of our thermometer data is crap (contaminated satellite data too.)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/
The paper:
LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air-Temperature Record https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
PDF:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976/pdf?version=1687874552
Aarhus University Researchers Find Arctic Warmer, Ice-Free in Summertime 10,000 Years Ago!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/27/aarhus-university-researchers-find-arctic-warmer-ice-free-in-summertime-10000-years-ago/
Only 6,000 years ago the world was warmer and the Sahara was lush green and wet
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/07/only-6000-years-ago-the-world-was-warmer-and-the-sahara-was-lush-green-and-wet/
https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/29/new-study-finds-the-early-mid-holocene-sahara-had-lakes-with-depths-of-at-least-300-meters/
Look at facts instead of greenie lies!
“BTY, there ARE NO credible GLOBAL temperature sets”
Glad to see you weighing in here, Jim. Keep it up! You’re doing good! 🙂
Btw, if you put more than three links in a post, your comment will go to moderation and will be delayed from displaying. If you have more than four links, post the excess in subsequent posts.
Well, another summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the looney climate cabal is setting records reciting unofficial “hottest eva” records. Same thing, different year. Hot is climate change, cold is weather. When will the madness end?
Taking him serious for a moment,
>> Is It Hot Enough Yet for Politicians to Take Real Action?
makes no sense!
The question if any real or unreal action is to be taken is not about the temperature, but about what effect the action might have at what cost.
Eschenbach, Lomborg, Monckton and others have posted here (and elsewhere), that climate action so far cost Billions to potentially avoid 1/100 degree of warming till 2100, an amount not visible in the noise.
Any politician understanding that should reply to McKibben and others that it is up to the climate scientists to come up with viable options, otherwise the most sensitive option might be to get rid of those highly paid parasites, who even sound more than a little ungrateful towards the politicians and save the money to adapt to climate change if that becomes necessary.
Politicians have taken quite enough already.
Please provide a link to when an actual prediction … you know, made before the event actually occurred … along the following lines was published.
“The NCEP CFSV2 and Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis data products will break their ‘hottest day since 1/1/1979’ records in June 2023.”
McKibben vs. Epstein Debate on Fossil Fuels
Epstein mops the floor with McKibben- 10 years ago.
the hottest day ever measured
in 40 years of measurements, which is meaningless. This lack of perspective is very tiring.