YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY.
IN THIS ISSUE:
- International Climate Conference Debunks Science and Policy Consensus Claims
- Video of the Week: Polar Bears
- Swiss Defend Democracy Against European Court’s Climate Ruling
- Average and Peak Summer Temperatures Warmer in the 1930s than in Any 10-Year Period Since
- Podcast of the Week: Climate Alarmism & Anti-Humanism – In The Tank #45
- Biden Administration Hopes to Restart Mothballed Nuclear Plants
- Climate Comedy
- Recommended Sites
Watch ALL the Presentations by the ALL-STARS of Climate Realism at the Archive of Heartland’s 15 Climate Conferences
International Climate Conference Debunks Science and Policy Consensus Claims
The Heartland Institute partnered with the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and the U.S.-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) to hold a two-day climate conference on June 14-15 in Vienna, Austria. This was the 16th International Conference on Climate Change; Heartland has either hosted or participated in all of them.
The speaker’s line up for the conference was outstanding, boasting some of the world’s top climate scientists, and economic and policy experts, including Heartland’s own President James Taylor, not long after a successful European trip during which he provided invited testimony on climate change to the European Union Parliament. Within days of Taylor’s presentation, the EU Parliament rejected a bill to require net-zero carbon dioxide emissions throughout Europe.
Since that time, new EU elections have been held, and a number of climate skeptics replaced Green party representatives in the EU parliament.
The climate conference was the first of its kind to take place in Austria, whose populist conservative Members of Parliament wield increasing influence within the EU Parliament.
As I write, videos of the conference sessions have not been posted; but below, I categorize and note some of the speakers and topics, and Taylor has provided brief descriptions of a few of the talks. On the science front, an international group of scientists, including Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D., Nir Shaviv, Ph.D., and Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D., discussed the role the sun and cosmic rays play in warming and climate change. William Happer, Ph.D., described the role that clouds play in radiation transfer. Roy Spencer, Ph.D., discussed the idea that temperature extremes are becoming more common. Taylor, Craig Rucker, and Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser, Ph.D., each discussed how climate alarmists and the media are lying, either directly or through omission of key facts, to promote the idea of climate emergency in need of a big government fix—and discussed ways to successfully debate and debunk their claims.
Other researchers discussed the science and politics of energy and climate change, including the potential of different energy sources and how and why climate alarm is being fought in legislatures and the courts. They included such analysts as Marc Morano, Marcel Crok, László Csaba Szarka, Ph.D., Bernhard Strehl, Ph.D., Manfred Haferburg, Douglas Pollack, and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.
Below, Taylor briefly describes the content and impact of a few of the presentations, including his own.
To a packed house at the conference hall in Vienna, I (Taylor) set the stage for presentations by some of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists and climate policy experts. I explained how climate alarmism is a Trojan horse for the global left to consolidate money and power in global government institutions while depriving us of our most basic freedoms. After congratulating the audience on sending even more freedom-focused policymakers to the upcoming EU Parliament session, I noted how Heartland is working closely with EIKE and other public policy organizations and policymakers throughout Austria and throughout Europe. I gave a presentation on specific examples of climate change misinformation making the rounds in the establishment media. I then turned the floor over to presentations by participating scientists and policy experts.
“No chance” was the key takeaway from a presentation by Dr. Will Happer. Happer and a colleague, W. A. van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., published a paper in 2020 showing the atmosphere has nearly reached its carbon dioxide saturation point. Carbon dioxide impedes the flow of longwave radiation to space within a specific spectrum range. At current atmospheric CO2 levels of approximately 420 parts per million, atmospheric CO2 is nearly saturated, meaning nearly all potential warmth retention from atmospheric CO2 has already occurred, such that additional CO2 emissions will have almost no impact on global temperatures. During his presentation, Dr. Happer said there is no chance that the saturation effect he documented could be wrong. From the humble and affable Dr. Happer, that is as forceful a statement as you will ever hear. That is good news for people worried about future climate change, and should end the debate about any future climate change crisis.
In a subsequent one-on-one conversation that I had with Danish scientist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, he confirmed Happer’s assessment of the CO2 saturation effect, saying, “Dr. Happer is correct, CO2 saturation as described by Dr. Happer is a well-known and well-understood matter of science.
“Nobody with any basic understanding of atmospheric physics can claim it is wrong,” Svensmark concluded.
Dr. John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner for physics, gave a compelling blow-by-blow takedown of climate alarmism. Among other things, Clauser emphasized that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer models are spectacularly wrong in their assumptions about clouds.
Clauser pointed out that average cloud cover throughout the planet is approximately 67 percent. IPCC claims clouds have an albedo of 0.34, meaning they reflect approximately 34 percent of sunlight back into space, with 66 percent of the sunlight that strikes cloud tops reaching Earth’s surface. In reality, Clauser emphasized, cloud albedo is approximately 0.80. The sun is a variable star, meaning the output of solar energy varies a significant amount. Compelling scientific evidence shows solar output has increased significantly during the 120-plus years since the beginning of the 20th century. Drastically underestimating cloud albedo allows IPCC to underreport the impact of the recent increase in solar output on global climate and allows IPCC to claim a much greater impact from carbon dioxide emissions than is justified by sound science.
Wish I could have been there. I’ll update readers when the videos are posted, so you can view them at your leisure.
Source: EIKE
NEW: Get Climate at a Glance on your mobile device!
Video of the Week
For my entire life I’ve been told they are threatened by global warming, and could even go extinct on our watch. Turns out, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken explains.
Read the brutal truth about how battery production for electric vehicles cause immense environmental destruction and human tragedy.
Swiss Defend Democracy Against European Court’s Climate Ruling
The democratically elected Swiss government has decided they will not impose the climate restrictions on their citizens demanded by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
In a case widely touted by the media as precedent-setting, more 2,000 Swiss women over the age of 64 brought a climate lawsuit before the ECHR, arguing the Swiss government was violating their fundamental right to life by not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis. In April, the court ruled in their favor, saying the government had to impose stricter climate goals and plans, requiring deeper emission reductions and more restrictions on fossil fuel use in the county.
“Switzerland, like many developed countries, has failed to meet targets to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions,” reports The Independent. “The case was touted to have set an international precedent for governments to be made legally accountable for inaction on the climate crisis.
“Climate groups said the ruling would establish that protecting the environment and human health from the spiraling adverse impact of the climate crisis was a human right and force governments to act,” The Independent said.
With the Swiss Parliament’s action The Independent notes, a quite different precedent may, in fact, be set.
“By rejecting the ruling, the Swiss parliament just set a ‘concerning precedent’ for how such legal action could go in the future, experts said, [with] Isabela Keuschnigg, legal researcher at the London School of Economics, say[ing] the move could ‘set a concerning precedent, undermining the role of legal oversight in democratic governance,’” The Independent writes.
During a June 12 session of parliament, Swiss lawmakers strongly criticized the ECHR’s ruling as “interference” in the country’s sovereign democratic government.
Although Andrew Cutting, a spokesperson for the Council of Europe, told Reuters that no member country has ever outright publicly refused to implement a judgment from the ECHR, governments have failed to comply with and implement approximately half of the most significant decisions issued by the court over the past 10 years.
It is unclear at present whether Switzerland’s Federal Council will comply with the ruling despite the parliament’s decision. The Independent notes that the government must inform the Council of Europe by October what steps it is taking to implement the ECHR’s decision. Maybe it could simply ignore that deadline, as the Swiss parliament has said the government should do with the court’s ruling.
Source: The Independent
Average and Peak Summer Temperatures Warmer in the 1930s than in Any 10-Year-Period Since
Using data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 24/7 Tempo produced a ranking of summer temperatures by decade from June through September, for 1895 to present. They looked at the NCEI’s data for each summer month over the past 129 years, and averaged them by decade, pulling out the high temperature year in each decade.
What the data show won’t surprise anyone who has followed Heartland’s long-time work using data to regularly debunk claims that this or that month, season, or year “is the hottest ever,” but it may shock those who have maintained an open mind but who have so far believed what alarmists are telling them.
The data show that the decade of the 1930s—not either of the first two decades of the 21st century, which have been declared the hottest ever by climate alarmists—registered the hottest summers, and the highest average summer temperature by year. The website 24/7 Tempo writes:
1930 to 1939, also saw a new average record of 85.73 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer of 1936.
Additionally, this decade had hotter summer months, bringing the average temperatures to between 83 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit. These higher-than-average temperatures meant a new average of 84.37 degrees Fahrenheit, up almost 2 degrees from the previous decade.
With an average over the decade of 84.37℉, the 1930s remain the warmest decade of summer temperatures on record. The second warmest decade is 2010 to 2019, with an average summer temperature of 84.06. The decade from 2000 to 2009, and 1950 to 1959, recorded the third and fourth highest summer average temperatures, respectively, on record.
The highest single year’s summer temperature was also measured in the 1930s: 1936, at 85.73℉. The second warmest single summer year was 2012 at 85.37℉; 1988 was the 3rd warmest summer year on record.
What the data shows is slight fluctuations from year to year, but no sustained warming trend, with no new summer records being set in the 2000s. Rather, temperatures peaked nearly 100 years ago, fluctuating slightly from year to year after that, but in general cooling for six decades, only to begin warming again in the 2000s. No temperature trend tracks the relatively steady rise in carbon dioxide emissions.
Source: 24/7 Tempo (Newsbreak)
Heartland’s Must-read Climate Sites
Podcast of the Week
Phoenix is hiring a “Chief Heat Officer,” in response to rising heat related deaths, which the city blames on climate change. The truth is most of those dying are homeless or drug addicts with underlying health conditions, people already in poor health. As far as Phoenix’s heat, that is due, not to climate change but the city’s massive growth and related increased Urban Heat Island effect. Responding to homelessness and drug use will do far more to prevent premature deaths in Phoenix than efforts to fight climate change or control the weather.
Subscribe to the Environment & Climate News podcast on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And be sure to leave a positive review!
Biden Administration Hopes to Restart Mothballed Nuclear Plants
As part of its efforts to hit net zero targets, the administration of President Joe Biden is unexpectedly pushing the reopening of a number of nuclear plants that were previously decommissioned and mothballed. Nuclear power plants provide reliable power with almost no carbon dioxide emissions. Recently, a number of nuclear power plants have been shuttered or taken offline due to policies enacted by the federal and various state governments that made it more profitable for utilities to build and operate “renewable” wind and solar power facilities, despite their intermittency, instead of continuing to operate or go through the relicensing process for existing nuclear power plants.
Oil Price reports that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently told Reuters the Biden administration believes the increased use of nuclear power is necessary to reach its net-zero emissions reduction goals, but because the cost of building new nuclear reactors is time-consuming and expensive, reopening previously shuttered plants is an option on the table.
As part of that effort, in March, the DOE issued a $1.52 billion conditional loan to Hotec International to finance the restart of the Michigan-based Palisades reactor, which was closed in 2022. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval of a plan to restart the plant is one of the conditions of the loan.
Granholm indicated that the DOE was currently participating in discussions to make loans to reopen other recently closed nuclear plants, among them 12 reactors closed since 2013.
Source: Oil Price
Climate Comedy
Recommended Sites
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This website is absolutely fantastic.
‘That is good news for people worried about future climate change, and should end the debate about any future climate change crisis.’ –
Fat chance of that happening.
I would be remiss if I didn’t comment on the 24/7 Tempo claims of temperature.
For sure, the 1930″s had recorded temperatures to the nearest integer. Claiming to know the temperature was known to 2 decimal places is not scientific. Similarly, 2012 and 1988, at best, are recorded to the one-tenth. Claiming to know to the hundredths place is not scientific.
If these are considered to be measurements that can be compared, one should also provide the uncertainty interval that is associated with each measurement.
If sceptics are to be believable, we should adhere to scientific practices of handling measurements. Significant digits and measurement uncertainty are two important and fundamental protocols.
Respectfully, when you argue that when thousands of researching scientists independently all conclude from their research that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming , that that in itself means their conclusions cannot be valid, you are gaslighting. It’s an absurd argument.
Further, no ‘skeptics’ have ever developed and published a consistent physics based explanation for the behavior of the climate.
‘…thousands of researching scientists independently…’
In the US, all ‘researching scientists’ are effectively funded by research grants from the Federal government, an entity whose single most important and demonstrated objective is to expand its regulatory role over the private sector. Hence, with some notable exceptions, they are not ‘independent’, objective or reliable.
However, please come back should any of your alarmist authorities/ idols actually stumble upon any real evidence that human CO2 emissions will have a deleterious effect on the Earth’s climate.
In other words, you have no science to support your view. Therefore the work of thousands of scientists working in every country of the developed world has nothing to worry about from you😂
Actually, I have about 65 million years of data that clearly show that CO2 variability has had absolutely no impact on temperature variability. If you look at the attached analysis of the CENOGRID data, you’ll note that within any specific ‘regime’, e.g., hot house, warm house, ice house, etc., CO2 concentration varies widely (doublings / halving) while temperature remains relatively constant. Temperature, of course, does change significantly between regimes, but these are easily attributable to the opening and closing of ‘seaways’, aka plate tectonics.
But enough about me, you’re the one who wants to deep-six the fossil fuels that have powered human enrichment since the beginning of the industrial age, so the burden of proof is actually on you and yours. Or have you never studied enough science to understand the correct formulation of a null hypothesis?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/
im always amazed when a random amateur thinks he’s discovered fundamental errors in the decades long work of thousands of peer reviewed scientists
I’m amazed how dumb a beetroot can be.
Waiting for your evidence. which we all know you don’t have.
I’m sure the same thing would have been said of alchemists!
Are you a professional or simply an amateur troll?
When did you publish your fantastic scientific paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal? I must have missed it 🤣😂
“ I must have missed it”
Seems you are unable to find a single paper showing using empirical scientific evidence to show that CO2 causes warming.
Don’t worry .. no-one else can either.
CO2 warming is either zero.. or so tiny as to be immeasurable.
Empty consensus garbage.
Put forward some of your “science” showing CO2 causes warming.
Or remain an empty sad-sack.
What a load of empty anti-science rhetoric. !!
“Climate science™” certainly does not have a scientific explanation for “climate”…
The crap they put forward is constantly proven incorrect or evidence free.
Predictions are totally and absolutely wrong nearly all the time.
They are basically clueless… almost as clueless as you are.
You are welcome to put forward some actual measured science showing human CO2 causes warming…
We wait patiently… as we have for a long time.
Can someone explain why, if Heartland represents valid science, that none of the Heartland presenters have ever debunked CO2 as the cause of todays global warming in a paper published in the scientific journals Nature or Science?
And can anyone explain why none of the Heartland presenters have ever published a consistent scientific explanation for the behavior of the climate?
No-one has ever debunked Goldilocks and the tree bears either.
Put forward your empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
or….. just keep yapping mindless mantra rhetoric.
Just like everything else, BNICE, you can’t come up with any substantive answer. Are you a bot?
Still no evidence.. YAWN !!!!!
Empty little trollette !
No-one has to “debunk “fairy-tales”, you just need to realise that is what they are.
You are obviously still stuck in a fantasy little childhood of mental non-development.
Just “BELIEVE”….. that’s what you were told to do. !!
Don’t worry about the fact that you have no evidence..
… it is a fantasy, a myth, a fairy-tale… you don’t need evidence.
Because Nature and Science are editorially determined to support the climate crisis view? Happer and others have published excellent papers elsewhere.
No, because Nature and Science publish only papers with good quality science. Happer publishes his nonsense in journals that will accept anything for a fee.
Nature often publishes paper that are a load of garbage.
Happer has many times the intelligence, and knows far more about basically anything to do with physics, climate etc than a mindless worm like you is ever capable of..
So, Dr. Happer thinks the ECS is near zero?
“Think” and “Dr Happer” are mutually exclusive.
So, you have better qualifications than he has?
Happer has never published a scientific paper that debunks the scientific consensus that mans burning of fossil fuels is causing the fastest rate of global temperature rise in 10,000 years. So either he knows that his ideas are not scientifically defensible, or he has no argument at all.
Warren: Perhaps more to the point is that there have been no empirical scientific studies which have explicitly demonstrated that burning fossil fuels (CAGW) has any significant effect at all on GMT, as we continue to emerge from our last ice age.
Also, the concept that our GMT is increasing more rapidly than at any other time in the last 10,000 years is unsupported scientifically.
Further, trying to prove a negative is not one of the principles of empirical science.
The scientific research conclusively shows that the slow recovery from the ice age of 12,000 years ago was interrupted by a major discontinuity — a spike of rapid temperature rise that began about 1900, and accelerated about 1970 to the current rate of 0.18C per decade, the fastest rate of warming in10,000 years. Milankovitch cycles — the driving force behind the 12,000 year long recovery from the last ice age — cannot explain this sudden, and far more rapid temperature rise seen since 1900. This rapid rise has only one explanation consistent with the data — a sudden increase in the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 from industrial era fossil fuel burning.
I wish what you said were true — but it is not supported by any science.
You are arguing from ignorance, a logical fallacy. As for your ‘major discontinuity’ beginning in 1900, that simply reflects the difference in response times between modern instruments and proxy data.
Where’s your scientific source?
Where is your scientific evidence?
All you have done so far is regurgitate mindless AGW mantra.
You do know that there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any CO2 caused atmospheric warming in the last 45 years of reliable data, don’t you. !
If you think there is.. then present it and stop your mindless waffling.
And the fact that it started in 1900 shows human CO2 cannot have been the cause.
Epic fail by the beetroot !
(A beetroot basically a deep red turnip.. with the same intellectual capacity)
What a load of anti-science gibberish.
As you say.. CO2 warming is not actually supported by any empirical science.
Put forward your scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2..
Waiting, waiting…. !
The science is settled, right?
Why can’t the global circulation models accurately predict warming values using just greenhouse gases?
Your assertions of one and only one cause is so simplistic as to be insane!
The basic cause is indeed settled. Scientists have looked at every possible cause, and the only cause that explains the data is the accumulation of atmospheric CO2. (Oh , and btw, the GCMs do predict the warming values using greenhouse gases. That was done many decades ago; you are WAY out of date.
GCM are a load of total garbage. that are have missed by so much that the scammers have had to adjust even the urban surface data to get anywhere near .
You have been SCAMMED and are too brain-washed and dumb to realise it.
Now, where is that evidence of CO2 warming.
Everyone can see that you just don’t have any.
Bullshit. They started with the answer and worked back to the question.
That’s absurd. They’re scientists, not WUWT Deniers — THEY work backwards
You mean we expect evidence.
That you are INCAPABLE of producing.
There are no “deniers” here.
Tell us what we “deny” that you can produce solid scientific evidence for.
That means you will have to be able to produce the evidence…
.. something you have never been able to do.
+100
If the GCM’s used with IPCC investigations
re so correct for ΔT, why do they average ensembles (averages) to arrive at a prediction?
You are into published papers, show us one GCM from AR5 that has been verified against actual temperatures from the published date to now? Heck, AR6 is now 8 years ago, how about a GCM from there?
Your question makes no sense
No one owes you a scientific paper when you have thus far failed to reference even one, let alone the thousands you claim exist. Provide a link to at least one peer-reviewed paper that definitively demonstrates that burning carbon-based fuels materially impacts Earth’s climate. Mere correlation is inadequate, and no computer models. If you can’t do that basic thing to support your assertions, please go away.
Really? You haven’t read even one peer reviewed scientific paper on the climate? And you are jumping into a climate discussion? What do you expect to contribute?
You are operating on a logical fallacy out of the gate. No science conclusion has ever been validated by a show of hands, That is not how the Scientific Method works. What you need to instead ask yourself is why the dear leaders you admire on the IPCC / Al Gore side refuse to engage in debate with the scientists on the skeptic side. For the sake of educating the public on just how faulty you think the skeptic scientists’ viewpoints are, would you not agree that one of the best places to see that happen would be face-to-face debates, say at the PBS NewsHour program? As I document here, the NewsHour has never permitted that to happen one single time, while giving unquestioning air time to a range of scientists associated with the IPCC / NASA / NOAA.
Where is the human caused atmospheric warming in the last 45 years ?
There is none.
The atmosphere is the closest thing to “global” data that we have
Most of the surface data warming comes from massive urban effects and mal-adjustments, infilling and data fabrication.
It also is mostly urban, and does not remotely cover the whole planet.
How do you “debunk” something that isn’t occuring?
That it isn’t occuring is the “null” result of a proper hypothesis that says it is occurring. That puts the onus on the scientist to experimentally proving the assertion that it is true.
Scientists have already proved the theory with overwhelming evidence. It’s not their fault you’re ignorant of their work.
Pure supposition proved through correlation.
I don’t think the sock warren b understands logical fallacies or the metaphysical implications of its baseless assertions.
That’s quite a charge. But no science from you I see. (Of course, there is none that supports your beliefs)
How would you know, since you’ve never read any peer reviewed research! Pretty lame, i must say.
Yet you cannot produce one single bit of the “evidence” you say exists… Why is that.?
Don’t you see that you have ZERO CREDIBILITY !!
Look at you twisting and turning like a slippery, slimy little worm.
No actually, they haven’t
As you keep proving.. there is no proof.
Otherwise you would produce it rather than just waffling mindlessly.
You seem to be SO IGNORANT of their science, that you are incapable of producing any.
Waiting, Waiting… yawwwwnnnnn … zzzzz
Happer has several magnitudes more intelligence than you will ever be capable of.
You are basically a flea on an elephant’s arse.
“….no member country has ever outright publicly refused to implement a judgment from the ECHR, governments have failed to comply with and implement approximately half of the most significant decisions issued by the court over the past 10 years.” That’s what people really think of CC. It’s one big virtue signal. It’s like the people that claim a religion but never go to church/synagogue/temple/mosque and can’t tell you diddly squat about their religion but they claim to be devout.
In the discussion above concerning the temperatures in the 30s, were the temperatures discussed only in the U.S. or is the reference to global mean temperatures?
Global mean temperature is a bogus concept.
Why don’t you explain that to the thousands of scientists around the world that use mean avg global temperature as a proxy for heat content of the planet. I’m sure they’ll be so impressed by your ‘logic’😝