RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-shakedown-flops-1530315398

The first wave of lawsuits to make oil companies atone for their alleged climate sins was beaten back this week by federal Judge William Alsup. One hope is that this victory for judicial sanity will stop the tide of litigation from spreading across the country.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued BP, Chevron , ConocoPhillips , Exxon Mobil , and Royal Dutch Shell , demanding billions of dollars to remedy future environmental damage caused by fossil fuels. The Supreme Court ruled in AEP v. Connecticut (2011) that regulating emissions is the Environmental Protection Agency’s bailiwick. But the cities tried to circumvent the ruling by arguing that the mere production and sale of oil is a public nuisance.

Judge Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, rightly refrained from trying to regulate global carbon emissions from the bench. The problem of climate change “deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government,” he wrote.

The judge also ridiculed the notion that fossil fuels are a public nuisance and even suggested that they have been a boon for humanity. “Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible,” he noted. Fetch the smelling salts for Tom Steyer.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270586/media-censorship-reaches-live-theater-matthew-vadum

A far-left activist group called Amazon Watch helped to kill an honest review of a play that shows how radical environmentalists performed a major hatchet-job on oil giant Chevron, according to the play’s co-author.

The play, called The $18-Billion Prize, was written by Phelim McAleer and Jonathan Leaf. This example of “documentary theater” recounts aspects of the company’s famous battle with radical environmentalists over alleged pollution in the Amazon region of Ecuador. It is based on actual trial testimony from a six-week corruption trial centering on the activities of one lawyer-gangster known as Steven Donziger. In that trial the court found that an $18 billion judgment obtained against Chevron was based on bribery and blackmail of judges in Ecuador.

This wasn’t McAleer’s first attempt at documentary theater. Last year his stage work, Ferguson, about the August 2014 shooting of black teenager Michael Brown who was killed as he tried to slaughter white police officer Darren Wilson with his own gun in Ferguson, Missouri, was performed in New York City. An earlier version was performed in 2015 in California.

Ferguson may have been a play but it wasn’t fiction. The script was put together from grand jury testimony from the investigation into Brown’s death. Wilson was ultimately exonerated but not until his name was blackened by then-Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions and the mainstream media which lied about the facts of the case at nearly every turn. The fabrications live on in the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme, which was based on a now-proven lie that Brown was shot without provocation. The meme also helped the violent, racist Black Lives Matter cult expand beyond its organizers’ wildest dreams.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/an_update_on_surfacebased_temperature_data.html

It is helpful to update and evaluate temperature data occasionally. Accordingly, I have done so in the chart below, using data maintained by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (part of NASA). The data is actually collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It extends from 1880 and is typically cited as providing the most reliable surface temperature anomalies available, and is available here, While it has serious flaws, it is the best available, and has been cited by NASA and quoted in the Washington Post as demonstrating 2016 to be the warmest year on record, with each of the first six months setting new records (see red below). But, notice the heating had begun in late 2015, a period that also coincided with one of the strongest El Ninos on record, and arguably explains the spike in temperatures in early 2016. By 2017, temperature anomalies had dropped significantly, with the first five months being about average over the last six years. In total, temperature anomalies where below year-previous levels for a total of 20 consecutive months, from October 2016 through May of 2018.

Those who failed to emphasize the importance of El Nino in heat spikes were guilty of serious malfeasance. But, that has been the story of climate “science” at least since Michael Mann and others spliced several sets of data together, much of it “proxy” data tree rings, ice samples, etc. in order to get a long time series that would show a “hockey stick” effect in recent years. Climategate demonstrated the full depth of corruption, with emails revealing collusion among many involved.

A 123-page paper by Christopher Booker, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), explains how a few strong personalities formulated and perpetuated what amounts to a hoax. The first of these was a Swedish meteorologist, Professor Bert Bolin (1925-2007). Bolin presented his views in 1979 at a first-ever meeting of the “World Climate Conference,” sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a 191-member country agency of the UN headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. Six years later, Bolin presented a longer paper for a 1985 conference in Villach, Austria, in which he concluded that “human-induced climate change” called for urgent action at the “highest level.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/cooler_heads_need_to_prevail_on_texas_climate_predictions.html

For all its positive attributes, the great state of Texas has one major failing: the inability of its mainstream media to rationally discuss climate change. Unfortunately, Texas media are being used to implement the shock doctrine approach to environmental policy.

Back in 2014, one of us (S.R.) discussed this topic specifically in the context of the severe drought that was underway in north Texas. Readers may remember that at the time, Wichita Falls was ground zero for the drought, and its municipal drinking water reservoirs were being drawn down. Residents were understandably concerned.

However, what emerged during this drought was some potentially problematic policy advice from the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas. As S.R. wrote in response at the time:

The point of all this data is that we need to be cautious with precipitation and drought statistics in Texas. Anecdotal writing is more popular in the media today than ever. Sometimes this writing style can be useful, but very often it distorts reality by over-generalizing from an isolated case, in shock doctrine style[.] …

The worst drought conditions in the state from a couple years ago are easing. Although east Texas is almost out of drought, everywhere else is still in a significant drought – but if trends continue, the pressure may lift over the next couple years. Now simply isn’t the time to create comprehensive and far-reaching water policy in shock doctrine style. Following the advice of Rahm Emanuel to “never let a good crisis go to waste” will not lead Texas in the direction it needs to go, particularly when I see statements by the George W. Bush Institute such as “the trick is finding the right balance between planning and property rights.”

Discussions over property rights are never best conducted when a crisis is at hand. Wait until the drought crisis settles down – which it undoubtedly will – and then begin examining proposals over this very contentious topic (especially in Texas, where property rights issues are taken more seriously than almost anywhere else)[.] …

Patience is needed in the Lone Star State on water policy. Avoid the shock doctrine.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/warmists_lynching_an_innocent_bystander_co2.html

I live in SE Queensland. Yesterday the surface air temperature rose from a frosty 36ºF at sunrise to a balmy 72ºF in mid-afternoon. The enormous heat needed to achieve this 36º of warming came via radiation from the sun. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no significant part in this daily heating event – in fact it may intercept a tiny proportion of the incoming solar radiation and re-radiate it in all directions, thus keeping the daytime surface temperature a tiny bit cooler than it would have been otherwise.

At the deep Mount Isa Mine in NW Queensland, the surface temperature may average about 77ºF but it increases by about 20ºF every 50 meters of depth – rock walls are red hot in places. The enormous heat causing this comes via conduction from Earth’s geothermal heat plus some oxidation and heating of the sulphide ores as they come in contact with natural air containing oxygen. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no part in this heating.
There are volcanic windows open right now in Hawaii, Japan and the Galapagos revealing the vast resources of volcanic geothermal heat which is always migrating towards the cooler surface, sometimes violently.

Temperatures vary greatly over Earth’s surface, making a mockery of attempts to calculate an “average” for the globe. Air surface temperature may be minus -22ºF at the South Pole, while at the same time it can be plus 86ºF at the Equator. This enormous difference is caused by the varying intensity of solar radiation striking the surface – carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no significant part in creating this variance.
Surface air temperatures in big cities can be 9ºF hotter than surrounding rural land partly because bitumen roads, roofs and runways heat up more than grassy or forested countryside. Mega-cities are also full of heat-producing humans, engines, trains, vehicles, air conditioners, heaters, stoves, fridges, pumps and mowers.

Urban heat also comes from the warm bodies and hot exhalations from millions of humans digesting carbon-based foods, from stored chemical energy from burning hydro-carbons (wood, lignite, coal, oil and gas) or from nuclear power. Using green energy also adds to urban heat. Wind towers and solar panels extract energy from wind and sun in the countryside and release it where most of the electricity is used, usually in cities and suburbs. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no measurable part in producing these islands of urban heat.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/06/climateers-latest-little-earner/

Rising CO2 levels haven’t produced the soaring temperatures warmists so confidently predicted, but not to worry. In their latest grant-snaffling gambit, catastropharian careerists are saying greenhouse gases produce ‘extreme weather’ even without the missing heat. Yes, really.

Readers may remember a CAGW paper, co-authored by Professor David Karoly, that professed to demonstrate recent climate extremes in south-east Australia were unprecedented in the paleoclimate record. This paper was announced with suitably hysterical headlines as you might expect. Then sceptic Steve McIntyre identified a fatal flaw within hours of publication and it was withdrawn for “revision”. This took all of four years to publish and, when resubmitted, produced markedly less alarming conclusions. To no-one’s surprise this farce was conveniently overlooked by the mainstream media.

Anyway, the redoubtable Dr Karoly is back in the news today having co-authored a new paper which can only strike those without a seat on the warmist gravy train as plumbing the depths of desperation. They can see the writing on the wall. As CO2 concentrations inexorably rise and global temperatures disobligingly refuse to rocket upwards, the warmist establishment sees the need for a new and foolproof narrative. They have done it often enough before, so it is not as if switching stories is a great challenge. Remember those dams that would never fill again and, when they did, how the narrative switched tacks and proclaimed torrential downpours and flooding as the “genuine” consequences of electricity bills that just aren’t high enough?

The latest line appears to be that, even if CO2 doesn’t cause warming per se it can still cause “extreme weather” through some other, unspecified and malign influence. Thanks to Eric Worrall at WUWT for spotting the latest meme switch.

Now I haven’t read the paper, it being paywalled, and even if I did I’m sure it would dazzle baffle me with ‘science’. However, I have read the abstract, which pretty much tells you all you need to know. Here is how it begins (emphasis added):

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/leftist-democrats-environmental-hypocrisy-on-gas-prices/They advocate steep taxes, then complain about high gas prices.

A recent letter sent to President Trump says a great deal about how cynical energy and environmental policy has become in the United States. An excerpt: “The impact of rising fuel prices on our economy and on family budgets is significant and widespread.”

Those words of concern about the price of gas are from a letter co-signed by Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer. Ironically, Senator Schumer (D., N.Y.) has long supported increasing the price of gas as part of a policy to reduce CO2 emissions to fight climate change.

So too have the three others who signed the letter. Senator Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) proposed a “cap-and-dividend” bill that would have increased gas taxes by up to 21 cents per gallon. The letter was also signed by Senator Ed Markey (D., Mass.), whose name adorns the most aggressive climate legislation of the last decade, a bill that would have increased gas prices by up to 63 cents per gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.

The senators’ letter laments the rise in oil prices as summer approaches, calling on the president to jawbone Saudi Arabia to cut prices and “put pressure on oil exporting nations.” Ironically, the United States may soon become the world’s leading oil-exporting nation.

Demanding that the president cut gas prices so families can use more fossil fuels demonstrates how cynically the Left uses environmental policy. The explicit goal of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems is to increase the price of gasoline, home heating, and electricity, providing an incentive for consumers to use less. Schumer and the others who signed the letter all support these policies, which would, in their words, have a significant impact “on our economy and family budgets.”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/scientific-discovery-will-nuke-climate-change-scaremongering/

A team of scientists at Harvard University and a company called Carbon Engineering announced this week that they’ve figured out a low-cost, industrial-scale method of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Needless to say, it sounds like an exciting technology, which would, as The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer notes, “transform how humanity thinks about the problem of climate change.”

To be fair, though, plenty of humans have argued that innovation, rather than widespread state-compelled behavior modification or top-down economic regimes like the ones the Left has proposed over the years, would eventually deal with climate change. This conviction was based on the historic propensity of those human beings to hatch advances in efficiency and technology when left to their own devices. They always do.

If the industrial-scale de-carbonization stabilizes temperatures — and it now seems inevitable that it’ll be a big part of the solution — the Malthusian notions that dominate the modern Left will once again lose out to capitalistic innovation. This was inevitable when Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon were betting on resource scarcity, Al Gore was producing chilling Oscar-winning science-fiction films, and contemporary Chicken Littles were telling us the human race was doomed.

“This opens up the possibility that we could stabilize the climate for affordable amounts of money without changing the entire energy system or changing everyone’s behavior,” Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told The Atlantic.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/pope_francis_meets_with_oil_execs.html

Pope Francis is meeting with executives from top oil companies and investment funds to discuss climate change. The Pope’s perspective will presumably reflect his 2015 encyclical “Laudato si’”, which (among many points) called for a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. As an economist who has contributed to the book, Pope Francis and the Caring Society, that respectfully but critically engages the thought of Pope Francis, I laud the spiritual motivation of his concerns but question the actual consequences of his recommendations. Simply put, the Pope’s ideas on climate change would end up hurting the world’s poorest members, the very people his supporters think they are helping.

As Philip Booth points out in his own chapter in the book, St. Thomas Aquinas understood that private property provides the incentive to individual owners to use the resources under their control in the public interest. To give a concrete example, the African white rhino’s population soared after a change in the legal code that enabled private rights in the animals, fostering a robust market. Yet in his encyclical, Pope Francis seems to overlook this appreciation of the “Invisible Hand” when he sweepingly writes: “The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone.”

Regarding climate change, the Pope’s encyclical stresses that a “very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” People should realize that this popular term “consensus” obscures the vigorous debate among genuine experts on the extent of warming and how much to attribute to human versus natural factors. For example, John R. Christy has a PhD in Atmospheric Science, has been a Lead Author, a Contributor, and a Reviewer for the UN’s periodic report on climate change science, and (with Dr. Roy Spencer) won a Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement from NASA in 1991 for their creation of a dataset of satellite-based global temperature readings. Notwithstanding these “mainstream” credentials, in 2017 Christy testified before Congress that even the latest suite of climate models has vastly exaggerated the sensitivity of global temperatures to human activity.