By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The so-called “debates” of the Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls have allowed these individuals to display their extraordinary lack of knowledge and colossal ignorance of the world’s energy, emissions and climate realities.
The global energy, emissions and climate alarmist deceptive and dishonest propaganda claims this Presidential election cycle compared to the last such cycle in 2015-2017 can be properly characterized as “it’s worse than we thought” to borrow a much overused phrase from the climate alarmism community.
The inane energy and emissions concepts contained in the Green New Deal along with other related climate alarmist antics supporting this absurdly costly, ineffective and unnecessary scheme are totally loony.
During the prior Presidential election cycle which commenced in 2015 Dr. Judith Curry wrote an excellent article highlighting the inappropriate politicalization of climate change issues by “alarmist in chief” President Obama. She laid out her criticisms of the anti-science approach employed by the Democrats in addressing climate issues instead of that Party undertaking a science-based discussion.
Dr. Curry’s article was appropriately titled “The stupid party” with the introduction shown below.
In her article she had provided quotes from then Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz as well as comments from the Democrats climate alarmist propaganda champion President Obama.
“Cruz has made the following statement about climate change in a TV interview, with the following unedited remarks reported by the Washington Examiner:
“I think debates on these issues should be driven by the science and the data and the evidence. Global warming alarmists don’t like to confront the actual evidence because it does not support their apocalyptic theories.
“Specifically, satellite data demonstrate there has been no warming over the past 17 years. That’s despite the fact that the computer models relied upon for this theory showed there would be significant warming, and yet the actual data don’t back up those flawed computer models. So what did the alarmists do? Rather than look to science to understand what’s happening, they simply modified the theory.
“Now you don’t hear them talking about global warming, you hear them talking merely about climate change. The reason for that alteration is because the data demonstrate the Earth is not warming. And I would note whenever anyone makes that point, you immediately get vilified as a quote-unquote ‘denier’ without anyone actually refuting the facts.
“And the language of denial is revealing because one usually hears of deniers in the religious context, dealing with heretics. And much of the global warming hysteria is pushed forth as a religious truth that no facts can dare contravene.
“It is altogether worrisome when you have scientists treating matters — denouncing those pointing to the actual facts and data as deniers. And indeed I would point out that was the exact same conduct the Flat Earth people demonstrated toward Galileo. And the global warming alarmists in their treatment of those looking to the facts and evidence often behave like modern day Flat Earth proponents.”
She then noted views regarding the Democrats approach to addressing the climate issue.
“While we’re on the subject of ‘stupid’, in case you missed this in the Week in Review.
On President Obama’s website, barackobama.com, there is a site Climate Change Fantasy Tournament:
Despite the overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and man-made, these sixteen members of Congress prefer to live in a fantasy world, refusing to accept the basic facts. You can learn more about their denial here. Help us pick the worst of the worst. Vote now!
97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country. Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change. Find the deniers near you—and call them out today.”
Dr. Curry concluded with the following regarding her assessment of the election process climate debate in her reflections section of the article noting:
“I find nothing at all wrong with Ted Cruz’s statements about climate change that I have cited above. In fact, I think they reflect some actual nuance of understanding of the climate change issue.”
“I REALLY object to President Obama’s ‘denier’ hunt, and insistence on the 97% scientific consensus in support of his policies. The extreme scientization of the political debate by President Obama is absolutely pernicious to academic freedom and is hampering scientific progress in understanding this complex problem.
It remains to be seen how the Republican candidates will position themselves regarding the climate change debate. So far, the declared Republican candidates (Cruz) are NOT winning the ‘stupid party’ contest on the issue of climate science.”
The recent debates by the Democratic Presidential contenders and their media interpreters offers an opportunity to revisit the election process of politicalization of climate science issues that Dr. Curry had criticized in her article. The CNN debate moderator consistently used the climate alarmist political propaganda term “climate crisis” instead of climate change regarding climate issue related questions – not a good start for what should have been an objective discussion.
The Detroit debate which took place on August 1 briefly and very clumsily, haphazardly and disjointedly addressed some climate related elements including topics where differing views were expressed regarding the viability of the Green New Deal and rejoining the Paris Agreement. Other topics included the need for zero carbon emissions and moving people to higher ground because of global sea level rise (holy cow!).
Another article after the Detroit debate featured the reporter injecting her own views into the discussion in an attempt to fabricate a more cohesive assessment of the disorganized utterances of the candidates at the Detroit debate with the following summary:
“Yes, some of the moderates don’t like the Green New Deal. And the left-leaning politicians were more vociferous in their denunciation of the fossil fuel industry, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont accusing the corporations of “criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue,” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts vowing to take on a Washington that “works great for the oil companies, just not for the people worried about climate change.”
But those differences belie the candidates’ fundamental agreement that transformative policy is needed to address climate change, including that:
emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil energy have to be brought to zero no later than 2050;
an expansive and rapid economic transformation with special attention to the needs of workers is key; and
trillions of dollars of federal investment will be necessary and worth the money given the scientific evidence that the alternative would be far costlier.”
“I think it’s pretty clear from everyone on that stage that you can’t be serious about running for president if you are not committed to acting on the climate crisis,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, vice president for government relations for the League of Conservation Voters, who watched the sessions live from the Fox Theatre audience in Detroit.”
“Atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton, who has been one of the lead authors of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the candidates’ universal acknowledgement of the climate crisis was “certainly interesting and, up to a point, encouraging.”
“While it’s nice that most were on board with the concept of an aggressive stance against climate change, by and large we are still waiting for the ‘how to get there’ part,” Oppenheimer said.”
The Washington Post has a rack-up of the candidates and their positions on about a half dozen various issues that the paper itemized in a recent article.
The Post characterized the majority of Democratic candidates as supporting the Green New Deal, rejoining the Paris Agreement, creating a carbon tax, ending fossil fuel government subsidies and banning extraction of fossil fuels on federal lands.
Based on these articles and news reports it appears that the great majority of Democrat candidates have climate issue related viewpoints built upon climate alarmist propaganda.
A recent article addressed this Democrat alarmism issue as noted below.
The author provided specific points regarding the Democrats flawed views about the “climate crisis”.
“As the Republican-called witness at a recent hearing, I was denounced by the Democrats for denying a fossil-fueled “climate crisis” that, as their witnesses testified, results in violence against women, asthma and obesity in children, and deadly storms. But few actually questioned me. After all, “the debate is over.”
“At the hearing, I presented data from the United Nations contradicting the accepted wisdom that extreme weather is destroying the planet and is traceable directly to a man-made climate crisis. There are no such trends in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, or droughts. One Democrat who stuck around to actually question me simply asserted that our coalition is funded by energy companies. I wish! Another wanted to know, “Do you believe in climate change or not?” When I asked him to define it, he cut me off with: “That answers it all…That gives us a hint where you’re coming from.”
“It turned out that computer models were indeed the basis for the U.N. claims about recent “detection” of a change in temperature, and “attribution” of the cause being CO2 emissions. But they weren’t testable statistical models; they were mathematical exercises in curve-fitting — essentially, finding a model that fits your data. The modelers themselves called them projections rather than predictions.
These Global Climate Models randomly use thousands of input guesses until their output roughly tracks the chart of average temperatures. Then those final guesses are used to run the model forward to estimate how much warming industrial CO2 will cause in 100 years. But one of the input guesses is the warming effect of CO2, so the modelers control the final answer from the start!
The “proof” cited by the U.N. study was that the fit improved when CO2 emissions are included in the model along with a few well-known natural events, such as solar changes and volcanoes. I laughed out loud when I saw that. I could create a great fit with temperature for any series, from batting averages to the stock market, if I too could fiddle with thousands of parameters. The father of these models was Cold War military theorist John von Neumann, who wanted to see if we could cause drought in the Soviet Union. He failed, thank goodness. Von Neumann joked, “with four parameters I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, a member of our coalition who was a U.S.-appointed representative on the U.N. panel but left when it became a propaganda tool, has called the U.N. logic “proof by lassitude.” By this he means that just because you can’t identify the combination of interactions and feedback that drives temperature doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Lindzen has pointed out that the modelers themselves build in feedback when it suits them. A full two-thirds of the modeled warming comes from a hypothesized response by the atmosphere to an initial warming from CO2.
The claim of a thousand-year high came from a temperature chart called “the hockey stick,” generated by a backward-looking model that took a “new statistical approach” to the records of the widths of the rings of old trees. This one was pretty much all art and no science. The data conveniently wiped out a previous consensus that there had been a natural “medieval warming period” that exceeded today’s temperature. The resulting graph was flat until the carbon dioxide era and then shot up by grafting on different data (though not the raw tree ring proxies, which actually went down).
“On its face it was silly, and on careful reading it became even sillier. But what the U.N. and my student hadn’t recognized was that even if true, the chart was irrelevant to whether our recent warming is mostly human or natural. Every 100,000 years, oscillations in the earth’s orbit drive temperatures up and then down far more than the recent fluctuation. The processes and feedback are poorly understood. A brief stable period within this massive, complex system that ends in correlation with a change in a single variable, carbon dioxide, is no more proof of causation that a strongly oscillating period ending with the same correlation.”
“When I asked my coalition’s physicists, agronomists, geologists, and meteorologists to write about the hour they first didn’t believe, it turned out they didn’t have one. They always knew that CO2 was a minor warming gas, and never found the models’ focus on it compelling. The last 30 years have not been kind to the models. The exaggerated media claims about their projections of warming and its catastrophic effects keep getting extended rather than realized. Someday the climate science narrative will return to a place of reason. When it does, I’ll be waiting there for my Democratic Party.”
The climate CMIP5 computer models (over 100 of them) have been compared by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer to extensive global temperature satellite measurements of the earth’s lower troposphere with the results showing exaggerated and flawed model outcomes compared to actual measured global temperatures that demonstrate how the flawed computer models compute at least twice the level of global temperature increase as satellite measurements show is actually occurring.
Yet these “hopelessly wrong” computer models which grossly overstate and exaggerate the impact of CO2 atmospheric levels on global temperatures are employed by climate alarmists to manufacture unrealistic outcomes that are falsely used to try and justify government policy climate actions that impose upon society massive burdens that are enormously expensive, ineffective, bureaucratically onerous and unnecessary as noted in a recent evaluation by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“All projections in the National Climate Assessment “are based on global model results and associated downscaled products from CMIP5 for a lower scenario (RCP4.5) and a higher scenario (RCP8.5).” CMIP5 is the acronym for the ensemble of 32 models used in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment report. NCA projections are based on the “multi-model mean” of the CMIP5 models (p. 110).
So here we encounter the first systemic problem in the Fourth National Climate Assessment on which the subcommittee’s majority relies. Since 1979, the CMIP5 model mean has projected roughly twice as much global warming as has actually occurred in the global lower atmosphere and nearly three times as much warming as observed in the tropical bulk atmosphere, where greenhouse theory expects the most rapid warming to occur.”
Making matters even more exaggerated climate alarmist utilized these flawed computer models with economic models that employed deliberately and unrealistically skewed assumptions with higher future emissions levels, adverse energy fuel use choices, higher population growth, lower economic growth, etc. to fabricate flawed worst case economic outcomes that are disguised as “base cases” which grossly overstate and misrepresent climate cost impacts in an attempt to fallaciously justify climate alarmist Draconian proposals.
“Although the U.S. Global Change Research Program used all four RCPs to model potential climate change impacts, the NCA report “focuses on RCP8.5 as a ‘higher’ scenario, associated with more warming, and RCP4.5 as a ‘lower’ scenario with less warming” (p. 6). Predictably, the majority staff briefing memo fixates on warming levels and impacts associated with RCP8.5.
Although the National Climate Assessment does not call RCP8.5 a “baseline” emission scenario, readers are left with the overwhelming impression that RCP8.5 represents business-as-usual—the global emission levels that will result absent “significant global mitigation action.” However, as this blog post and several other commentators have pointed out, RCP8.5 is not a realistic emissions baseline. It projects higher emission levels in 2100 than about 90 percent of baseline scenarios in the literature. RCP8.5 belongs in the category of worst-case scenarios.”
But these distorted and deceptive tactics of employing flawed climate and economic computer models by climate alarmists to exaggerate and misrepresent climate behavior and related economic consequences are completely overwhelmed and made to be of secondary importance by the fact that the world’s developing nations have emerged during the last decade as preeminent in controlling both existing and future global energy use and emissions outcomes.
These results that climate alarmist and Democrats ignore and conceal establish that energy and emissions policy actions by the developed nations including the U.S. and EU are irrelevant to both existing and future energy use and emissions growth with the world committed to an ever increasingly upward path in both these measures that is unstoppable by the developed nations.
This critically important outcome is highlighted by the information presented below from a recent energy and emissions assessment with data provided through year 2018.
The article references the following results summary:
“The results for the last decade show that global energy use grew by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that energy growth accounted for by the developing nations.
The developing nations represented about 51% of global energy use in 2008 and ended the decade accounting for over 59% of global energy use.
Energy use growth by the developing nations during the last decade occurred at a rate 5.5 times greater than the flat growth rate that occurred in the developed nations.
The developing nations energy use growth during the last decade was met by significantly increased use of fossil fuels that supplied over 78% of this latest decades energy growth.
The developed nations reduced use of fossil energy by about 3.2% during the decade with the largest reduction being in the use of coal fuel that was largely offset by increases in use of natural gas.
Despite this small developed nation fossil energy reduction during the last decade world fossil energy increased by over 14.5%. Global energy consumption during this period saw coal use climbing by 8%, oil use climbing by over 12% and natural gas use climbing by over 28%.”
“Despite reductions in coal use by the developed nations coal fuel remained by far and away the primary fuel for the world’s electricity generation.”
“Global renewable energy increased significantly during the last decade as measured from its very small starting contribution but represented only about 4% of total global energy in 2018 compared to fossil fuels that accounted for about 85% of total world energy use.”
“Renewable energy is more extensively used in the developed nations than in the developing nations where in 2018 it accounted for less than 3% of the developing nations total energy. In contrast fossil fuels provided 87.5% of the developing nations total 2018 energy. The developed nations used fossil energy for meeting over 80% of 2018 energy needs.”
“Global energy use drives global CO2 emissions outcomes.
During the last decade of flat energy growth by the developed nations costly government driven unreliable renewable energy use mandate schemes were undertaken which partially resulted in CO2 emissions declining by about 1 billion metrics tons between 2008 and 2018 for these nations.
Of this developed nation total CO2 reduction the U.S. contributed about 530 million metric tons in reductions. This was achieved primarily by substituting cost effective, reliable and more efficient natural gas in place of coal. This cost effective and successful outcome is concealed from the public by climate alarmist propagandist media.
During the last decade significantly increased need for growing energy use and the preferred reliance on reliable and affordable fossil fuels resulted in the developing nations increasing CO2 emissions by over 4.5 billion metric tons. This emissions increase resulted in global CO2 emissions climbing by over 3.5 billion metric tons during that decade.
The developing nations increased energy use and resulting emissions completely overwhelmed the lower emissions by the developed nations conclusively demonstrating that the developing nations now totally dominate global energy use and emissions.
Global CO2 emissions will continue to climb driven by the developing nations need for increasing energy use as reflected in EIA data which projects increased global CO2 emissions by 2050 of over an additional 7 billion metric tons.”
The bottom line regarding the role of the developing nations as dominating both global energy use and emissions is unequivocal.
“The developing nations are now accountable and solely responsible for about 64% of global CO2 emissions compared to only about 36% of global emissions being accounted for by the developed nations – nearly a 2 to
ratio. (graphically illustrated in the diagram below)
The developing nations now dominate global energy use and emissions by being accountable for 59% of global energy use and 64% of global CO2 emissions with these figures projected to climb ever higher in the coming decade.”
This global energy and emissions dominance by the world’s developing nations will continue to grow in the future.
The failure of the developed nations climate alarmists to mandate the use of costly and unreliable renewable energy upon the developing nations is clearly reflected in a recent article from the Financial Times where fossil fuels are forecast to provide 85% of the world’s energy in year 2040.
Additionally the EIA IEO 2017 report projects that by 2050 the developing nations will be accountable for nearly 70% of total global energy use and emissions.
The Democrats inane push for the Green New Deal is ludicrous since even if such a useless and massively costly program is enacted by the U.S. it has no impact on the worlds continuing increased use of fossil fuels by the developing nations that have no commitments whatsoever to do anything under the politically contrived and phony Paris Agreement.
The Green New Deal is a catastrophically costly and useless program as discussed in a recent AEI paper presented a recent international climate conference.
“Economist Benjamin Zycher did the math—the real math, not “climate math”—on the GND’s costs. He shared the results at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, in Washington, July 25. Take a deep breath.
Just to meet the GND’s renewable electricity mandate would cost, at a very conservative estimate, $491 Billion a year—or $3,845 per household.
And then there are the indirect costs. What are those? The costs of building the political coalition necessary to turn the GND (which AOC introduced as a resolution) into law:
• $3.2 Trillion for a single-payer health care system;
• $680 Billion to guarantee everyone employment;
• $107 Billion for “free” college and family-and-medical leave;
• $200 Billion for high-speed rail (because planes won’t fly on batteries!);
• $4.5 Trillion for the marginal excess burden of the expanded tax system. (It costs a lot to collect all those taxes!)
That totals $9 Trillion a year. A paltry sum. Just slightly over two-fifths of our economy.”
Furthermore the basic premise of the Green New Deal mandating a zero emissions electricity future using renewable energy is technically and fatally flawed as noted in a recent WUWT article.
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a “100 percent renewable system” and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas–fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas–fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.
Without fossil-fired backup generation, the national and regional electricity systems would be characterized by a significant decline in service reliability — that is, a large increase in the frequency and duration of blackouts. Battery backup technology cannot solve this problem. It is unlikely that a power system characterized by regular, widespread service interruptions would be acceptable to a large majority of Americans. Accordingly, the emissions effects of backup generation as just described in fact would be observed, which is to say that to a significant degree the GND is self-defeating in its asserted climate goals. That is another reason to conclude that the true goals are an expansion of wealth transfers to favored interests and the power of government to command and allocate resources. Moreover, the reduction in individual and aggregate incomes attendant upon the GND policies would yield a reduction in the collective political willingness to invest in environmental protection over time.”
“Moreover, notwithstanding the assertions from GND proponents that it is an essential policy to confront purportedly adverse climate phenomena, the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173°C by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter (equilibrium climate sensitivity) about the effects of reduced GHG emissions. Under an assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083°C by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures. This conclusion is not controversial and suggests strongly that the GND’s real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally”.
Also unaddressed in the GND proposal is the indisputable fact that any reductions in GHG emissions by the U.S., which already leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions, is completely irrelevant to the future growth both cumulatively and incrementally of global emissions which are totally controlled by the world’s developing nations.”
Yet another significant deception by the Democrats is their failure to note the action recently taken by the EU to dump any commitment to “carbon neutrality” by 2050 as noted in another article at GWPF.
Democratic Party alarmist candidates make claims that sea level rise is accelerating. These claims are unsupported by globally measured tide gauge data as addressed in a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research which concluded that based on actual measurements there was “no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years.”
Sea levels have been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age as noted in the diagram below that shows sea level rising at low rates for about the last 8,000 years.
Climate alarmists continue to make false coastal sea level rise acceleration claims based on, again, speculation and conjecture from computer models. An example of sea level rise computer model exaggeration and dopey idiocy is noted in the diagram below from a recent alarmist “study” done here in California.
Climate alarmist claims of global warming driven extreme weather are unsupported by results from the UN IPCC climate assessment reports.
The article notes the following in its conclusions:
“Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.
And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heat waves.”
An additional analysis specifically debunked recent flawed claims of increased Atlantic hurricane activity.
The analysis specifically addressed data on category 3, 4 and 5 landfall hurricanes as noted below.
Climate alarmism propagandists and their media manipulators repeat regular seasonal cycles of scientifically unsupported alarmist hype. Two of these involve the U.S. regularly occurring tornado season and summer Greenland ice melt.
Each year during the typical tornado season peak occurrences in April, May and June the climate alarmists and media hype how this increased activity is “unusual” and driven by man made climate change as illustrated in a typical propaganda article addressing this year’s activity.
As the typical tornado season moves into the less active months NOAA data tracking tornado behavior over the last 15 year long historical cycles shows that indeed the typical behavior pattern that is expected has occurred and the propaganda alarmist hype abates only to be pointlessly repeated again the next season.
Another regular seasonally driven event that is always hyped by climate alarmists and media is the summer Greenland ice melt of tens of billion of tons of ice that varies each year but is almost always wrongly characterized as being due to man made climate change that is threatening huge global sea level rise impacts that would occur if all Greenland ice were to melt.
This year saw increased summer Greenland ice melt versus prior years so the alarmist hype was even more absurd. The graphs below show how this regular and complex ice melt cycle varies over time and more importantly how infinitesimally small these changes are relative to the total ice mess of Greenland – a critically importantly piece of scientific information that is never addressed in alarmist propaganda.
The Democratic Party and its media propaganda interpreters are dishonestly concealing critically important energy, emissions and climate information from the American public including:
Failure to acknowledge that climate models grossly exaggerate and overstate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures thus demonstrating that these models are hopelessly flawed.
Failure to utilize realistic assumptions regarding future economic impacts of climate change and instead utilizing worst case outlier presumptions that are built upon nothing but alarmist driven speculation and conjecture in an effort to drive up supposedly related climate change costs to unrealistic levels.
Failure to acknowledge and deliberately concealing the fact that the world’s developing nations have assumed complete control of existing and future global energy use and emissions outcomes.
Failure to acknowledge and deliberately concealing the fact that the U.S. and EU cannot change the course of future global energy use and emissions growth – the world’s developing nations exclusively determine that future global energy use and emissions will continue to rise.
Failure to acknowledge that the Paris Agreement has already demonstrated its complete inability to serve any meaningful purpose in addressing future global energy use or emissions – the Agreement contains no emission reduction commitments from the developing nations.
Failure to acknowledge that the EU abandoned its once proudly and loudly hyped politically driven goal of being committed to carbon neutrality by 2050.
Failure to acknowledge that the Green New Deal is a massively costly and useless politically contrived proposal which has been rendered irrelevant because the world’s energy and emissions dominant developing nations have committed to future fossil energy use and emissions growth.
Failure to acknowledge that the Green New Deal requirement of 100% renewable energy electricity leading to zero emissions is technically and fatally flawed because it fails to address the need for backup fossil generation required due to the unreliability inherent in renewable operation.
Failure to utilize global data which clearly establishes that coastal sea level rise is not accelerating and that 30 year old alarmist claims regarding such acceleration are flawed.
Failure to utilize UN IPCC data, conclusions and findings that extreme weather is not driven by global warming CO2 emissions.
As Dr. Judith noted in her 2015 article:
“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned fellow Republicans they “must stop being the stupid party”.
Jindal’s comments didn’t seem directly targeted at science, but the phrase stuck in my head. And it seems very apropos to the current political debates in the U.S. about climate change, particularly in context of the emerging candidates for U.S. President.”
It’s up to WUWT readers to evaluate the conduct and climate policy utterances of the Democratic Party Presidential candidates and media manipulators and make their own determination as to which political party should be awarded the title of “The stupid party.”