Modern Transportation – A Miracle under Attack By Climate Zealots

By Steve Goreham – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Modern transportation is amazing. Each day, millions of people fly, drive, or are transported across our world for business, pleasure, or to see distant family members. These trips, which are powered by petroleum-based fuels, were all but impossible a century ago. But today, many of our leaders call for elimination of hydrocarbon-fueled transportation.

Between 1840 and 1860, more than 250,000 people traveled by wagon train from Independence, Missouri to the west coast on the Oregon Trail. Horses and oxen carried the settlers on this 2,000-mile, six-month journey. Disease, attacks by Native Americans, and run-overs by wagons claimed the lives of more than 15,000 travelers. Today, a family can make this same journey in a few days in the safety of their air-conditioned vehicle.

Continue reading

Advertisements

NOT a Game Changer

By Rud Istvan – Re-Blogged From WUWT

ctm asked what I thought about the 7/31/2019 Forbes article by James Conca headed, “Net Zero Natural Gas Plant Game Changer.” My quick answer after reading the piece was, not much. He asked me to write up a WUWT guest post. I decided to research it rather than rely on Forbes; turns out Forbes omitted ‘fun’ facts, and got others just wrong.

Background

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) has been a green dream for a long time. (There is a now slightly dated review in essay Clean Coal in ebook Blowing Smoke.) There are two very fundamental problems.

Continue reading

Wrongheaded Climate Alarmism and “The Stupid Party”

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.

clip_image002

Continue reading

China Coal Mine Approvals Surge Despite Climate Pledges

SHANGHAI/BEIJING (Reuters) – Approvals for new coal mine construction in China have surged in 2019, government documents showed, with Beijing expecting consumption of the commodity to rise in the coming years even as it steps up its fight against smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

FILE PHOTO: A worker speaks as he loads coal on a truck at a depot near a coal mine from the state-owned Longmay Group on the outskirts of Jixi, in Heilongjiang province, China, October 24, 2015. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File Photo

Long-term cuts in coal consumption are a key part of China’s energy, environment and climate goals, but the fivefold increase in new mine approvals in the first-half of 2019 suggests China’s targets still provide ample room for shorter-term growth.

Continue reading

“DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO”… Shouldn’t we ask why first?

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

HENRY FARRELL
SCIENCE
08.02.1909:00 AM
DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO

LAST WEEK, CNN announced plans to host a climate crisis town hall with the Democratic presidential candidates on September 4. MSNBC scheduled a multiday climate change forum with the presidential hopefuls later that month.

In both venues, some version of the perpetual question will undoubtedly be raised: “How will you pay for the costs of dealing with climate change?”

Despite its pervasiveness, this is a profoundly wrongheaded line of inquiry. Asking how to pay for the impact of climate change implies that these costs are a matter of choice. The reality is that global warming will impose massive costs, regardless of whether policymakers respond or not. Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?” but instead “Who is going to pay?” and “How much?

[…]

Wired

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #370

The Week That Was: August 3, 2019, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.”— Michael Crichton [H/t William Readdy]

Number of the Week: 1998 and 2016

Confusing Planet: Our planet is a complex place, no doubt confusing global warming headline seekers. About 71%of the surface is water (ocean), 29% is land. Water warms and cools far more slowly than land. Complicating matters further, the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, slowing the nighttime cooling of water and land masses even further, where it is present.

Making matters even more complex is that about 81% of the Southern hemisphere is water and 19% is land. For the Northern Hemisphere, about 61% is water and 39% is land. Land area varies by latitude. About 68% of the land is in the Northern Hemisphere, only 32% in the Southern Hemisphere. By latitude, the highest percentage of land area is between 30 degrees North and 60 degrees North. [The distribution of land areas has changed significantly over the past 750 million years, making any paleo-earth studies of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on temperatures difficult. One cannot assume the ocean currents were the same as today.]

Continue reading

“Why Left and Right Can’t Agree on Climate Change”

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

This Quillette essay by Dr. Patrick T. Brown of San Jose State University is interesting…

Published on July 30, 2019

Empiricism and Dogma: Why Left and Right Can’t Agree on Climate Change
written by Patrick T. Brown

As a climate scientist, I often hear puzzled complaints about the political polarization of the public discussion about anthropogenic global warming. If it is an empirical and scientific matter, such people ask, then why is opinion so firmly divided along political lines? Since it tends to be the political Right that opposes policies designed to address and mitigate global warming, responsibility for this partisanship is often placed solely on the ideological stubbornness of conservatives.

Continue reading