By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. – Ross McKitrick
Anti-fossil fuel SCC relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor
The Social Cost of Carbon is a key foundation for numerous Obama-era energy policies, regulations and programs. Climate alarm activists insist the SCC is rooted in solid science and economics, but it is actually little more than Garbage In-Garbage Out forecasting – and worse.
The SCC assumes fossil-fuel-driven carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous manmade climate change, and blames U.S. emissions for every conceivable climate-related cost worldwide. But it fails even to mention, much less analyze, the tremendous and obvious benefits of using oil, gas and coal to power modern civilization – or the undeniable benefits of more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere helping crops and habitats grow faster and better. Finally, the SCC totally ignores the social, economic, employment and environmental costs of the regulations imposed in the name of saving the planet by converting America to a totally carbon-free energy system.
By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.
The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.” And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.” In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so.
By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
A key question to think about, do renewable fuels decrease fossil fuel use, or do they increase it?
What are the costs of using renewable energy? The sun and wind are free, does that make wind and solar power free? Biofuels require power to plant crops, make fertilizer and spread it, harvest the plants, make and transport the ethanol. Solar and wind require power to produce, transport and install the equipment. All renewable energy sources require lots of land per megawatt of electricity produced. We will not be able to determine a cost for renewable power in this essay, but we can discuss the components of the calculation and provide some context.
By Ken Haapala, President,The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
The Climate Establishment Strikes Back: MIT Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen had circulated a petition signed by some 300 scientists calling for the US to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He sent the petition with a letter to President Trump.
In response, twenty-two MIT professors sent a letter to President Trump a stating that they have worked on climate science and disagree with him. This letter cites the claimed future risks from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) including “sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts.”
By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Renewable energy is defective solution in search of a problem, money and power.
The Greek philosopher Diogenes reportedly carried an oil lamp during the daytime, the better to help him find an honest man. People everywhere should join Congress and the Trump Administration in search of honest energy and climate policies – as too many existing policies were devised by special interests seeking money and power, and often using imaginary problems to justify their quest.
By Helen Schwiesow Parker – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
The human health consequences of manipulated measurements
Like the tobacco industry before it, the wind industry has spent decades vehemently denying known harmful consequences associated with its product, while promoting its fraudulent feel-good image. Dismissing or denying the serious health impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines is wishful thinking, akin to insisting that tobacco is harmless because we enjoy it.
The problem with wind energy is not just its costly, subsidized, unreliable electricity; the need to back up every megawatt with redundant fossil-fuel power; or its impacts on wildlife and their habitats.
Infrasound (inaudible) and low-frequency (audible) noise (slowly vibrating sound waves collectively referred to as ILFN) produced by Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWTs) directly and predictably cause adverse human health effects. The sonic radiation tends to be amplified within structures, and sensitivity to the impact of the resonance increases with continuing exposure.
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Global Climate Models: Judith Curry wrote a powerful critique of global climate models, “Climate Models for the Layman”, that was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A few of the key points are discussed below. For those with a deeper interest in climate science or climate modeling, the entire paper is worthwhile.
In the executive summary, Curry presents several fundamental scientific points on Global Climate Models (GMCs) including:
“GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.
There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.”
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is well aware of the failure to produce valid models. Five-time Assessment Report (AR) commentator Vincent Gray of New Zealand has repeatedly stated this failure to the IPCC. The IPCC has responded by evasive tactics such as changing terms of predictions to projections and terming highly questionable, evasive procedures as evaluation. Government entities that depend on the IPCC findings follow suit. These include the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), including its highly dubious calculations of the “Social Cost of Carbon”, and the EPA in its ambiguous finding that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.