Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

The man who invented ‘climate change’ – Ice Age Now

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

“It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
– Don Brown

Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:

“In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”

Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.

Thanks to Don Brown for this link

Be seeing you

Al Gore’s Global Warming and Climate Change Game ...




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Finally an environmental group does conservation the right way | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2019

They apparently missed the fact that the US military is the largest single source of pollution on earth. And if you think the government will put your climate-guilt tax dollars to good use, I have a bridge to sell you.

By Joe Jarvis

Studies have shown that people who believe in top-down government action to protect the environment are actually less likely to take personal steps in their own lives to reduce their negative impact.

When it comes to climate change, they somehow think giving the government more money will reduce carbon emissions. They apparently missed the fact that the US military is the largest single source of pollution on earth. And if you think the government will put your climate-guilt tax dollars to good use, I have a bridge to sell you.

But they still take the bait and think the end of the world can only be averted through government action. Again, they must have missed the study which found planting trees is the single most effective way to sequester carbon. And we all have that power, as individuals, to plant some trees.

But today I want to give credit where credit is due. I want to praise a conservation group for going about environmentalism the right way.

The Save the Redwoods League is NOT trying to force the government to seize or restrict private land to protect the forest.

Instead, they are buying the land.

The San Francisco-based Save the Redwoods League negotiated for the past 20 years for the purchase of Alder Creek, a 530-acre hillside grove that houses 483 trees with a trunk diameter of more than six feet, including the 3,000-year-old Stagg Tree — the world’s fifth largest tree, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported…

The land had been owned by the same family since the 1940s. It was bought for its logging potential.

And while plenty of smaller pines and firs were harvested from the land, the owners left the vast majority of the majestic sequoias intact.

The group will purchase the land themselves for over $15 million–that is, if they can raise the money.

Last year, the Save the Redwoods League purchased Red Hill, a 160-acre property in the Sierra Nevada’s that is one of the two largest unprotected giant sequoia forests in the world, after raising $4 million, as CNN reported.

What do you think? Will all the people who shared videos of Greta Thunberg crying and yelling kick in one dollar to save the redwoods?…

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Coming up with an idea”-A student climate protestor history lesson

Posted by M. C. on September 22, 2019

Submitted 22 Sep to the ET-N letters.

Student climate protesters need a history lesson.

The Club of Rome, founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate, is an organization whose concern is that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of resource depletion.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill”. The First Global Revolution p.75.

The club was originally founded using the thensettled science” of the coming ice age.

David Rockefeller-“The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

David Attenborough-“We are a plague on the Earth. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us”.

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 1927 Buck v. Bell

Eugenics def: A science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents. It’s back.

Bernie Sanders and Tim Ryan say the excess population problem lies with Africa. The US? It’s coming.

Climate change plus eugenics = total control over the minutia of your life.

Who decides how many is too many? Who decides who gets fixed?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The UN’s Climate Change Agenda is So Extreme Its Own Analysts Can’t Defend It | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2019

Advocates of aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change have posed as the defenders of “consensus science,” labeling any who dissent from their agenda as “deniers” with all of the baggage that term entails. And yet, as I’ve been pointing out for years, the peer-reviewed economics literature does not support the popular United Nations’ policy goals, of limiting global warming to either 2.0°C or the even more stringent ceiling of 1.5°C. Back in 2014, I used the latest issue of the UN’s own authoritative report—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—to make my case, and last fall I explained that the new Nobel laureate, William Nordhaus, had a career in climate modeling that did not come anywhere close to supporting the aggressive UN goals.

In the present post I’ll make my point with yet another striking example. I will show that one of the lead authors from the UN’s “Special Report” on the 1.5°C target is a co-author of a 2018 paper that admits the goal is difficult to justify. This should be shocking to naïve citizens and those who assumed that “the science” must all support the UN’s temperature goals. Yet as this example demonstrates, the UN’s new goal is so extreme that it’s difficult for even sympathizers to come up with a way to try justifying it using conventional economic analysis.

Rachel Warren’s Credentials

To set the context: Last fall, the United Nation’s IPCC released a Special Report telling policymakers various ways to (attempt to) hit the goal of limiting cumulative global warming to 1.5°C. The third chapter of the report summarized the recent economic research that had been published since the previous IPCC report (the Fifth Assessment Report or AR5). Rachel Warren of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (located at the University of East Anglia in the UK) is one of the lead authors of the chapter. Furthermore, Warren was author or co-author on at least four of the publications cited in the chapter. Here is an excerpt from her bio:

Rachel Warren is Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, UK.  Her research focuses on the production of policy relevant science related to climate change and sustainability.  A particular recent focus has been the quantification of the climate change impacts that can be avoided by timely mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in relation to risks to biodiversity. She was a coordinating lead author of the 5th (2014) assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and lead author of the 4th assessment which was awarded the Nobel Peace prize on 2007.   Presently she is a lead author of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C warming.  She has produced over 70 peer reviewed publications and over 40 scientific reports to government departments.

Her academic background and training is in physics and the natural sciences at Cambridge University.  After completion of her PhD she pursued an interest in atmospheric sciences and rapidly became involved in policy relevant research, a purpose to which she remains committed today.  She has assisted in national, European and international policy development relating to combating stratospheric ozone depletion, acid deposition, eutrophication, and (since 2002) climate change. In particular, her former work at the NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories provided evidence on the environmental acceptability of CFC substitutes, leading to inclusion of fluorocarbons in the Kyoto Protocol, winning the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratories Outstanding Scientific Paper Award.

As the above description makes clear, we are not dealing with a “denier” or a “stooge for Big Oil” here. Warren is a leader among scientists who are advising governments on various policies through which they can intervene in the market to reduce emissions from businesses.

Rachel Warren’s (Co-Authored) Paper on the Economics of the UN Climate Goal

Given her background, it is extremely revealing to see that Warren (and co-authors) have a 2018 paper entitled, “The Economics of 1.5°C Climate Change.” Now because I know just how ludicrous (given standard modeling assumptions) this latest UN target is, I was curious to see how Warren and her co-authors could possibly try to justify it.

The reader can hopefully appreciate my shock when I read the first two sentences from the Abstract of their paper: “The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test.

The skeptical reader should go ahead and click through to read the quote in context; I’m being completely fair. Believe it or not, the authors—including a Lead Author on the UN Special Report which advises governments on how to hit the 1.5°C limit—are arguing that because we understand this area so poorlyfor all we know the UN target makes economic sense.

Is that the slam-dunk “consensus science” that citizens have been assured undergirds the suggested power grabs? Hardly. As I have been warning readers for years, the case for a carbon tax is far weaker than they’ve been led to believe.


One of the standard talking points among progressives is that the right-wing obfuscation machine will hide behind “uncertainty” in order to stall necessary action on climate change. And yet in this latest episode, the tables have turned. As Rachel Warren—a Lead Author on several important IPCC reports—and her co-authors argued in a 2018 paper, the uncertainty in our understanding keeps alive the possibility that the latest UN climate goal might pass a cost/benefit test after all.

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tim Ryan Calls for U.N., State Dept. to Help Fight Climate Change with Population Control

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2019

How many is too many and who decides? Who decides who?

Sterilization of undesirables, deplorables if you will, is not far behind. US history is repeating itself.

Don’t worry, this will directed toward Africa…then Asia…then Latin America…then…

Eugenics…It baaaaack!

by Hannah Bleau

Democrat 2020 candidate Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) suggested that the government needs to play a role in addressing overpopulation in the form of “family planning” during MSNBC’s climate change forum at Georgetown University on Thursday.

Ryan participated in the forum Thursday, where he was asked about “overpopulation” and its role in climate change.

“What effect do you feel that overpopulation has with global warming and should we be doing anything to combat this?” a student asked.

Ryan was perceptive to the premise of the question – that population control needs to be part of the climate change conversation.

“It’s about resources, so yeah,” Ryan said. “I mean, I think we should be active again with international agencies within the State Department.”

“Now the president wants once to cut the State Department budget dramatically,” he continued, adding that the U.S. needs to “be involved in the United Nations family planning efforts around the world.”

“I think we need to continue to do that. It’s an important approach that we need to continue to make,” he added.

…“The answer is yes,” Sanders said, articulating his support of population control in the form of contraceptives and worldwide abortions.

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Sky is Falling – How Goverments Use Fear and Propoganda

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2019

Unlike businesses, they don’t operate on a profit basis. In fact, few politicians or civil servants have any grasp of the concept that prosperity is only created when someone invests his money in a venture, creates a profit and saves or re-invests the difference.

The Climate Change concept was invented out of whole fabric by the Club of Rome, which was created in 1968 by David Rockefeller. It was originally called “Global Cooling,

by Jeff Thomas

Governments are in the flimflam business.

Pared down to the bare essentials, governments can be very useful in passing and enforcing a small number of very basic laws. These laws should be limited to policing those who would seek to aggress against others, or their property. Governments may also have a value in providing protection from invasion – organizing an army of able-bodied people to address this collective problem, if and when it occurs.

And that’s about it. Beyond that, the private sector can, and almost always does, do a better job at virtually everything else. Therefore, a government should be small, cost very little to run and do as little as possible.

But since a government already exists, why not have it do more? Why not assign to it some of those tasks that tend not to attract businessmen?

Well, the simple, but almost universally little-understood, reason is that governments do not actually produce anything. They are, in fact, a parasitical construct that consumes money but creates nothing of worth…

Ergo, even the smallest of governments, in the smallest of jurisdictions, will learn to cajole the public. As the government grows, the con-game grows and duplicity, trickery and skullduggery become the lifeblood of the government – any government.

The con-game becomes, “Vote for me and I’ll provide you with something at the expense of someone else.”

“It is the primary business of any government to grow its own power and wealth at the expense of its people.”

At some point, all governments figure out that the greatest way to expand their own power and personal wealth is through fear…

Another highly successful demon is Climate Change.

The Climate Change concept was invented out of whole fabric by the Club of Rome, which was created in 1968 by David Rockefeller. It was originally called “Global Cooling,” as, at that time, the earth was passing through one of its cyclic cooling periods. However, that period soon came to an end and the earth entered a global warming period. So, the same “science” that was used for Global Cooling was then attributed without any change whatever to the new “Global Warming.”

When that cycle ended and the proponents of Global Warming again had egg on their faces for pushing warming during a new periodic cooling cycle, the proponents finally got clever and renamed it “Climate Change.”

From that day forward, any flood, drought, hurricane, tornado or variation in the ice caps has immediately been blamed on “increased Climate Change,” even though such occurrences have been with us forever and will be with us forever…

With government propaganda, the sky is always falling.

All the best propaganda appeals at a gut level. If people can be made to abandon reason and accept government-created fear, they can be controlled.

This doesn’t mean that governments can’t ever be trusted, but it means that they shouldn’t ever be trusted. They should always be questioned, not only as their propaganda is so often false, but as they are, inherently, in the flimflam business.

Editor’s Note: The government never stops growing and extending its reach into new areas of life. It finances this by confiscating wealth through taxation, indebting future generations, and lots of money printing.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of these trends in motion.

Be seeing you

GLOBAL COOLING is coming, and we’re all DOOMED, warned NYT ...




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why a Prominent Economist Abandoned His Support for Carbon Taxes | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 11, 2019

David R. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and was a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California who taught courses on energy economics. He originally endorsed the standard view among economists that if some physical scientists are right that greenhouse gas emissions will lead to substantial warming, and if the government must “do something,” then the best policy response is a tax on carbon.

However, as Henderson explains in a recent article, he has since changed his mind, and no longer thinks a carbon tax is “a slam dunk.” Even if we stipulate the basic framework of the “market failure” argument, it’s not at all clear that academics and policy wonks should be agitating for a carbon tax. There might be much better solutions available, rather than having the government penalize carbon dioxide emissions.

In the present post I’ll review Henderson’s reasons for his change, and I’ll also address some of the objections that his critics raised against his essay.

Henderson on the Phrase “Price on Carbon”

Before diving into his more substantive points, let me relay Henderson’s discussion of the odd phrase “price on carbon” which you frequently hear in these debates:

Let’s first dispose of … the idea that taxing carbon is the same thing as “pricing carbon.” Carbon is already priced. Natural gas, oil, and coal all have prices and their prices are somewhat related to the amount of carbon they contain. To be sure, adding a tax to carbon would raise the prices of all those fuels, just as adding a tax to alcohol would make your tipple more expensive. But just as setting a tax on alcohol does not “price alcohol,” setting a tax on carbon does not “price carbon.” In my more cynical moments, I wonder if advocates of a carbon tax sometimes call such a tax a price to mislead people into thinking that a carbon tax is a market solution rather than a tax solution. [Bold added.]

Henderson here hits the nail on the head. Besides just being wrong, to equate a carbon tax with a “price on carbon” would sound ludicrous in the context of any other tax.

Henderson Changes His Mind on a Carbon Tax

After summarizing the textbook case for using a Pigovian (named after A.C. Pigou) tax as the least-cost, decentralized way to correct the “negative externality” of human carbon dioxide emissions — an approach that is endorsed by even conservative/libertarian Republican economists such as Greg Mankiw, George Shultz, and John Cochrane — Henderson explains why he now has serious doubts:

[E]conomists who advocate Pigovian taxes take as given that the most-efficient way to forestall global warming is to reduce the amount of carbon used. But what if their assumption is incorrect?

There are at least three important reasons to conclude that the assumption is wrong. First, cow farts. … A far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is methane. Methane … warms the planet much more quickly than carbon dioxide before decaying to carbon dioxide. …To be sure, the CO2 lasts much, much longer than methane, but the fact of methane’s huge short-run potency surely suggests that a tax on carbon may not be the cheapest way to forestall global warming.

Second, one important technological development over the last decade has been “geo-engineering.” The idea here is to change other things in the atmosphere that are easier to change than the amount of carbon used …

Is such a technology feasible right now? Maybe not. But if it were, it would be incredibly cheap. Myhrvold’s organization, Intellectual Ventures, estimated that it could be set up in two years for $20 million and an annual operating cost of about $10 million.

…The third low-cost way to rein in global warming is by planting trees. Trees absorb and store CO2 emissions. You could call the tree-planting strategy geo-engineering, but it would count as such in a very low-tech form. According to a July 4, 2019 article in The Guardian, planting one trillion trees would be much cheaper than a carbon tax and much more effective. At an estimated cost of 30 cents per additional tree, the overall cost would be $300 billion. That’s large, but it’s a one-time cost. [Bold added.]

To summarize, the specific change in Henderson’s thinking is that he has come to realize that even if we thought the government should “do something” about climate change, it’s not obvious that the correct policy is to induce businesses and households to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. That mentality is usually taken for granted in the Pigovian framing of the climate change debate, but — as Henderson explains — there are several reasons he now thinks that perhaps this assumption is itself wrong. To repeat, even if one stipulates (if only for the sake of argument) that the government should do something to avert the climate change that human activity will cause (if left unchecked), there might be more sensible policies than to tackle carbon dioxide emissions directly.

I have written on some of these themes here at IER, for example when I explained geo-engineering options to college students who wanted humanity to “do something” about the threat of climate change, and when I recently used the new tree-planting study to illustrate Ronald Coase’s famous critique of the entire Pigovian tax framework for fixing ostensible “market failures.” Note too that a huge advantage of planting trees is that they are a “geo-engineering” approach that has few of the downsides of more radical proposals; it would be hard for critics to object that planting trees will hurt the environment in some other, perhaps unpredictable, way.

To help make sense of Henderson’s point about methane, here is a quick chemistry refresher: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a molecule consisting of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, while a molecule of methane (CH4) consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. Standard estimates conclude that a ton of methane is eighty-four times as potent in “global warming potential” as a ton of carbon dioxide over a 20-year horizon, and that perhaps one-fourth of humanity’s contribution to global warming to date has come from methane emissions.

Rather than restate the arguments that Henderson and I have made, it might illuminate the issues better if I now tackle two of the particular objections that critics raised in the comments section of the popular blog EconLog where Henderson posted his article.

Objection #1: “Tax Carbon Dioxide or Methane: Why Not Both?”

Objection #2: “So Let’s Subsidize Trees and Tax Carbon!”


Economist David R. Henderson used to believe that if the government were going to “do something” about climate change, then a carbon tax seemed to be the obvious policy tool to use. Yet now he has had serious doubts. This isn’t because he’s a “science denier” but rather because he’s thought through some of the limitations of the Pigovian tax framework for dealing with alleged negative externalities. Especially for activists who genuinely believe the world faces catastrophe, they should give serious consideration to Henderson’s reasons for thinking a carbon tax might be a false “solution” to climate change after all.

Originally published at the Institute for Energy Research

Be seeing you

Precautionary Principle | Sacred Cow Chips



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

9/11 Senate Hearing: No Mention of Radical Islam, Climate Change Is Major Threat

Posted by M. C. on September 10, 2019

The PC UK ignored things also…and for a long time.

by Robert Kraychik

No mention of radical Islam was made by any senators during Monday’s Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing — uniquely held at the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum in New York City, NY — days before the 18th anniversary of the Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Post-9/11 domestic instances of Islamic terrorism were also ignored, including but not limited to the attacks in Chattanooga, Fort Hood, Orlando, and San Bernardino. The only references to ideological dimensions of Islamic terrorism were made by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who referred to “jihadi terrorists” in three instances.

Chertoff was joined by Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, two former directors of the Department of Homeland Security in testifying before the committee, professedly on matters of national security.

“Climate change poses an existential threat” to America and Earth, declared Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He linked “climate change” to 9/11 in his opening remarks, calling on DHS to prioritize halting the ostensible phenomenon:…

Be seeing you

Sarah Champion distances herself from Sun article on ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

The science is settled!

This makes the eugenics revival look good.

by Chris Tomlinson

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Söderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.

Söderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism. Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to “overcome our taboo against cannibalism”.

Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it…

Be seeing you

Dieting cannibals: At last, a scientist has calculated calories for human body parts • The Register


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

@NPR tries and fails to connect “slow moving hurricanes” like #Dorian to “climate change” | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on September 5, 2019

Since Dorian didn’t cause any significant U.S. death and devastation that the MSM was looking forward to covering in the vein of “See, climate change!”. NPR had a go at it though, citing a NOAA study that is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking data. The slow movement of Hurricane Dorian prompted the search for connections.

Is Climate Change Contributing To Slower Moving Hurricanes?

NPR’s Steve Inskeep talks to atmospheric scientist Jim Kossin of NOAA about why more hurricanes like Dorian are moving at slower speeds, and if that has anything to do with climate change. Link to audio interview.

The study cited has data that produces this graph, prepared by “Inside Climate News” one of Tom Steyer’s well funded PR outlets if I recall correctly. They wrote:

Hurricane Dorian’s slow, destructive track through the Bahamas fits a pattern scientists have been seeing over recent decades, and one they expect to continue as the planet warms: hurricanes stalling over coastal areas and bringing extreme rainfall.

Recent research shows that more North Atlantic hurricanes have been stalling as Dorian did, leading to more extreme rainfall. Their average forward speed has also decreased by 17 percent—from 11.5 mph, to 9.6 mph—from 1944 to 2017, according to a study published in June by federal scientists at NASA and NOAA.

Note the starting point, 1944. Also note that the majority of “slow moving hurricanes” are during the satellite era, when hurricane tracking improved by at least an order of magnitude.

“Climate Denial Crock of the Week” producer, Peter Sinclair jumped all over this of course on Twitter “See, climate change!” But atmospheric scientist Wei Zhang would have none of it.

Later in the Twitter thread, there is this telling exchange:

So in a nutshell:

There’s no good storm motion data from earlier recorded hurricanes.

  • What data they had has been “reconstructed” from old charts, which may or may nor be accurate.
  • The study cited doesn’t go back further than 1944, which means the majority of data is from the post 1960 (TIROS-1) satellite era, which is more accurate as a given. This skews the data set towards the present, while the past remains highly uncertain.
  • The study’s graph from 1944 ignored data on slow moving hurricanes as far back as 1915. Evidence exists that many slow moving hurricanes occurred well before the satellite era.

Here is the chart Wei Zhang presented:

Cherry picking to fit the climate alarm agenda, clear and simple.

Wei Zhang said this when the Dorian threat loomed large:

He’s talking about people like Peter Sinclair and Tom Steyer….and people like this, captured by cartoonist Rick McKee:

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »