climate change hoax

Despite What the Media Says, There’s NO Climate Catastrophe Coming in 2020

We now have an entire sector of the population – younger Millennials and Generation Z – who have been warned in cartoons, educated in their schools, coaxed on the Internet, and convinced by the mainstream media that human beings have caused global warming/climate change and that unless there is monumental government action the planet will cross a point of no return in twelve years.

Seriously, countless kids and young adults have been fed a load of junk science and misinformation and now live 24/7 with this unnecessary deep-seated fear that the end may be near.

No doubt this topic popped-up over the holiday season with that liberal relative.  So here are some talking points to consider as we roll into the new year. I’ll even do this without getting into a he-said-she-said, I’ve-got-my-facts-and-you-have-yours, type of argument.

Let me begin by telling you about three people, two of whom I spent memorable time with.

I’ll start with Joanne Simpson.  Joanne was the first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology. She did this back in late 1940s and early 1950s, first by receiving undergraduate and graduate degrees at the University of Chicago, and then by complete post-doctoral work at Dartmouth College. I should probably mention she was also African American.  Simpson was a member of the National Academy of Engineering, taught and researched meteorology at numerous universities, and worked for the federal government. She passed in 2010.

Sadly, I never had the pleasure to meet Dr. Simpson, but we had many friends in common.

Another graduate of the University of Chicago was Dr. William Gray. “Bill,” as he liked to be called, is widely regarded at the pioneer of hurricane forecasting.  In fact, the headed of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University.  For several decades, media types from all over the world awaited Dr. Gray’s annual hurricane forecast in which he, quite accurately, predicted how many hurricanes would form in the coming season. Bill was a frequent guest on my radio show.  He passed in 2016

Harrison “Jack” Schmitt has lived a colorful life. He has a doctorate in geology, has been a university professor, was a United States Senator (from New Mexico), and I should also mention once walked for 22-hours on the moon. I had the wonderful pleasure of dining with Jack, as he insists on being called.

You have to admit, these three individuals, all with Ph.D’s in science, were/are well accomplished in their fields.  Guess what else they have in common?  The educated conviction that human activity is NOT altering the global climate.

By the way, they’re not alone. I could mention scores of others including professors, former directors of the national hurricane center, rocket scientists, even the guy who invented the first weather satellite. All would say human-caused global warming/climate change is bunk! But the bulk of media would lead you to believe such people don’t exist, and if they do exist they are on-the-fringe kooks.

Next, let’s look at two current climate scare stories in the news.

One involves the jet stream, which I know a little bit about. It was my best subject when I was in meteorology school at San Jose State University. The jet stream (actually there are many such streams at any given time), is a river of air blowing hundreds of miles per hour at altitudes of 30,000 to 50,000 feet above the planet.  Simply put, these massive streams push storms around the globe.  A recent news story is that the jet stream is shrinking because of human-induced air pollution and thus storms will soon run out of their lanes and wreak havoc on the planet.

Problem is, the so-called scientists who are pushing this theory have NO convincing data to back it up.

Nonetheless, the media is running with it like it’s gospel.

Fake news!

My favorite professor in the San Jose State University Meteorology Department would have gotten a big kick out of this phony news report. He was colorful man named Dr. Sid Serebriny. “Dr. Sid” was credited as being one of the guys who formally discovered the jet stream during WW2. Dr. Sid is no longer with us, but when I was hanging out with him in the Eighties and Nineties, he was always amused by the thin arguments many tried to use to “prove” global warming was for real.

The other story in the news is that Venice is flooding. Again. Some are saying it’s the worst flooding there in more than 50 years.  Such high-water levels will leave “a permanent mark”, Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro tweeted. “Now the government must listen,” he added. “These are the effects of climate change… the costs will be high.”

Let’s ask a few basic questions. First, what was occurring 50-years-ago when Venice last experienced such flooding?  It was actually in 1966, and the concern back then was global cooling. Next let’s take a look at Venice. It’s a city made up of more than 100 islands inside a lagoon off the north-east coast of Italy. The main landmass is intersected by the Grand Canal.  It is also an ancient city that is experiencing widespread subsidence. In other words, it is SINKING.  A project to protect the city from flooding has been under way since 2003 but has been hit by soaring costs, scandals and delays.

In my opinion, the Mayor’s cry for help is really a desperate call for more funding, which will line the pockets of more scandalous actors.

Finally, one more story in the news that didn’t get as much play as the first two. A new study by researchers at Turku University in Finland concluded the global temperature has risen 0.1°C over the past century.  And how much of that rise can be attributed to humans?

Just 0.01°C.

That’s right, just 1/100th of a degree can be attributed to humankind.

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi. The researchers found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

A 0.01 degree Celsius increase in temperature would be inconceivable to humankind and would hardly produce enough mojo to alter the Earth’s climate.

Don’t freak out folks, and Happy New Year!

California Fires: DO NOT BLAME Climate Change or PG&E

Right now parts of California are experiencing planned power-outages.  The state’s leaders are telling us it’s because of the winds (which are very gusty in some locations), the electrical power lines, and the trees/foliage adjacent the lines.  It is true, if a random spark from the swaying lines were to come in contact with dry vegetation, a fire could instantly flare up.

Sadly, our major electrical provider in northern California, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), has suddenly become the bad guy in all of this.  Blame is also being cast upon you and me for our consumption of fossil fuels and the (supposed) associated effects of global warming.

It’s a shame that the real culprits have escaped judgement.  I’m referring to the environmentalists.

First a brief lesson in climate. Throughout the recorded history of California, exceptionally strong, dry winds and scorching temperatures are a common atmospheric occurrence in September and October.  The reason for this has to do with the state’s unique geographical location: cool ocean waters hug California’s 780-mile long Pacific coast, while a variety of mountain ranges stretch up and down the state. Interspersed are broad swaths of natural desert.

In the northern half of the state, coastal cities such as San Francisco and Oakland receive 20-inches of rain a year, on the average. Inland, San Jose typically sees 14.5 inches.  The state’s capital city, Sacramento, located in the Central Valley, gets 18 inches of rain. To the south, Los Angeles and San Diego generally experience about a foot of rain annually. The averages haven’t notably changed since records began being kept in the 1800s.  Historically, the rainy season begins in mid-late October and ends by early June.

To put these rainfall amounts into perspective, east of the Rocky Mountains most cities in the United States receive 40 to 60 inches of precipitation annually.

However, California’s blessing has been its large mountain ranges (bordering Nevada and Oregon), where precipitation mostly falls in the form winter snow. Up there the annual precipitation totals are impressive: 60 to 80 inches of precipable water is common, depending on the range.  The incredible amount of rain/snow in the mountains feeds streams, rivers, lakes, and dams, which provide the irrigatable water necessary to grow abundant fruit and vegetable crops in the state’s arid regions.

Because of the mountain precipitation (and the brilliant use of artificial dams), farming remains California’s top grossing industry. In fact, the state leads all others in farm income. It’s positioned as the agricultural powerhouse of the United States.

California grows over 200 different crops, some grown nowhere else in the nation. It produces almost all of the country’s almonds, apricots, dates, figs, kiwi fruit, nectarines, olives, pistachios, prunes, and walnuts. It also leads in the production of avocados, grapes, lemons, melons, peaches, plums, and strawberries. Only Florida produces more oranges, and only Texas more cotton.

On a side note, shamefully, environmentalists loath the human-made dams and have been successful in getting many torn down.

More on the climate: the prevailing winds in California blow west to east. Commencing in mid/late October storms begin to blow in from the Pacific. As their moist air confronts the mountain ranges, it rushes up the sides of the mountains doing something known as  “orographic uplift.”  As such, as the air strikes the windward side, it is uplifted, cooled, and forces precipitation to occur.  This is why windward slopes of mountains tend to be the wet sides while the other side of the range (the “leeward side”) is dry.  This is also why Nevada (directly east of California) is a complete desert—it’s located in California’s “rain shadow.”

Now, about the fire danger presently effecting California.

I’m penning this post on October 27.  This is the time of the year when the atmosphere is transitioning from summer to winter.  As this changeover occurs the wind patterns temporarily begin to blow more east to west, opposite the norm.  Another part of the transition includes an increase in something called the “pressure gradient.” Long story short, this increase causes the winds to blow harder, as they are today. So, the winds right now are blowing downthe slopes of the mountains and toward the ocean and as the air is pushed down the mountainsides it totally dries out, dropping the humidity levels to zero, thus naturally creating an increase fire danger. If there’s a spark (from a power line, barbecue, car accident, etc.), the wind can cause a fire to grow into a monster in no time.

This has nothing to do with human-caused global warming or climate change.  This condition has always been a noteworthy aspect of California’s overall climate.

As for the current fire danger, don’t blame northern California’s major energy provider, PG&E—blame the environmentalists.

One of my best friends, Mike, has been a linesman with PG&E for 40 years; prior to that his dad worked the powerlines for decades as well. Between these two men, they’ve literally traversed nearly all the powerlines in the entire state.

Mike tells me that a couple decades ago the rule was that PG&E cleared away any foliage from the power lines to the tune of ten feet on each side. However, at the insistence of the environmentalists, that amount of clearage was reduced to four feet.

Four feet is hardly enough.  Indeed many plants and trees can easily grow that much in a single season.  To gain more clearance PG&E needs environmental approval, which is nearly impossible without a court order. The environmental policies in California have created a fire danger in association with the lines!

Then there are the various county, state, and federal laws that have hampered efforts to properly thin our forests.  I’ve been hiking a part of Nevada County (in the Sierra Mountains, near Truckee) for decades. Twenty years ago I used to be able to literally walk through the forest to my destination (the original railroad tracks built in the 1800’s) sans a path or trail. Now the forest is so overgrown and dense that my only choice is a well-worn trail.  The area has become a major fire waiting to happen.

Again, don’t blame this unnecessary power shortage on PG&E or climate change.  Blame it on the environmental agenda that has been instituted by the politicians and bureaucrats who run California, and their willing accomplices in the media who are carrying their water.

Here’s the real story: the environmentalists believe humans are the planet’s invasive species.  All of the rules, regulations, and laws they put forward are designed to instill a reduced population—by fire if necessary.

Hurricanes are not the result of human-induced climate change (as attested by the world’s foremost hurricane experts)

It’s been another lackluster hurricane season, with the exception of the hurricane currently teasing the east coast, Dorian.

Nonetheless, the global whiners are using this storm to tout their (failed) theory of human-caused climate change.

Here’s a snippet from my bestselling book, Climategate:
——————————-

If you want to observe a branch of meteorology where there is virtual consensus regarding global warming, look no farther than to those who actually study and forecast hurricanes.  This community of scientists knows Gore is prancing about au naturel.

Re-enter Dr. William Gray, unquestionably the world’s foremost hurricane forecaster.  He founded the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University in the 1960s, where he developed the fine art of forecasting hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin, including the Gulf of Mexico.  Numerous times Dr. Gray has told my radio audience, “I am of the opinion that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Gray’s opinion is not based on a gut feeling—it’s based on the science. And he is not alone.

“All my colleagues that have been around a long time—I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the National Hurricane Center—we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming,” says Dr. Gray.[1]
Indeed, another pioneer in hurricane research, and a thirteen-year Director of the National Hurricane Center, Dr. Neil Frank, told the Washington Post,“It’s a hoax.”[2]
When asked if he thought increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could actually be a good thing he replied, “Exactly!  Maybe we’re living in a carbon dioxide-starved world.  We don’t know.”[3]

COUNTING HURRICANES

When the Gulf of Mexico coastline took its direct hit from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a columnist for the Boston Globeblamed the storm on global warming.  “The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service.  Its real name is global warming,” he wrote.[4]
Actually, if the buffoonish columnist wanted to accurately name Katrina, he would have taken off his tin-foil cap and called the storm “normal weather.”
Hurricanes are the fascinating grand dames of earth’s natural weather machine. To pin their frequency and intensity on global warming is foolish, but to the uniformed, it’s a sexy sell.
In 2004 and 2005, the global whiners received costly gifts from the global warming gods.  The 2004 hurricane season saw a near record six hurricanes striking U.S. soil.  Of those, a record three were classified as major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher).  In 2005, six hurricanes also made landfall in the United States, with a new mark of four reaching major status—the most devastating, of course, being Katrina.

While it may seem compelling to link these natural disasters to global warming, recall from Chapter Three that 2005 was the 16thhottest year on record, and 2004 didn’t crack the top 20. Historically, these two devastating hurricane seasons need to be placed in proper perspective:

 

Total Hurricanes Striking United States

Number                                          Year
7                                         1886

6                        1916, 1985, 2004, 2005

5                        1893, 1909, 1933

4                        1869, 1880, 1887, 1888

1906, 1964

3                        31 years have 3 strikes

 Major Hurricanes Striking U.S.

Number                                        Year

4                                      2005

3                        1893, 1909, 1933, 1954,

2004

2                        1879, 1886, 1915, 1916,

1926, 1944, 1950, 1955,

1985

 

The left half of this chart indicates that 2004 and 2005 both experienced six hurricanes strikes in the United States.  If global warming was to blame for those busy seasons, how do you explain the equal number of hurricanes that came ashore in 1916, one of the colder years on record?  And could the record sevenstrikes in 1886 caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels?   Obviously not; it was nearly as cold as 1916.

The right side of the chart indicates that 2005 holds the record of four major hurricanes hitting our shores.   However, one must ask if an unnatural increase in CO2is to blame. What was driving the three major storms that hit the U.S. in 1893 and 1909?  Again these were very chilly, post-Little Ice Age years that have no link to carbon dioxide.  Admittedly, 1954 was a hotty, but our proof-by-association exercise is running out of gas.
It should also be noted that despite the frequency and intensity of the hurricanes during the 2004-05 period, the following two hurricane seasons were tame.  Nohurricanes touched U.S. soil in 2006, and 2007 would also have been hurricane-free were it not for the last gasps of Humberto, which limped into Texas with winds of 90 mph. All told, 2006 produced a mere five hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin (the lowest since 1997) and 2007 only six—kind of a bummer if you’re in the hurricane research biz, and even more so if your using hurricanes to raise money to fight global warming.  The year 2008 was a bit more active with 8 hurricanes, and only one hitting Galveston as a Cat-2.

“But, Brian,” the worldly global whiner might interrupt, “you’re so Yankee-focused. How can you judge the hurricane seasons based on how many storms hit the United States?  The Atlantic Ocean and surrounding waters are a huge breeding ground for hurricanes.”

Well, let’s check the stats:

Hurricanes in Atlantic Basin

Number                                     Year

15                                    2005

12                                    1969

11                        1887, 1916, 1950, 1995

10                        1870, 1878, 1886, 1893,

1933, 1998

9                         1880, 1955, 1980, 1996,

2001, 2004

 Major Hurricanes in Atlantic Basin

Number                                   Year

8                                    1950

7                             1961, 2005

6                      1916, 1926, 1955, 1964,

1996, 2004

5                      1893, 1933, 1951, 1958,

1969, 1995, 1999

 

 

To the left, we see that 2005 was an anomaly with a record 15 hurricanes forming in the Atlantic.  The Summer of Love experienced the second greatest number (and no, you can’t blame it on what was smoked at Woodstock, nor can it blamed on temperature—1969 was cool year).  Following those records, we see many years with a significant number of hurricanes, half of which occurred in the 1800s.

The right side of the chart illustrates that 1950 (another cool year) holds the record for the most powerful storms, with eight major hurricanes. Beyond that, we see a smattering of years with intense storms, most having played out prior to 1960.

Again, to try pin frequency and intensity on global warming is folly.  Like all kinds of weather, hurricanes simply happen.  On average, close to seven hurricanes every four years (1.8 per year) strike the United States, while about two major hurricanes cross the U.S. coast every three years.

Consider some other noteworthy hurricanes, noneof which occurred in particularly hot years:

Deadliest Hurricane:  More than 8,000 people perished September 8, 1900, when a Category 4 hurricane barreled into Galveston, Texas.  The storm surges exceeded 15 feet and winds howled at 130 mph, destroying more than half of the city’s homes.

Most Intense Hurricane:  An unnamed storm slammed into the Florida Keys during Labor Day, 1935.  Researchers estimated sustained winds reached 150-200 mph with higher gusts.  The storm killed an estimated 408 people.

Greatest Storm Surge:  In 1969, Hurricane Camille produced a 25-foot storm surge in Mississippi.  Camille, a Category 5 storm, was the strongest storm of any kind to ever strike mainland America.  When the eye hit Mississippi, winds gusted up to 200 mph.  The hurricane caused the deaths of 143 people along the coast from Alabama into Louisianaand led to another 113 deaths as the weakening storm moved inland.

Earliest and latest hurricanes:  The hurricane season is defined as June 1 through November 30.  The earliest observed hurricane in the Atlantic was on March 7, 1908, while the latest observed hurricane was on December 31, 1954.  The earliest hurricane to strike the United States was Alma, which struck northwest Florida on June 9, 1966.  The latest hurricane to strike the United States was on November 30, 1925, near Tampa, Florida.

Hurricanes, one of the favorite proofs that advocates of anthropogenic global warming use to validate their claims, have become earth’s biggest bogeyman.
Reporters can call names, Senators can make unfounded pronouncements, the Terminator can pump his biceps, and the U.N. can hold conferences on impending doom, but the only consensus regarding the connection of hurricanes and global warming is that there is no connection between the two.

However, like slick slip-and-fall lawyers, the Marxist elites pushing their social engineering agenda are not about to let a few facts thwart their plans.  There’s too much wealth at stake that needs to be spread around.

 

[1]Interview with Dr. William Gray on KSFO, San Francisco, April 7, 2007

[2]Joel Achenbach. “The Tempest,” Washington Post, Sunday, May 28, 2006.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ross Gelbspan, “Katrina’s real name,” Boston Globe, August 30, 2005

Global Warming Alarmist Becomes Skeptic

Proving there are scientists, even award-winning ones, who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming, check out this one.

Former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. Rex Fleming is one of them.  He recently crossed the line from global warming alarmism to skepticism.

Even though Fleming holds  a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, his work has been banned by major scientific groups.  He is the author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.  Fleming blows the whistle on manipulation of data within NOAA, and accuses a few individuals of “fiddling” with ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration.

According to Fleming, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, refuse to publish scientific papers from scientists (like him) it considers “deniers.” So he had to travel to Europe to have his 2018 paper on climate change peer-reviewed and published.

In a story published by Newsbusters, Fleming suggested the reason more scientists aren’t shifting away from anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is that they’re “in this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models. And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change.”

“It’s been a wonderful gravy train” for scientists since the 1970s, Fleming added.

Fleming also criticized alarmists for targeting the fossil fuel industry for several reasons. He said one political reason was to push socialism.

“They’re using a calamity as a measure to get people’s attention,” he said. “So the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly, without any proof, have assumed this is the problem.”

Another Crock of a Carbon Dioxide Report

As I discussed in my Hidden Headlines Podcast two weeks ago (for a solid half-hour!), carbon dioxide (CO2) is NOT a pollutant.  It is a necessary (and variable) component of the earth’s atmosphere.  But, proving that the establishment media has no problem bastardizing the truth by leaving out facts that would otherwise ruin their agenda,  here’s another story that’s getting a lot of attention (from Axios) that is chock full of lies:

The monthly peak amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere in 2019 jumped by a near-record amount to reach 414.8 parts per million (ppm) in May, which is the highest level in human history and likely the highest level in the past 3 million years.

Why it matters: Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived greenhouse gas, with a single molecule lasting in the air for hundreds to around 1,000 years. The continued buildup of carbon dioxide due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels for energy, is driving global temperatures up and instigating harmful impacts worldwide.

The fact that carbon dioxide levels increased by a near-record amount of 3.5 ppm in just one year illustrates that we’re headed in the opposite direction from what climate scientists have shown is needed to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

While I’ve written two books that totally debunk the phony carbon-dioxide-is-killing-us scaremongering, let me briefly unpack the whoppers stated above:

-Even though the level of CO2 is now at 414.18 parts per million, it remains at a mere .039 percent of all atmospheric gases.  Translated, that’s 39-thousandths of a percent.  Also, according to the Department of Energy, the amount of CO2 produced by human activities accounts for a bit over 3 percent of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.  While in theory it would appear that an increase in CO2 would also increase global atmospheric temperature, there is no solid correlation of that occurring throughout the history of the planet. Indeed, even the slight increase of CO2 in recent decades (about 35 percent since 1850) is well within historical measurements.  In the Eocene period (50 million years ago) CO2 was likely six times higher than today. In the Cretaceous (90 million years) it was seven times higher.  In the Carboniferous (350 million years)  it is thought to have been twelve times higher that today.         

-CO2 is NOT a leading indicator of a warming atmosphere, but rather a lagging indicator.  In other words, throughout history when average  temperatures on earth have increased, levels of CO2 have followed.  Likewise, when the global temperatures have decreased, CO2 has soon thereafter done the same.  Also, it has been much hotter in the past (including the hottest decade in modern record, the 1930s).  It should also be noted that ALL plants benefit from an increase in CO2.

-While a molecule of CO2 does move through the atmosphere at a relatively slow place, it is part of a never ending cycle, exactly similar to the water cycle–it just takes longer. All bodies of water (71 percent of the earth’s surface) contain cast stores of CO2.  The dissolved CO2 in the water is used to form the exoskeletons of shellfish, coral, and limestone. On the earth’s surface the CO2 is found in peat bogs, coal seams, natural gas, petroleum reserves, newly fallen leaves, felled trees, and animal and human corpses.

These climate lies from the left are purposeful!

Allow me to conclude with a telling statement from one of the men who inspired me to write my books:

People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be.
– Vladimir Lenin, The Three Sources and Three. Components of Marxism, 1913.