Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
A recent The Washington Post (The Post) article claims that African farmers, particularly those in Ethiopia, are struggling with crop failures caused by climate change. This is false.
A recent The Washington Post (The Post) article claims that African farmers, particularly those in Ethiopia, are struggling with crop failures caused by climate change. This is false. While crop failures do occur and have harder impacts on communities that are already poor, there is no data showing that drought or tropical cyclones are happening more frequently or becoming more severe, or that crops production is declining as a result. Worse, the evidence suggests that international organizations climate change efforts undermine the use of technologies proven to increase food production, harming African agricultural progress as a result.
The article, “Farmers race to innovate as climate change threatens African food supply,” begins with a focus on Ethiopia and claims that the Earth’s rising average temperature means “large chunks of Africa are whipsawing between increasingly severe droughts and more frequent and intense cyclones, threatening staple foods for hundreds of millions of people.”
The Post cites claims by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that “each increase of 1 degree Celsius correlates to a three-percentage-point reduction in agricultural output in developing countries,” and predicts that “crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa will decline by 5 to 17 percent by 2050, despite a rapidly growing population.”
Much of the article focuses on organizations that are promoting chicken raising in Ethiopia as a low-emissions, low water-use livestock option, and claims that cereal crops like wheat, rice, and corn (maize) are particularly susceptible to extreme weather.
All of the above claims are false.
As Climate Realism has pointed out in many articles, including here, here, and here, African drought and flooding cycles are natural, and no signal from climate change can be detected in regional or continent-wide staple crop production.
Data clearly show that the IMF’s claims about warming causing a decline in African crop production is patently and obviously false. Crop production in Africa in general, and Ethiopia in particular increased dramatically over recent decades, even as the planet has experienced a warming of more than 1℃. To reiterate the point, as warming has occurred, crop production and yields have increased, not decreased. Also, real world data and peer reviewed agronomy research provides no reason for believing these trends will change in the future, absent political interference in to use of fossil fuels to plant, fertilize, harvest, and deliver crops. Those are the facts, IMF and Washington Post.
Looking at crop production data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, it is clear that the cereal crops (including rice, wheat, maize, and others) that are claimed to be particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change have seen improvements. (See figure below)
In the past three decades of warming:
Ethiopian cereal production increased 467 percent;
Yields increased 112 percent;
All-time production records were broken 9 times between 2011-2021.
Wheat in particular over the same period saw gains with only recent bad harvest seasons, which should be expected from time to time regardless of climate change. Since 1990, Ethiopian wheat production and yield rose 482 percent and 72 percent, respectively, and broke all-time production records 8 times since 2011, the highest as recent as 2020. (See figure below)
Africa as a whole has benefitted from similar growth in crop production during the recent modest warming. (See figure below)
Cereal production rose 131 percent;
Yield rose 48 percent;
New all-time production records have been 7 times between 2011 to 2021.
What’s true for Ethiopia is true for other countries on the continent as well, and Africa in general, as demonstrated in numerous other Climate Realism posts, like, here, here, here, and here. Clearly, climate change is not causing a decline in African crop production or harming African farmers.
The Post, amazingly, admits that unclear regulations, pricing, and “confusion over what is defined as a ‘climate solution’ have kept most big investors away from climate adaptation in Africa ….”
Outside investment in Africa seems to be more focused on climate change than anything else, if The Post is to be believed, despite the fact that African farmers are already low-emitters. Discouraging Africans from using cheap, plentiful energy from fossil fuels makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to natural weather extremes. Likewise, suggesting that “sustainable” farming practices, like organic and regenerative agriculture, should make up the bulk of African farming practices going forward will only result in lower yields and increased famine, as it did in Sri Lanka.
The Washington Post and the IMF should do their research and acknowledge these facts instead of fearmongering about African crop production. What’s more, they should not be supporting and encouraging the kinds of farming practices that encourage poverty and famine, and should instead promote economic and agricultural prosperity via the fossil fuel resources that many regions of Africa are rich in.
The World Health Organization’s Dr Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum’s recently presented a propaganda video, arguing that due to a supposed climate crisis, the “most deadly health emergency is extreme heat”. But the data exposes his claims are just a political fear mongering hoax!
The World Health Organization’s Dr Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum’s recently presented a propaganda video, arguing that due to a supposed climate crisis, the “most deadly health emergency is extreme heat”. But the data exposes his claims are just a political fear mongering hoax!
Hoax 1: Peer review research demonstrates (see illustration labeled “A”), that it is NOT global warming but moderate cold that is by far the biggest killer of humanity, even after accounting for the extreme heat during heat waves.
Hoax 2: In contrast to the climate alarmists’ narratives suggesting rising CO2 worsens heat waves, there are NO known physical scientific dynamic that has demonstrated rising CO2 concentrations cause worse heat waves.
Hoax 3: Dishonest manipulative alarmist politicians rant that only CO2 can be driving global warming. Thus, they create statistical analyses suggesting global warming must increase maximum temperatures that worsen natural heat waves. But observed heatwaves refute the alarmists’ bogus science! Heat waves happen even where maximum temperatures have been cooling!
The 2023 heat wave over central USA was caused by a heat dome (illustration “B”) located over a region where temperatures have been cooling for many decades. Several researchers have published research showing the central USA has indeed experienced cooling trends as illustrated in “C”. Thus, according to alarmists, such cooling in the central USA should have caused weaker or fewer heat waves.
Hoax 4: Contrary to alarmists’ narratives, EPA data for the central USA reveals a long-term decline in maximum temperatures (illustration “D”) and there is NO historical trend in USA for heat waves. By far, the worst USA heatwaves happened during the 1930s Dust Bowl! (illustration “E”)
So, follow the science!: 99% of all scientists agree that any dynamic that suppresses atmospheric convection will also result in warming temperatures. Those dynamics create heat domes!
To understand the effect of heat domes that suppress convection, simply sit in your car at noon with the windows rolled up. As government agency’s public service announcements show (illustration “F”), in just one hour due to suppressed convection, the trapped heat inside a car will raise temperatures from 80F to 120F in just one hour! The very same heating dynamics occur during a heat wave. Even CO2 can’t do that!
Heat domes suppress convection when atmospheric circulation creates a high-pressure system with downward winds that suppress convection (illustration “G”). Sinking air not only inhibits upward rising convection, but that sinking dry air warms as it sinks!
Laughingly, despite the scientific fact that no politician can prevent a heat dome, the Biden White House is bragging, “From day one, President Biden has taken action to address the climate crisis, which includes securing more than $50 billion to help Americans in every single state become more resilient to climate impacts like heat waves”.
As reported by climate scientists who published “Attributing and Projecting Heatwaves Is Hard”, “Heatwaves on the scales people experience them are strongly influenced by the local energy budget that determines the use of energy between evaporation and heating, set by the land surface, vegetation, irrigation, and urbanization.”
A top polar scientist interviewed by the Russian Academy of Sciences says we need to prepare for serious global cooling, to begin by 2030-2035.
Cites studies of Lake Baikal and historic climate epochs.
Andrey Fedotov. Photo: Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
People’s Voice here reports: “One of the world’s top Arctic scientist’s has spoken out to debunk the ‘climate crisis’ narrative” and warns the public that “the Earth is actually about to enter a period of ‘global cooling.’”
According to leading polar scientist Andrey Fedotov of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), “the warming is about to end” and “The Earth is about to enter an ‘ice age.’”
Cooling starts in 2030
The period of “unfavorable cold” will begin around 2030. Fedotov issued the warning in a statement published by the RAS, the country’s leading scientific institution.
Fedotov said the warming is about to end and the cause is not humans. The Russian scientist says the cooling will be brought on by solar activity.
Natural cycles
“Currently, we are in a favorable period, but we will inevitably transition to an unfavorable [cold] one … around 2030-2035,” Fedotov said, citing his studies of Lake Baikal and historic climate epochs.
“When the ice age comes, you will feel it immediately,” he warns.
Prepare for cold!
He is urging the public to make preparations as such levels of cold would have a severe impact on the global food supply.
The following are excerpts of the interview between Fedotov and the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS): “In other words, what awaits us is not warming, but cooling. When?” Andrey Fedotov: “Now we are in a prosperous period, but let’s move on to a disadvantaged one.” […]“It’s inevitable. According to my estimates, the transition should occur in 2030–2035.”
————————————————-
RAS: “So the Ice Age has already arrived, but we haven’t felt it yet?” Fedotov: “No. When it comes, you will feel it immediately.”
————————————————–
RAS: “And what should be done now? Prepare felt boots, warm clothes, heaters?” Fedotov: “I would start with food. Hungry in felt boots won’t last long.”
As part of its COP 28 climate conference coverage USA Today ran an article claiming that preventing a 1.5℃ rise in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels is a necessary climate threshold to prevent all manner of climate disasters. This is false.
Both the 1.5℃ and 2.0℃ thresholds set in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, were established by politicians for political reasons. There is no scientific evidence that surpassing the 1.5℃ or even the 2.0℃ politically established threshold will result in worsening extreme weather events. Indeed, there is some evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold has already been surpassed with no discernable impact on weather extremes.
There’s a looming threshold that will dictate the future of planet Earth. It could have cascading effects on how hot the planet gets, how much seas rise and how significantly normal daily life as we now know it will change.
The number is 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
World leaders at an annual gathering beginning Thursday will be spending considerable energy pondering that number, although they will use the Celsius version: 1.5 degrees.
Representatives and negotiators from 197 nations are gathering at an event called COP (Conference of the Parties) in the United Arab Emirates, a 13-day meeting that comes at what scientists say is a critical moment in the fight to keep the already dangerous effects of climate change from tipping over into the catastrophic.
Repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn’t make it true.
The truth is political negotiations, not some scientifically demonstrated need, is what established the 1.5℃ target and associated emission reduction goals. As explained in Climate at a Glance: Tipping Point – 1.5 Degrees Celsius Warming, science has not established a 1.5℃ as a threshold beyond which extreme weather will become more common or severe or because of which the earth will become uninhabitable.
Indeed, Europe possesses the best, longest-running temperature records on the planet, those temperature records show warming has already exceeded 1.5°C, as can be seen in the graphic below from Berkeley Earth.
Weise’s unsupported assertions to the contrary, as discussed atClimate at a Glance and in dozens of posts on Climate Realism, existing data refutes claims that the warming experienced so far, and that that can be reasonably expected in the coming century, has or will cause worsening weather or increased natural disasters.
The various projections of future harm resulting from rising greenhouse gas emissions pointed to by Weise and USA Today are not based real world data, but are generated by deeply flawed computer models that don’t portray past temperature trends or present temperatures accurately. Any person on the street, much less honest scientist, should ask, “if climate models don’t accurately reflect past or present climate conditions without constant “tuning,” why should we trust their projections for future climate conditions?” There is not even good correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature trends in recent decades. Despite a relatively steady rise in carbon dioxide emissions since at least the 1940s, temperatures at times have fallen for decades, from the 1940s through the 1970s, for example, risen, and then for extended periods plateaued.
If carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to the ongoing rise in global average temperatures, the best evidence suggests that if the world hasn’t already surpassed the 1.5 temperature mark, it soon will based on a realistic assessment of global emission trajectories and the growth in energy use.
As such, if things change and temperatures do start exacerbating extreme weather, the best response is to prepare for and improve the world’s resilience and adaptive capacity in the face of extreme weather (a good goal regardless of climate change). This will require increasing global wealth and improving infrastructure, both of which require expanding the use of fossil fuels, not ending them prematurely. Wealthier societies and people are more resilient in the face of extreme weather events and other natural disasters. They anticipate them better, have stronger infrastructure, and better warning and emergency response systems, suffer fewer deaths, and recover from disasters more quickly than poorer nations and peoples.
That’s the story USA Today should be telling as political elites meet to discuss climate change in Dubai. Focusing on rapid development would do more to improve peoples’ living conditions and future prospects than trying to prevent a small additional rise in global average temperatures, in a vain attempt to control the weather 100 years from now.
There’s a lot of bad science papers out there, but this may be a hall of famer.
nature human behavior presents:
Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
It is clearly written by “social science” “researchers” whose knowledge of the underlying subject matter is on a level of grade school indoctrination. Well…high school these days. Here is the abstract, emphasis mine.
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors—scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions—to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants’ climate change beliefs (δ = −0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = −0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = −0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = −0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
That stupid public discourse and all those knuckle-dragging morons who dare, actually dare to doubt our sacred SETTLED SCIENCE®
The paper gives the standard party line, citing the IPPCC, Orekes, and Lewandosky, about sacred truths and evil disinformation.
The sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unequivocally declared that climate change is real and that humans are driving it1,2. Whereas 97–99% of climate scientists agree about the human causation of climate change3,4,5, one third of the global population doubts or denies its anthropogenic roots6,7,8. This can be traced back to half a century of disinformation by the climate change countermovement, comprising fossil fuel corporations and their front groups, scientists-for-hire and lobbied politicians, who have contested climate science and are now delaying necessary climate mitigation actions9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. This multi-million-dollar public relations effort18,19,20,21,22 operates mainly via popular communication avenues3,23,24, such as traditional25,26,27 and social media28,29,30, to shape climate discourse and political decision-making17,29. Their claims take up legitimate concerns that people express—such as high costs or uncertain efficacy of climate action—but qualify as disinformation because these concerns are intentionally distorted and amplified into misleading claims31,32 such as bad-faith questioning of the scientific consensus33, overemphasizing the socio-financial burden of climate mitigation policies14,34 and scaremongering citizens into inaction through climate doomism14. Unfortunately, climate disinformation can be more persuasive than scientifically accurate information35,36,37,38 (see also ref. 39).https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
So, with no understanding of how scientific skepticism actually functions, the authors then launch into their assertions about how and why people think they do.
People process scientific messages not as neutral information processors but rather by weighing the messages against their prior convictions40,41,42,43,44,45, against desired outcomes46,47,48,49, against affective associations50,51 and through the lens of their sociocultural and ideological contexts52,53,54,55 (see reviews in refs. 56,57,58,59,60). When these psychological factors are misaligned with scientific information about climate change, antiscience beliefs fester39,61 and become resistant to correction57. Two recent reviews offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on how (dis)information and (anti)science beliefs hinge on different communicational bases and psychological drivers. Philipp-Muller and colleagues61 identified the different communicational bases on which (anti)science beliefs can build: the sources of scientific messages, the scientific messages themselves, the recipients of the scientific messages and the recipients’ epistemic style. In parallel, Ecker and colleagues57 grouped the psychological drivers influencing (dis)information belief formation and revision into cognitive and socio-affective drivers, depending on the psychological pathways they act on to facilitate or hinder belief formation and updating. Overall, both analyses affirmed that people’s capacity and motivation to process information and disinformation—(dis)information henceforth—is conditional to the (mis)alignment of scientific information about climate change with specific communicational and/or psychological factors57,61.
Here we adapt these factors to construct a comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating (Table 1). In this framework, the processing of scientific (dis)information is mapped onto its core communicational bases61: sources, messages and recipients. These communicational bases are the entry points62 where different psychological factors can influence (anti)science belief formation and updating through cognitive or socio-affective pathways57.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
Table 1 Comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating
The table shows the interplay between the communicational bases and psychological drivers of (anti)science belief formation and updating, and the theory-based psychological inoculations designed to address each entry point. Note that the boundaries between the cognitive and socio-affective pathways are permeable, and the effects of most interventions meant to address one pathway will very probably spill out to the other pathway of scientific (dis)information processing. For example, we consider the transparent communication inoculation to act on the cognitive driver ‘match/mismatch with prior beliefs’; however, its effects can spill over towards the socio-affective driver ‘trust in scientific sources’112,113.
Wandering through the citations scattered throughout this paper will probably spawn a future post or two from me, but there’s plenty here for multiple PhD’s is someone wants to research the construction of alternate realities based on academic nonsense as well as the crossover subject of institutional capture.
Comedy writers or jargon generators couldn’t do better. Put down your coffee before reading the next quote box.
In summary, here we integrated previous analyses into a comprehensive framework of the communicational and psychological factors influencing (anti)science belief formation and updating. On the basis of this integrated, theory-driven perspective, we introduce a set of broad-spectrum psychological inoculations to protect against climate disinformation that act on each of the identified entry points and pathways:
A scientific consensus inoculation explaining that among climate scientists there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change
A trust inoculation making salient the trustworthiness of IPCC scientists in terms of climate change science and mitigation actions
A transparent communication inoculation addressing the pros and cons of climate mitigation action
A moralization inoculation creating a stronger link between climate mitigation actions and the diversity of moral convictions
An accuracy inoculation reorienting participants towards judging incoming information by its factual accuracy
A positive emotions inoculation eliciting positive emotions towards climate mitigation actions
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC, the most comprehensive review on the scientific agreement behind climate change and climate action, found that among thousands of climate scientists with the highest degrees of expertise ‘there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change’. Studies have shown that the consensus about anthropogenic climate change among expert scientists ranges from 97% to 99%. IPCC scientists from all cultural backgrounds and nations stated in the report that ‘It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and they are in agreement that urgent climate action is needed for a better planet and society.
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC is the most authoritative scientific body in the world assessing the knowledge about climate change and climate action and that the majority of citizens of multiple countries trust scientists. Climate scientists have the highest degrees of expertise and are committed to open and transparent review by other scientists and governments around the world, and value rigorous and balanced scientific information above all else. IPCC scientists come from all cultural backgrounds and nations, to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise in their work and to ensure an objective and complete assessment of the scientific evidence about climate change, to recommend actions and policies for a better planet and society.
Transparent communication inoculation
Moralization inoculation
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists are open about the fact that climate actions will require substantial funding and a significant overhaul of our way of life to keep our planet livable. They also disclosed that there is some uncertainty about if and how these climate actions may reduce our quality of life, but they still concluded with confidence that limiting irreversible climate-induced risks with climate action is less risky than not acting at all. Acting is hard, they admit, but it is through these scientifically supported actions that we can protect our planet, reduce inequality, and generate sustainable growth.
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists provide valuable and authoritative advice about actions that our communities and nations must take to responsibly keep our planet livable for us and for future generations. As citizens of this earth, we have a moral responsibility to protect our homeland and our community from climate-induced risks and harms, and to stop defiling our pristine natural environment. Through these scientifically supported actions, we can protect our planet, create a more just and fair society with decent living conditions for everyone, and generate sustainable growth beneficial for us, our nations, the world, and generations to come.
Accuracy inoculation
Positive emotions inoculation
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that it is important to be able to accurately recognize these misinformation to avoid being influenced by them. One good strategy to distinguish between good and bad information is to ask yourself: ‘do I think this information is accurately describing the state of the science of climate change? Is this information not at all accurate, not very accurate, somewhat accurate, or very accurate?’. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, think about this accuracy question to get in the right frame of mind.
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that climate actions are vital actions that will keep our planet livable for the next generation. Actions such as eating delicious and healthy meals with a lower carbon footprint or taking a bike ride instead of getting stuck in traffic are scientifically supported ways to make you happier and more fulfilled in your daily life. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, imagine the positive changes you can create with climate action, and think about how good you will feel when doing so.
Here’s the kicker. This is their table of disinformation, most of which is true.
Table 3 The 20 climate disinformation statements and their coding
As more wind and solar are added they raise electricity prices and destabilize electric grids. Because they are part-time unreliable weather dependent sources. We want full-time electricity. Not part-time like third world countries. All for silly expensive net zero. CA pays more.
Science_2
The current exceptional warming and cooling your seeing is due to the location of the Jet Stream. It’s become very wavy due to the lack of Solar Energy going into the Oceans and nothing to do with Man Made CO2
Science_3
Today’s ‘global warming’ is estimated to be an otherwise unmeasurable 0.4°C (0.72°F) over the 1979-2000 average… despite 50% of all manmade emissions. No 2022 weather event was unprecedented or can be blamed on CO2 emissions.
Science_4
This is a portrait of climate fraud, posturing as the saviours of the world. They are a breed of crooks, getting rich by ripping off gullible western nations. The UN led climate hoax has been running since 1988. They want us to believe a pack of lies about earth’s climate.
Science_5
Too often, academic reports on climate use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive.
Science_6
The climate hoax devised by the UN, supported by rich elitists is endorsed by our treacherous leaders is an attack on freedoms & rights. Climate cultism is a form of global self hatred. It aims to punish western nations by transferring huge reparations to the developing world.
Science_7
Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are ‘Mathematically Impossible’
Science_8
Lots of links of studies of the Medieval Warm Period that climate science deniers (alarmists) want to pretend did not exist. Because there is no explanation for natural warming during this time. Studies point out temp was warmer back then, than now.
Science_9
According to global warming theory the poles should warm significantly if carbon dioxide is driving temperatures Just the opposite is occurring in the southern hemisphere.
Science_10
The evidence for manmade climate change is so thin they cannot debate it. They hide behind the lie of consensus. There is no room for consensus in science. The basis is a provable hypothesis. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves manmade CO2 is causing warming.
Action_1
At Climate Summit, Elites Chow Down on Gourmet Meats While Telling Us to Eat Bugs
Action_2
FACT CHECK Results of the Biden administration’s extreme climate agenda cutting emissions by 44% by 2030. Annual Jobs Lost: 1.2 MILLION. Lost Economic Growth: $7.7 TRILLION. Increase in Electric Bills: 23% Increase in Gas Prices: 2$ PER YEAR
Action_3
The war on ‘fossil fuels’ is absurd considering the vast fields of coal/oil/gas everywhere on earth. The mantle is brimming over with it. A United Nations bid for control, cash & power has led to an energy crisis that looms as the biggest self-inflicted disaster in human history.
Action_4
Death and privation caused by the lack of affordable energy caused by Green Energy policies will not affect the Elites at all. They want us to eat bugs, do a lot less as they carry on with their lives just as they are doing now. Climate scamsters. They should lead by example.
Action_5
You are lying. Fossil fuels gave us cheap energy for decades so billions live longer healthier happier lives. Many technologies like carbon capture, filters fuel additives etc reduces emissions. Banning fossil fuels is creating fuel poverty and harming people
Action_6
Energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
Action_7
Imagine sacrificing 500 high-paying coal jobs, ranging up to $60,000/yr, for the climate hoax. Even if you believe in the hoax, global emissions are up 5% from pre-pandemic levels — 90% because of China. Emissions from a single mine are insignificant.
Action_8
Europe’s transition to renewable energy and net zero carbon is not working, except to make life hard on average European citizens.
Action_9
Willfully-blind ignorance about the consequences of [the rush to green policies] – deep recessions, broken societies and millions more going hungry – doesn’t make them any less immoral. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bingo.
Action_10
Solar and wind are far more expensive than established reliable stable secure electricity from pure hydro coal gas nuclear. That’s why your shift to unreliable, unstable, expensive solar and wind; is devastating families; and exporting manufacturing jobs
The rest of the article is, standard sociology focus group discussion masquerading as a useful statistical psychological analysis, some caterwauling about personality traits, especially conservative politics, frustration that their attempt at blatant indoctrination had a negligible effect.
In summation, they hope their fauxearch will lead to actual results if someone does a better job at indoctrinating or manipulating people.
While the psychological inoculations evaluated in this Registered Report were of limited efficacy, the framework proposed here can be helpful to systematize future psychological inoculation research to fight climate disinformation. It may generate new psychological inoculations, which can result in more systematic research192 on psychological inoculations, their moderators and climate-relevant outcomes. For example, one of the reviewers suggested developing a ‘pluralistic ignorance’ inoculation, whereby participants are made aware that most of their peers support climate mitigation action, and that awareness should increase support of climate action193,194. Many-labs and mega-studies approaches, promising recent frameworks for systematically creating and testing multiple interventions195,196,197 with large sample sizes that could help the detection of small intervention effects, can be applied to test sets of theory-guided psychological inoculation strategies against a validated set of climate disinformation statements, measuring climate-relevant outcomes and mapping the heterogeneity generated by model-identified individual differences. Such a combination could produce the next generation of psychological inoculations, which may yield better protection from climate disinformation.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
X-account Kunstliche Intelligenz here reports on Germany’s recent heavy snowfalls in Munich, which surprised experts and media and sent them scrambling for an explanation.
Chart shows the max. snow depth reached and date occurred each year in Munich since 1954. Source: Kunstliche Intelligenz
It’s snowing a lot in Germany and climate researchers already feel compelled to modify their explanations in an effort to maintain interpretative sovereignty. A brief summary of the contradictions that are becoming apparent.
1. Polar vortex: cooling leads to more snow 2021 already saw a lot of snow in Europe. Climate researchers argued it was snowing more because it was getting colder in northern Europe despite global warming. The behavior of the polar vortex was cited as the cause (strong/weak polar vortex and jet stream). [1]
Evidence: climate change leads to less snow However, the amount of snow is actually decreasing in Europe due to climate change, as satellite analyses show. From 1973/74 to 2022/23, the amount of snow fell continuously by a total of 20.4%. [3]
2. Humidity: warming leads to more snow In 2023, there will again be a lot of snow in Germany. Another explanation is making rounds: due to climate change, the temperature is rising, the atmosphere is absorbing more moisture and as a result it is also snowing more, albeit at higher temperatures. [2]
Evidence: New snow records in Germany (See chart) The evaluation of historically measured maximum snowfall amounts shows that the snowfall in Munich on December 2 is an all-time December record with 44 cm. [4] If you analyze the data, you can see that the maximum snowfall from 1954-1974 was particularly high with an average of 25 cm. This fits in with the drop in temperatures between 1940 and 1975, which gave rise to speculation that a new ice age was imminent. [5] Since 1975, on the other hand, the maximum amount of snow has averaged 19 cm with no clear trend.
Conclusion: Depending on the evaluation and explanation, you can interpret anyything into the snow data and argue for or against global warming. But if you realize that weather and climate are chaotic systems that are fundamentally unpredictable and that the assumption of a monocausal relationship that is supposed to dominate everything (CO2 concentration and temperature) is ultimately just a model assumption and nothing more, the cognitive dissonance immediately fizzles out. Like all other weather phenomena, the amount of snow in 2024 will not take into account any extremely simplified and under-complex computer modeling, but will surprise us again and again.
What was supposed to be a big deal climate treaty negotiation has morphed into an enormous trade fair. Even funnier the focus is on fossil fuel production which the UN treaty is supposed to curb.
COP 28 has an astounding number of attendees, with over 100,000 official registrants, more than twice the previous record. See registration numbers here.
Meanwhile the number of actual climate treaty negotiators is somewhere in the hundreds, so maybe 1% at most. The negotiations area is small and walled of, while the general attendees area is huge.
What do the other 99% (or 99,000 people) do as the two week session rolls slowly by? They talk to each other and a lot of that talk is apparently business related because a lot of the attendees are reportedly corporate or trade professionals doing deals.
Several green observers have complained that the COP has turned into a trade show. Fossil fuels is a huge and growing industry, but it is hilarious that the conference supposedly designed to curb that industry is in fact facilitating it big time.
After all this is a chance for business types to talk to energy policy and trade officials from most of the countries in the world, especially the energy rich ones. Many government delegations likely include trade teams looking for fossil fuel action. Plus the business people do deals with each other. Fossil fuels are truly international.
For example, oil rich Nigeria lists a whopping 1,411 attendees. Of these 422 are government funded while the other 989 likely include a lot of business types. This is a lot of deal making horsepower. Other energy rich African countries also sent big delegations, including Kenya, Tanzania and Morocco. Same for big energy producers around the world.
No doubt there are some climate activists among these delegations but numerous observers say the general atmosphere is businesslike.
Moreover the Conference is specifically organized to facilitate contact. To begin with there are the pavilions, which are relatively large establishments. Here is the official Pavilion list.
Many countries have a pavilion, probably with a trade official or group in residence. Development banks and trade groups also have pavilions. Corporations do not but they must not be allowed. Several universities have pavilions; one wonders what they are looking for.
Instead, corporations have exhibits, both official and unofficial, as do many other groups. There are also side events. All told there are thousands of exhibits and side events.
Plus there are all manner of offsite get togethers at the hotels housing the hundred thousand or so attendees. As with any conference or convention these contact venues range from simple presentations and cocktail hours to full scale parties. In fact this gives “Conference of Parties” a new meaning for COP. There might be a thousand parties a night, but still with a business focus. This is not tourism.
As an aside, consider the spending involved. If the average attendee spent just $3,000 that is around $300 million in new money hitting the local economy. No wonder countries compete heavily to host a UN COP.
Getting back to business, it is amusing that the COP 28 President was criticized for mentioning doing some oil and gas deals on the side, he being a big gun oil and gas executive. There are probably many more people and hours expended doing fossil fuel deals than are put into the COP climate negotiations, perhaps thousands more.
If the fossil fuel industry is using the UN COPs to grow on that might be a good reason to keep having them. But it sure is funny.
..have the four pillars of modern Civilization- Cement, Steel, Plastics and synthetic Fertilizers-all available thanks to FFs. Africa with 17% of the 🌎 population uses 5% of global synthetic fertilizers produced 🌎 pic.twitter.com/9wyoxH0MaV
More fertilizer and farm machinery is how China is feeding its people!
When they are not doing that(I mean the Western governments and antihumanist environmental organizations), they are busy bribing our leaders to have our Fossil Fuels! Or paying youth activists to stop Fossil Fuel devt in Africa-like the EACOP- for 💰, 5 ⭐ hotels and business ✈️ pic.twitter.com/GTiMnKqWI9
Because electric machines, just like electric vehicles, are a pipe dream! They help enslave my people in Congo where 40k children are working as artisanal miners-projected to rise to 800k by 2035 as red Cobalt demand goes up by 20× to make some rich Westerner feel good in his EV! pic.twitter.com/sZdRAw3X7t
The Neocolonial UN is hiding behind climate change now. And it is pushing the IMF and WB to Africans to ensure zero Fossil Fuel devt (unless it is for Western nations), limited fertilizer use, high fuel prices, among other Neocolonial tactics the UN has perfected pic.twitter.com/U8QQnpSBj0
I have been brought up by parents who depended entirely on Small scale farming for a livelihood. I have worked on our tiny farms throughout my lifetime. This is the norm for 99% of the people in my community and over 70% of Kenyans. pic.twitter.com/EHleBCggSu
I have a sustainable internship program for the UN, various environmental NGOs' and personnel(if they didn't block me) and people who would like to try the rural village life-you can check it out on my here. Fossil Fuels for Africa!https://t.co/37DaFe6KZ1
Financial Times: The looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits – Western carbon offset companies look to lock up “a tenth of Liberia’s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe’s, and swaths of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania” – “The [methods] of exploitation might be new but the consequences are not so different to the last 200 years of land grabs in Liberia.”
Financial Times: The looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits – Western carbon offset companies look to lock up "a tenth of Liberia’s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe’s, and swaths of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania" – “The [methods] of exploitation might be new but the… pic.twitter.com/lA9ckG4XGE
One day in late October, leaders from more than a dozen towns across Liberia’s Gbi-Doru rainforest crammed into a whitewashed, tin-roofed church.
They had gathered to hear for the first time about a deal signed by their national government proposing to give Blue Carbon, a private investment vehicle based thousands of miles away in Dubai, exclusive rights to develop carbon credits on land they claim as theirs.
“None of them were aware of the Blue Carbon deal,” says Andrew Zeleman, who helps lead Liberia’s unions of foresters.
Only two of the leaders were even remotely familiar with the concept of a carbon credit, he adds — the tradeable instrument that can be obtained when a tonne of carbon is removed from the atmosphere or avoided, for example because a forest has been planted, or protected from deforestation.
Blue Carbon, a private company whose founder and chair Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum is a member of Dubai’s royal family, is in discussions to acquire management rights to millions of hectares of land in Africa. The scale is enormous: the negotiations involve potential deals for about a tenth of Liberia’s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe’s, and swaths of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania.
Blue Carbon’s intention is to sell the emission reductions linked to forest conservation in these regions as carbon credits, under an unfinished international accounting framework for carbon markets being designed by the UN. In a market that is being designed for and by governments, Blue Carbon is among the most active private brokers.
Climate negotiators meeting in the United Arab Emirates for the COP28 summit this week have been looking to finalise this framework, with the aim of sounding the starting gun on a new market in carbon credits which would allow countries to shrink their own carbon footprints by buying emission reductions from others.
The trade is supposed to be simple. The 195 countries that have signed the 2015 Paris climate agreement committed to setting targets for reducing their carbon emissions by 2030. If a country exceeds these or future targets — for instance through switching to renewables, or reforesting territory that increases carbon stocks — it can sell those additional emission reductions to another country.
The UAE, alongside other governments such as Switzerland and South Korea, has been betting that these international carbon markets could be a central pillar in the climate solutions offered to world leaders at COP28.
The existing international market for carbon credits is worth about $2bn, with roughly four in 10 credits sold based on nature restoration projects. Private buyers, from companies to individuals, can buy offsets for their own emissions to meet their own reduction goals. Brokers similar to Blue Carbon obtain rights to buy and sell credits, taking a cut of their value.
Dear COP28,
A MESSAGE from a Small Scale Farmer in rural Kisii Kenya to the UN COP 28 in UAE.
London, 5 December – In a vote late on Monday night, 38 MPs voted against the legislation bringing in the Government’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate. The legislation enforces an 80% target for electric vehicles as a percentage of new car sales by 2030. With 28 Conservative MPs (including tellers) voting against, it is the biggest Tory revolt of Rishi Sunak’s premiership, surpassing the total that voted against the Government on the Windsor Framework.
The rebellion comes after the Net Zero Scrutiny Group wrote to the Prime Minister on Saturday saying: “If the cost of buying and running an EV will become cheaper than petrol and diesel cars, mandating them with this law is unnecessary. This law is anti-consumer, anti-choice and anti-motorist, and will only leave the public poorer. Car-ownership could once again be restricted to the privileged few.”
The size of the rebellion is significant because it was enough to overturn the Tories’ Commons majority, meaning Sunak knows he is now more vulnerable in parliament. Greg Smith, chair of Conservative Way Forward and a member of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said: “We reached the magic number — enough to wipe out the government’s working majority if Labour hadn’t supported them.”
Craig Mackinlay MP, chairman of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said:
“We all heard the Prime Minister pledge a more proportionate and pragmatic approach to Net Zero, but this pledge has not been met with action. I am disappointed that this legislation has been forced through using a statutory instrument – avoiding the kind of scrutiny that Rishi himself called for.”
“Nevertheless, I am pleased that so many of my colleagues chose to rebel on this important issue. We will not stop our campaign against draconian Net Zero legislation and will continue to promote a better way that protects people’s freedoms and does not leave them poorer.”
Dame Andrea Jenkyns MP, who is a Board member of Net Zero Watch, said in a video to her supporters:
“To me, it’s actions not words. Those MPs who say that they want to stop Net Zero – which is certainly affecting constituents in their pockets – should have voted against this measure this evening.”
I have voted against gov on the Net Zero mandate; which aims to tell people which cars they can & can't buy! This went through on Labour votes. We need to protect freedom of choice which is at the heart of why I am a Conservative. 381 Ayes 37 Noes Actions speak louder than words pic.twitter.com/FFurK3TDx4
Harry Wilkinson, Net Zero Watch Head of Policy, said:
“This is a very significant vote which shows the strength of feeling on the backbenches. Conservative members are clearly deeply sceptical about the whole Net Zero agenda but they don’t have a Government which reflects those views. I welcome Rishi’s change of tone on Net Zero but that needs to be followed with a change of policy – he needs to stand up to the civil servants who keep pushing through draconian Net Zero measures.”
The full list of MPs voting against the ZEV Mandate was as follows:
Noes
Adam Afriyie (Conservative – Windsor) Ben Bradley (Conservative – Mansfield) Suella Braverman (Conservative – Fareham) Andrew Bridgen (The Reclaim Party – North West Leicestershire) Gregory Campbell (Democratic Unionist Party – East Londonderry) William Cash (Conservative – Stone) Miriam Cates (Conservative – Penistone and Stocksbridge) Christopher Chope (Conservative – Christchurch) Philip Davies (Conservative – Shipley) Jeffrey M Donaldson (Democratic Unionist Party – Lagan Valley) Richard Drax (Conservative – South Dorset) Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative – Chingford and Woodford Green) Marcus Fysh (Conservative – Yeovil) Paul Girvan (Democratic Unionist Party – South Antrim) Chris Green (Conservative – Bolton West) Jonathan Gullis (Conservative – Stoke-on-Trent North) John Hayes (Conservative – South Holland and The Deepings) Adam Holloway (Conservative – Gravesham) Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative – Morley and Outwood) David Jones (Conservative – Clwyd West) Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative – Bridgwater and West Somerset) Carla Lockhart (Democratic Unionist Party – Upper Bann) Craig Mackinlay (Conservative – South Thanet) (Proxy vote cast by John Redwood) Nigel Mills (Conservative – Amber Valley) Anne Marie Morris (Conservative – Newton Abbot) Lia Nici (Conservative – Great Grimsby) Ian Paisley (Democratic Unionist Party – North Antrim) Priti Patel (Conservative – Witham) John Redwood (Conservative – Wokingham) Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative – North East Somerset) Rob Roberts (Independent – Delyn) Gavin Robinson (Democratic Unionist Party – Belfast East) Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party – Strangford) Justin Tomlinson (Conservative – North Swindon) Bill Wiggin (Conservative – North Herefordshire) Sammy Wilson (Democratic Unionist Party – East Antrim)
Tellers for the Noes: Greg Smith (Conservative – Buckingham) and Karl McCartney (Conservative – Lincoln)
You must be logged in to post a comment.