Tag: Climate Change

The Problem With AOC’s “12 Year” Climate Catastrophe Claim

Within the course of only a few months, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has gone from proclaiming the end of the world in a mere 12 years – to claiming she was merely being sarcastic, and that Republicans would have to have the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” to think she was being literal.

And then 16 days after the latter comment, she once again warned about climate catastrophe a mere 12 years out, with no obvious sarcasm (or hint or irony) to be detected.

Hypocrisy aside, Congresswoman Chicken Little’s 12-year time-time is based on an estimate from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated that we only have 12 years to contain global warming to a maximum of a 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global temperature. A 1.5C rise was the target of most the world’s governments in the Paris Climate Agreement. According to the UN, meeting their goals would require ending the use of fossil fuels by the year 2030, which the authors estimate would cost the global economy $54 trillion, but say that’s cheaper than the consequences of climate chance. With that price tag, color me skeptical.

At the UN’s Rio Climate Summit in 1992 top scientists said we only had 10 years to get climate change under control, so clearly the goalpost has been moved throughout history (and there are dozens of similar examples). Three years prior, in 1989, a senior UN environmental official predicted doomsday by the year 2000, by which “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels.”

Clearly, pinpointing a future “point of no return” is problematic.

As Michael Marshall explains:

A study published in August in Earth System Dynamics takes a close look at the idea of a point of no return, and it is revealing. The researchers examined what it would take to limit global warming to either 1.5°C or 2°C. They first ask how certain we want to be: we could either have a 67% probability of meeting our target, or a 95% probability.

Next they ask how rapidly we can increase renewable energy’s share of the market: 2% per year, or a more ambitious 5% per year. And finally they ask whether we will use lots of “negative emissions technologies” later this century, to remove carbon dioxide from the air on an industrial scale and thus limit the temperature rise.

Depending on which combination of factors the researchers plugged in, they got a different point of no return. In the most exacting case, where we try to limit warming to 1.5°C with a 95% probability of success, without relying on carbon dioxide removal later in the century, they found that we might well be too late. On the other hand, if we’re prepared to accept 2°C, with a larger probability of going over and a heavy reliance on carbon dioxide removal, the point of no return looks to be way off in the 2040s.

The point is that the climate is not so simple as to give us a neat cutoff date for action.

As for the UN’s “12 years” estimate, the UN’s climate models overestimate warning massively. The UN’s estimates assume that the Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is somewhere between 1.5C-4.5C. The ECS is an estimate of how much the Earth’s temperature would increase if the amount of carbon in the atmosphere doubled above pre-industrial levels.

In contradiction to those figures, a study in the Journal of Climate found the planet’s ECS to be at least 30-45% lower than the UN estimates. The UN’s average estimate was 3.1C, while the JOC’s was only 1.66C. Similarly, a study published in Nature Climate Change in 2017 estimated an ECS of 1.5C.

If the sky is indeed falling, we have more time to adapt than AOC and her ilk pretend to believe. Indeed, it’s unlikely that even they truly believe doomsday is right around the corner, but do believe that fear is the only way to convince the American public to mindlessly spend tens of trillions of dollars on whatever they please.

AOC OWNED by Meteorologist After Claiming D.C. Tornado Warning Proof of Climate Crisis

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was fact checked by a meteorologist yesterday after she claimed a tornado warning in the Washington, D.C. area was an indication of the growing “climate crisis” facing the country.

Taking to Instagram, the lawmaker wrote, “Well, that was something. Alarms went off in the building advising people to seek shelter. Apparently the tornado moved/missed the city so quickly they ended the warning shortly after. And also apparently this is a thing that happens in the summer here? The climate crisis is real y’all…guess we’re at casual tornadoes in the growing regions of the country?”

Meteorologist Ryan Maue responded to the Congresswoman on Twitter, informing her it was “just the weather.”

Attaching a screen shot of Ocasio-Cortez’s post, Maue wrote, “I thought this was fake but it’s from @AOC Instagram story. No idea what she means with ‘casual tornadoes’ and how this line of severe thunderstorms is proof of any ‘climate crisis’. It’s just the weather in D.C.”

In another tweet, Maue wrote, “The Congresswoman does not know the difference between weather and climate. Let’s try an easy analogy: Weather is what outfit you wear heading out the door. Climate is your closet wardrobe.”

Democrats Want to Re-Enter the Paris Climate Agreement – Here’s Why It’s Already Failing (2/2)

In part one I reviewed how the Paris Climate Agreement effectively asked the U.S. to heavily subsidize the climate goals of the developed world – while the developed world had to make the smallest cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions. A number of developing countries threatened to continue polluting if not properly compensated by the Agreement, but even that wouldn’t have mattered, because nothing in the Paris agreement is binding. If a nation fails to meet their targeted cuts in greenhouse emissions they can simply revise them for following years.

And yet we’re to believe that because Trump refused to subsidize this experiment the world is nearing its end.

Reality begs to differ.

Even (the failing) New York Times Admits the Paris Agreement Isn’t Working

Ironically, it’s the New York Times bewildered that the Agreement isn’t working as planned.

One of the greatest aforementioned flaws with the Paris Agreement is that no countries’ pledges to cut carbon emissions are binding. Entering into a contract where the other party or parties don’t have to uphold their end should be a red flag. If a country doesn’t cut emissions as much as they had pledged, they can simply revise their pledge without consequence. The Times is now realizing that, in their words, “The Paris Agreement, it seems, is only as good as the willingness of national leaders to keep their word,” and “So far, those voluntary pledges have not been sufficient.”

No kidding – and there’s no explanation for why this wasn’t a concern for them when they were blasting Trump for pulling out of the deal. As they now note:

Emissions are rising in the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies. [Five] Other countries are backsliding on their commitments. The world as a whole is not meeting its targets under the Paris pact.

Emissions in China have grown for the past two years, signaling the difficulties of shifting the country away from its coal-dependent industrial economy. Germany is having a hard time moving away from lignite because of political opposition in the country’s coal-rich east. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, faces unrest at home over a layer cake of taxes that working-class people say burdens them unfairly.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions hit an all-time high in 2018, but don’t blame the U.S. for it.

The U.S. is (Mostly) Meeting the Paris Agreement’s Goals Without Being Part of It

While the aforementioned New York Times article quoted led by citing increasing emissions in the U.S., we’re doing a much better job of complying with the agreement than many other countries, despite not being part of it.

Indeed, as the Times noted “To be sure, the Paris pact, and the growing scientific clarity about global warming, has spurred countries and businesses to reorient themselves. From shipping to fast food to insurance, companies are setting their own targets to reduce carbon footprints. Solar and wind energy is expanding rapidly. Within the United States, a number of cities and states have dissented from the Trump administration’s planned exit and created their own local plans to green their economies.” U.S. emissions grew by about 2.5% in 2018, but the overall trend remains downward.

In March of 2018, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that “There are expectations that, independently of the position of the administration, the U.S. might be able to meet the commitments made in Paris as a country.”

In September of 2018, Mark Chediak reported in Bloomberg that “Cities, states, businesses and market forces are poised to trim carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, according to a report presented Thursday by California Governor Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg. That compares with the 26 percent to 28 percent U.S. commitment under the Paris agreement.” In other words, the U.S. was still on track to meet 2/3rds of our climate-emission goals under the Paris Agreement.

And closing out the year, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg echoed the same sentiments reported in his publication earlier this year, telling NBC that it wouldn’t make much of a difference if Trump were to re-enter the Paris Agreement because “we are halfway there towards meeting our goals already.”

Don’t Fear the Reaper

Alarmists have thus far had an identical track record in predicting the apocalypse as every religious figure that’s claimed to know the same. The latter are rightly widely dismissed as crackpots, but the former have the media bolster their narrative and provide excuses for their failed predictions.

Predicting the date that the climate finally decides to launch D-Day on us is hardly the only scare tactic in the Left’s arsenal. In a speech widely viewed as inspirational by progressives for unknown reasons, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in response to an argument nobody had made: “You want to tell people that their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country … You’re telling those kids that they are trying to get on a plane to Davos? People are dying!”

The fiery rant masquerading as a speech came after a grand total of zero Senators voted in favor of her green new deal (with four Democrats siding with Republicans, and the rest abstaining). Among the 2020 hopefuls who abstained included Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders.

People are indeed dying of climate related deaths – albeit at the lowest rates in recorded history. While the climate changes, the species capable of sending a man to the moon also happens to be capable of adapting to their surroundings. As the Patrick J. Michaels noted:

Here are a couple of striking numbers from the data: in the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, 1930 to 1939. The year 2013, with 29,404 reported deaths, had 99.4 percent fewer climate-related deaths than the historic record year of 1932, which had 5,073,283 reported deaths for the same category.

Those figures are sourced from the International Disaster Database.

That decline in deaths coincided an increase in recorded natural disaster events. There were only 14 recorded in 1930, and 332 in 2013 according to Our World in Data. Of course, the earlier reporting data isn’t as reliable as the newest, so it’s extremely likely the 1930 figure is an underestimate. Their figures also differ on climate deaths – showing a decline from roughly 540,000 deaths per year in the 1930s to just north of 50,000 by the 2010s. Measured per-capita, there were nearly 28 climate related deaths per 100,000 people in the 1930s, compared to under two today (a 93% decline).

There is no time in history where humans are safer from the climate – and ironically that fact coincides with peak hysteria.

Climate Change Forces AOC to Ask, “Is it OK to Still Have Children?”

Freshman Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned whether or not people should still have children in light of the so-called threat of climate change.

In an Instagram live video over the weekend, Ocasio-Cortez appeared in her kitchen chopping up food while discussing the dangers of climate change.

“Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” she said. “And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?'”

She also slammed Democrats’ “watered down” climate change proposals because they are “frankly going to kill us.”

“Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us,” she said. ” A lack of urgency is going to kill us.”

For the full story, visit the Daily Wire.

Trump Begs Global Warming to “Come Back Fast” As Polar Vortex Slams Midwest

President Trump mocked climate alarmists yesterday in light of the freezing cold temperatures hitting the midwest.

“In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded,” he wrote on Twitter.  “In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!”

The polar vortex is expected to bring a “dangerous blast of Arctic air” to the midwest, with Chicago expecting temperatures to hit 24 degrees below zero with wind chills around 55mph later this week.

Accuweather is warning that the cold temperatures could be life threatening for any person or animal without a proper way to stay warm. “In addition to the risks of frostbite and hypothermia, residents will be faced with high heating costs and the potential for frozen and bursting water pipes, dead car batteries and school closures,” writes the website.

Ocasio-Cortez: World Will End in 12 Years Due to Climate Change, “This is our WWII”

Freshman Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) warned that the world would end in 12 years unless the United States seriously addressed climate change, calling her environmental concerns “our World War II.”

Speaking at a Martin Luther King forum in New York City yesterday, Ocasio-Cortez said, “And I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” she said.

“Your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II,” she continued. “And I think for younger people looking at this are more like, how are we saying let’s take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year, how are we saying let’s take it easy when the end person died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system?”

The socialist lawmaker also took issue with an economic system in which billionaires are allowed to exist when people in Alabama “are still getting ringworm.”

“I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” she said.

“And I think it’s wrong that — I think that it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country does not make a living great wage,” she continued.  “I think it’s wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids. I think it’s wrong that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid, they can get paid by the Government essentially, experience a wealth transfer from the public for paying people less than a minimum wage.”

September 17, 2018: Ep. 808 If We Don’t Fight Back Now We’re Finished

In this episode I address the troubling tactics by the Democrats to derail the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. If this is allowed to stand these tactics will destroy Trump’s power to appoint people. I also address the explosive new revelations that FBI investigators may have fabricated the entire premise for the Trump investigation.

Listen Now...

December 15, 2017: Ep. 613 A Big Win Yesterday for Small Government

Why isn’t Trump ordering the release of the FISA court warrants?

Read this complete takedown of silly liberal economics.

Did “Climate Change” start the California fires?

Why Netflix was noticeably quieter about Net Neutrality this time around.

More solid economic news.