Month: May 2017

A Particularly Lunatic Week for Climate Alarmism

A Particularly Lunatic Week for Climate Alarmism

via Carlin Economics and Science
http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3

The Climate Industrial Complex (CIC) cannot be accused of thinking small. At the state level, The approval of California bill SB52 by both houses of the state legislature means carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must be lowered to levels 40% below levels measured in 1990. This is expected to necessitate the development of massive numbers of new regulations and policies that will allow the state government to control and dictate virtually every aspect of Californians’ lives in the opinion of one observer, including:

    where and how they can live,
    what kind of jobs and businesses they can work in,
    what kind of housing they can have,
    what kind of car they can drive (if any),
    how many miles can they drive,
    what kind of public transportation they must use,
    how many times they must walk and bicycle,
    how much and what kind of energy they can use,
    what kind and how food can be farmed.

Bonn Talks on Losses and Damages

Meanwhile at the “intersessional” international climate talks in Bonn, Germany, over the last two weeks a discussion was held on the issue of losses and damages from climate change. One of the more unusual aspects of the discussion was that it included a proposal that up to $300 billion in phantom additional funds be disbursed by non-government groups rather than governments. How accountability might be maintained by groups with little experience or incentives to carefully handle such vast funds was not made clear.

All This Is Dwarfed by a New Gore Proposal

Finally an organization which appears to be affiliated with Al Gore proposed that $750 billion per year more should be spent on additional “investments” in renewables and other low-carbon technologies ($300 billion per year) and more efficient energy saving equipment and buildings ($450 billion per year).

So these two prominent climate alarmist groups within the CIC want up to a mere $1 trillion more per year to “solve” the “climate change” problem and to help people who lose their land and culture or are forced to migrate as a result of climate-related problems countries for their alleged “losses and damages” from climate change.

Although it is far from clear, it appears this is in addition to the $1.5 trillion per year estimated to have been spent in recent years on climate-related expenditures such as windmills. So the proposal is to increase expenditures on climate alarmism by over 60 percent even though the justification for spending anything has decreased greatly over the last year. And unless taxes are greatly increased in the developed countries, these vast sums must either be borrowed as sovereign debt or funds must be shifted that will decrease the welfare of people in the developed world so as to divert the added funds to satisfy the alarmists.

Given recent research showing that carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global warming/climate change, a total of $2.5 trillion seems a mite expensive for doing something that will have no significant effects on the alleged danger posed by climate change. Last week I also explained why the UN climate models are worthless so that even if the UN had managed to correctly assess the effects of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) on global temperatures, the conclusions from the models would still prove nothing.

The CIC’s vilification of CO2 (one of the bases for all plant life and therefore animal life as well) has no basis in science, which suggests that the more CO2 that we can get into the atmosphere the better off humans and the environment will be. The vilification is just part of the CIC’s narrative designed to promote their cult ideology. Despite their setback as a result of the 2016 US election, the CIC has by no means given up its dreams of siphoning off much of the funds now used to meet human needs while leaving humans and the environment worse off.

The Dubious Effectiveness of Catering to the CIC’s Demands

Since the alarmists’ alleged “scientific” justification, which has long been dubious at best, has collapsed even further in the last year, the alarmists are mainly left with handwaving and “denier” insults. The whole enterprise reminds me of donations to non-profit groups in the US. If a potential contributor makes a $10 contribution this year, the groups will send a request for $100 next year. But if you contribute nothing this year or in previous years, they will propose a $10 contribution this year or even send their fundraising letter to someone else. Clearly the best approach if you want to avoid being hassled is never to make a contribution in the first place. Contributions are not effective in buying off the alarmists; you are just inviting ever escalating demands in future years–all for nothing in the case of the CIC.

Obviously, there is no upper limit to the CIC’s potential demands since there is no expenditure or concessation that will achieve the stated goal (an alleged end to climate change). A number of countries, mainly in Western Europe, have attempted to cater to some of the CIC’s demands, and now California is going ever deeper into the deep end. But since the alleged goal cannot be achieved by reducing human-caused CO2 emissions, there is no amount or concessation that can ever be said to achieve a goal that humans currently have no means to achieve or even measure. But that is unlikely to change the CIC’s behavior.

It would seem far better not to get started catering to the CIC’s demands and to end any support where some of their demands have already been met. They will only want much more next year for their insatiable cult ideology. Even if their unproven claims of actually reducing CO2 emissions were true, it has proved impossible to determine the effects of reducing CO2 emissions on atmospheric levels of CO2, and it now appears that there are no effects of changes in atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures.

Yet despite this record of an ever more lunatic approach by the climate alarmist movement, there are still members of the Trump Administration who want to preserve the US role in the Paris non-treaty “treaty.” A better approach would be simply to just say no to the whole nonsense. We are dealing with a climate alarmist movement that has lost all moorings to the real world. This would be an ideal time to back out of the “treaty” before really serious damage is done to the US economy by continued pursuit of climate alarmism.



via Carlin Economics and Science http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3

May 19, 2017 at 03:04PM

Record snowfall shuts down interstate highway in Wyoming

Record snowfall shuts down interstate highway in Wyoming

via Ice Age Now
http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3


19 May 2017 – Interstate 80 and U.S. Route 30 from Laramie to Cheyenne, Wyoming were closed in both directions Thursday night and early Friday morning due to heavy snow.


I-80 in Wyoming on 18 May 2017 – Photo courtesy Wyoming Dept of Transportation

A record 11 inches of snow fell in Cheyenne on Thursday.

The last time Cheyenne experienced such a significant snow event this late in spring was about 67 years ago, when Harry Truman was president, the Weather Channel said.

http://ift.tt/2qBlRTd

Thanks to Jack Hydrazine, H.B. Schmidt and Dean Koehler for these links


The post Record snowfall shuts down interstate highway in Wyoming appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

May 19, 2017 at 01:47PM

3½ ft of new snow in Colorado

3½ ft of new snow in Colorado

via Ice Age Now
http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

19 May 2017 – The storm shut down highways, caused thousands of power outages and forced schools and businesses to close.

 

The highest reported snow total so far was 42 inches near Allenspark, Colo., the National Weather Service said. Many other locations picked up between two and three feet.

National Weather Service Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NWSBoulder/status/865404620494872579/photo/1

Thanks to Jack Hydrazine and Dean Koehler for these links

The post 3½ ft of new snow in Colorado appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

May 19, 2017 at 01:17PM

Oil And Climate Alarmism Don’t Mix For Shareholders

Oil And Climate Alarmism Don’t Mix For Shareholders

via JunkScience.com
https://junkscience.com

My Investor’s Business Daily op-ed about my ExxonMobil shareholder proposal to send all climate activist shareholders.

Oil And Climate Alarmism Don’t Mix For Shareholders

By Steve Milloy
May 18, 2017, Investor’s Business Daily

Which is the greater threat to oil and gas industry shareholders — anti-fossil fuel activists dressed in shareholders’ clothing or oil and gas industry corporate management? It’s a question that Exxon Mobil shareholders now have the opportunity to ponder before the oil giant’s May 31 annual shareholder meeting.

Shareholders will vote on the proposal I submitted titled, “Nuisance Shareholders,” which might more descriptively be called the “shareholder proposal to end all political activist shareholder proposals.”

As described in George Washington University professor Jarol B. Manheim’s 2004 book “Biz-War and the Out-of-Power Elite: The Progressive Attack on the Corporation,” left-wing political activists met and decided after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 that one way back to political power was to become activist shareholders in publicly owned corporations.

That is, they would exercise the rights and status of shareholders to pressure, if not, capture corporate managements so as to use corporate resources and influence to help achieve their political agenda.

It has been an enormously successful strategy for the activists, especially when it comes to the controversy over climate change. Not only do many of the largest and best-known publicly-owned corporations now openly advocate for climate policies, even oil and gas companies have been pressured into pursuing policies that militate against their own products.

After years of its annual meeting being turned into a circus by fossil fuel-opposing climate activist shareholders and other activist pressure, Exxon Mobil is perhaps foremost among U.S. oil and gas companies that now advocate for government action on climate, and against its own products and the best interests of its own shareholders.

Despite the November 2016 election of a presidential candidate who promised to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate treaty, called climate change hysteria a “hoax” and who promised to unleash the U.S. energy industry after eight years of anti-fossil fuel policies, Exxon Mobil management not only openly supports the Paris climate treaty but also supports a “carbon tax.” Both policies are intended to dramatically reduce if not eliminate fossil fuel use.

Some may imagine that Exxon Mobil’s announced climate policy is mere “greenwashing” — i.e., insincere posturing as eco-friendly for public relations purposes. But I take Exxon Mobil management at its word as expressed in deed and to me in negotiations over my proposal. Management believes that the climate is at risk from greenhouse gas emissions and that something needs to be done about it. While that is a perfectly reasonable position to take — if you are a climate activist — it is not so reasonable for oil company management.

As Milton Friedman famously wrote in 1970: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

So businesses serve as society’s wealth generators. They are not governments, charities, or activist groups. When it comes to climate, Exxon Mobil’s job is to create wealth via production and sale of oil and gas — not to participate in the dubious pursuit of returning the atmosphere to pre-Industrial Revolution conditions.

The consequences to investors of oil and gas corporate management’s failing to seriously and effectively fight climate activists is best demonstrated by the recent experience of the coal industry in which I worked for years.

Although climate activists frequently demonize Republican politicians and climate skeptics as being in the pockets of the coal industry, the reality is somewhat different. The coal industry was never a major financial supporter of climate skeptics and generally refused to openly challenge climate science or counterattack climate activists.

The effect of coal industry political contributions was essentially nullified after the 2009-2010 failure of cap-and-trade legislation and President Obama’s subsequent resort to his regulatory agencies. Political contributions produced little in the way of return as Congress could only pass ill-fated bills that President Obama would never sign.

And it is a fact that much of the coal industry actually supported the anti-coal Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the vain and naive hope that peace could be negotiated with politically-driven coal industry opponents.

The result to shareholders of the coal industry management’s failure to combat its opponents was dramatic. The market value of coal companies declined from $69 billion in 2011 to $4.8 billion in 2016 — a 93% drop in five years. Many large publicly-owned coal companies filed for bankruptcy. When the largest, Peabody Energy, emerged from bankruptcy in April 2017, shareholders had their stock zeroed out.

Exxon Mobil shareholders ought to consider than when they vote on my proposal. Here’s why:

First, Exxon Mobil’s attempted appeasement of climate activists, from its supporting climate policies to refusing to fund climate skeptics, has gotten the company nothing — except an activist-inspired RICO criminal investigation by state attorneys general led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman.

Next, while the world can’t function without oil and gas, the world can function without Exxon Mobil shareholders. Even though coal companies went bankrupt and shareholders were zeroed out, the coal companies nevertheless provided fuel for about one-third of our electricity needs during 2011-2016.

I submitted the shareholder-proposal-to-end-all-proposals once before in 2008. Although the proposal failed, my presentation at the annual meeting was received with thunderous applause. At that meeting, my message was directed at the poseur activist shareholders: “If you don’t like the oil and gas business, get out,” I urged.

It hadn’t quite dawned on me at the time that the message might have been better directed at Exxon Mobil’s management.

Milloy is a senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.”



via JunkScience.com https://junkscience.com

May 19, 2017 at 11:31AM