Waste problems from wind and solar

In short, disposing of wind turbines is a significant problem, with negative impacts on communities and the environment.

It is reminiscent of the negative community and environmental impacts of solar panel disposal. Carolina Journal has reported for years about chemical waste components from used solar panels, including such things as gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, and also GenX and related compounds in solar panel components.

John Locke Foundation

Coronavirus: Our new Age of Heroic Medicine is going to kill us all — Bookworm Room

Trump is right: We can’t let our response to coronavirus echo the Age of Heroic Medicine when doctors routinely killed patients on the way to curing them. During his Fox News town hall, Trump was explicit: He’s set Easter as his target date for taking America off of its coronavirus footing and reverting to business…

Coronavirus: Our new Age of Heroic Medicine is going to kill us all — Bookworm Room

LESLIE EASTMAN: Coronovirus Task Force shows why America doesn’t need a permanent “Pandemic Off…

LESLIE EASTMAN: Coronovirus Task Force shows why America doesn’t need a permanent “Pandemic Office.” “The ready-when-needed ‘Pandemic Office,’ headed by Vice President Pence, is clearly effective and avoids needless bureaucracy and layers of regulation. . .

Source: LESLIE EASTMAN: Coronovirus Task Force shows why America doesn’t need a permanent “Pandemic Off…

Gavin Newsom: We Should Curtail Large Gatherings — Except for Disneyland, Theaters, and Casinos [UPDATE – Sanders Gets in on the Act]

[guest post by JVW] In our daily Coronavirus round-up : Gov. Gavin Newsom Wednesday evening announced that California public health officials have determined that gatherings of more than 250 people should be postponed or canceled across the state until at least the end of March. “Changing our actions for a short period of time will save the life of one or more people you know,” Newsom said in a statement. “That’s the choice before us.

Saving for future reference, particularly with respect to:

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I certainly don’t favor single-payer health care, but I have to say that Bernard Sanders is probably right about World War II levels of death. I heard one Johns Hopkins expert yesterday posit the possibility of 800,000 deaths over the next year as not being unrealistic, and another today say that 480,000 deaths in the next three to seven months is a conservative estimate, with 96 million cases and 48 million hospitalizations. This includes people in their 40s and 50s and not “just” older people.

I’m curious to see how well the predicted numbers pan out.

Source: Gavin Newsom: We Should Curtail Large Gatherings — Except for Disneyland, Theaters, and Casinos [UPDATE – Sanders Gets in on the Act]

Will Happer “Climate Denier”

The Hoover Institution has a piece highlighting the bad science underlying global warming climate change.


My own skepticism about global warming goes back at least a decade and is captured in my 2010 article, Carbon Dioxide: Our Newest Pollutant, which I stand by to this day. I became friends with Happer in 2016 when I critiqued on scientific and legal grounds then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s ill-advised attack against Exxon-Mobil for concealing information about the incipient risks of global warming. Happer’s own views are well set out in a key publication,“A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate.” It would do well for the critics to answer his arguments rather than engage in name-calling that reflects only badly on themselves. Unlike his nasty critics, Happer is a learned and judicious man.

In recent work I have indicated some of the evidence that goes against consensus views on the subject. As I noted in my critiqueof the Green New Deal, none of the recent attacks on Happer reference the global cooling in the last two years of about 0.56° C—the most rapid two-year decline in the last hundred years. Events like this are not supposed to happen as CO2 levels increase. That number is especially telling because the near-hysterical report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) concluded that it was necessary by 2030 to reduce the targeted level of temperature increase to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. Without any real explanation, that report lowered the acceptable temperature increase by 0.5° C from the previous target of 2.0° C. To put this number in perspective, the world would be only 0.137° C cooler by 2100 if the United States cut all carbon emissions. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278° C by the turn of the next century. 

….

The establishment’s misunderstanding of both the science and economics of global warming quickly leads to serious policy blunders. In order to explain why Happer is such a dangerous appointment, The New York Times offers an elaborate graphic titled “To Cut Emissions Faster, U.S. Can Apply These Policies.” The graphic is based on a model by the firm Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC. The entire presentation is a powerful testament of the sorry state of the dominant views on climate science. 

The initial difficulty with that graphic lies in its estimate of the future decline in CO2 emissions. From 2000 to 2018, U.S. emissions declined from about 6.7 gigatons (one billion metric tons) to about 5.5 gigatons, a decrease of about 18 percent. This occurred during a period when the US population increased from 282.16 million in 2000 to about 328.3 million as of July 1, 2018, an increase of 16.3 percent. The net decline in emissions per person is around 42 percent. The model projects that the total level of CO2 emissions will remain roughly flat for the next 32 years, as if all technology innovation has been exhausted. But if one keeps the same rate of improvement for the next 32 years, it amounts to a further decline of 32 percent to a level of about 3.8 gigatons, which, with an estimated population of 438 million people by 2050, works out to a decline of emissions per person of over 50 percent. 

The model then lists a series of seven changes in climate policy that it believes are needed to cut that 5.5 gigaton total down to about 3.1 gigatons. The first six of these are estimated to reduce emissions to 3.5 gigatons. These are, in order, the imposition of a carbon tax on the model of British Columbia, which has already ceased to be revenue neutral despite its advocates’ promises. The tax was abandoned in Australia as “political poison” in 2014, two years after it was enacted. The next proposal requires utilities to produce all their energy from zero-carbon sources, which would require a massive retrofitting of American industry amounting to trillions of dollars in new expenditures in order to create an intrinsically unstable system. The third measure is the use of electric cars, which also require heavy subsidies to work. In principle, these cars should be welcome if they require no subsidies, as non-electric vehicles do indeed involve emissions, of which CO2 is not the most dangerous. The next three proposals involve setting various CO2 emission standards for heavy industry, without noting that the most important administrative measures should be directed to other pollutants, including the dirty coal that is burnt if the use of relatively clean natural gas succumbs to regulatory pressures.
None of these proposals are needed if the projected decline in CO2 from current technologies keeps pace with the developments of the last 18 years. Worse still, at no point does The New York Times’ model try to estimate the horrendous costs that come from the simultaneous implementation of policies that in all likelihood turn out to be counterproductive or unnecessary. Nor does The Times indicate what it thinks will be the decrease in temperature levels from the faithful implementation of these policies, especially if it turns out that, with the widespread breakdown of the Paris Accords, the rest of the world continues to increase its output of CO2 as the United States engages in fruitless action to reduce its CO2 emissions. Sadly, with the current state of intolerance in climate science, the U.S. needs Will Happer now more than ever. 

Hoover Institution

And from the comments:

I don’t follow this stuff closely, but to my way of thinking, IF the climate establishment truly believed in the consequential changes it asserts are inevitable, it would be theorizing the best methods and technologies to TAKE ADVANTAGE of those changes: e.g., building construction in areas it forecasts would be newly habitable, buying up acreage in the now-desert-soon-to-be-agriproductive areas. No one ever seems to discuss the potential positive consequences of a changing climate — it’s only ever stories of dire devastation, the avoidance of which has sky-high costs with no assurances of effective results.

I’m reminded of the young earth creationists who insist processes that geologists think took millions of years, such as the formation of slate and the separation of radioisotopes that give the appearance of long periods of radioactive decay, all happened as the result of natural processes during the year of the Noachic Flood.

Yet none of the young earth creationist organizations are doing any research to try to replicate these processes in the lab. The patent on hydrologic radioisotope separation would be worth millions — easily enough to fund any further research.

What Science Could Teach Ocasio-Cortez About Climate Change — Bjorn Lomborg

The truth is comparatively boring: According to the United Nations climate science panel’s latest major report, if we do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, the impact will be the equivalent to a reduction in our incomes of between 0.2 percent and 2 percent five decades from now.

Yet by the 2070s, personal incomes will be some 300 percent to 500 percent higher than they are today.

Far from the “end of the world,” the impact of warming is what we’d expect from roughly a single economic recession taking place over the next half-century.

Many of us question how this could be true when we are constantly told that extreme weather is wreaking ever-greater devastation. In fact, research shows that extreme weather is having a rather minimal economic effect.

Since 1990, the cost associated with extreme weather worldwide has actually declined, to 0.25 percent of the global gross domestic product, from 0.30 percent.

Green fretting about Armageddon is nothing new, of course. In the 1960s, mainstream environmentalists worried that the world was running out of food.

In the 1980s, acid rain was going to destroy the planet’s forests. There were good reasons for concern, but a panicked response led to a poor, overly expensive response.

We need to get smarter. Climate change is a problem but not the end of the world. The United States now has little or no federal climate policy, which is inexcusable.

But almost every other nation is making climate proclamations that would impose huge costs for rather paltry gains.

This approach has failed to deliver progress against climate change for decades. We should instead embrace ingenuity and innovation and spend far more on green-energy research and development.

If we push the price of green energy below fossil fuels through innovation, everyone will switch.

If Ocasio-Cortez had stuck to the facts, she would have said: “The world is going to see costs worth about 1 percent of GDP in 50 years if we don’t address climate change — and your biggest issue is how to pay for it?”

Well, yes: We need to make sure our solution doesn’t cost more than the problem. If we look at the science and stop believing the end of the world is nigh, our decisions will be much smarter.

SOURCE

97% Agreement on what?

First heard from Dennis Prager: the climate change activists are insisting that we believe three separate things:

  1. The climate is changing;
  2. Humans are responsible for a lot of that;
  3. It’s leading to a catastrophe.

Alex Epstein says much the same in Forbes, and looks at the numbers.


If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

….

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Forbes Magazine

The Religion of Environmentalism

I’m not sure if I read this piece by Michael Chrichton before or not, but listening to a friend of mine who is very definitely an environmentalist, I noticed how she seemed to believe in a Fall From Grace story. At one time in the past, the environment was in a perfect state. And then humans came along and started making changes, and every change humans make is, by definition, for the worse. (She did not receive that well.)

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Environmentalism is a Religion — Michael Crichton

So what about it?

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.
First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It’s not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won’t. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.
The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

ibid