“… environmentalists, politicians, regulators and courts have united to block tree thinning, brush removal and harvesting of dead and dying trees. The resulting conditions are perfect for devastating wildfires, which denude hillsides and forest habitats, leaving barren soils that cannot absorb the heavy rains that frequently follow the fires – leading to equally devastating mudslides.”
Abnormal, explainable weather conditions set the stage for 2017’s intense, highly destructive wildfires in California. But so did the state’s public-policy choice of au natural, where the absence of tree thinning, brush removal, and harvesting of dead and dying trees super-fueled the destruction.
But this is not the story being told by California political establishment. To them, the wine-country fires of October and the Thomas Fire in December were the result of global fossil-fuel burning and land-use changes, each increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) that increased temperatures and produced more severe droughts.…
Continue Reading“The National Academy of Science reports are supposed to guide the thinking of policymakers …. One constant in both reports is the unwavering faith of energy experts in the efficacy of government-subsidized energy research and development, and government intervention in energy production markets. Looking back we can see that the Energy in Transition report from 1980 was largely a failure as an exercise in technical and economic prognostication.”
– Ronald Bailey, ‘How Green Is Your Crystal Ball?‘ (August 4, 2009).
The argument from authority (aka appeal to authority) is a favorite of climate alarmists/activists who are certain of a problem and its solution. But consensus-worshipping (intellectual bullying?) has been long employed by the Malthusian mainstream against those who do not see a massive market failure in the self-interested actions of humankind striving to be fruitful and consume in a free and prosperous commonwealth.…
Continue Reading… Continue Reading“Climate researchers … have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average, but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.”
“The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small ‘poke’ is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change.”
” … those of us who are skeptical of mankind’s influence on climate have a wide variety of views on the subject…. [I]t only takes one of us to be right for the IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards to collapse.