Professor Enigma's Official Site

All The Forbidden Dinner Table Topics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "Face Bloat" Sam Seder, the envirokook Progressives & Malthusian environmental predictions (gone wrong)

Debunking Peak Oil (see the section on peak oil)


U.S. oil production was estimated at 11.7 million barrels a day during the week ending November 16, over 2 million barrels per day more than during the same time period in 2017—a 21-percent increase. For perspective, the increase is almost equivalent to all of Mexico’s production in 2017. The Energy Information Administration expects oil production to average 10.9 million barrels per day this year and over 12 million barrels per day in 2019. U.S. oil production has doubled in the past eight years due to oil produced by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in shale basins. Earlier this year, the United States had overtaken oil production in Saudi Arabia and Russia on a monthly basis, making it the world’s top oil producing nation. In less than a decade, U.S. companies have drilled 114,000 wells in the Permian Basin of Texas alone and many of them could turn a profit with crude prices as low as $30 a barrel…


Since a ban on crude oil exports was lifted at the end of 2015, U.S. crude oil exports have more than doubled from 465,000 barrels a day in 2015 to nearly 1.2 million barrels per day in 2017. Through August, oil exports have averaged 1.8 million barrels a day. Lifting the ban has allowed efficiencies in the market to occur which benefits world markets and consumers at home. The qualities of much of the U.S. shale oil do not match the requirements of refineries in the United States built to take heavier, sourer crude oils than the light, sweet oils that typically come from shale projects. The U.S. imports grades that align with our refineries and exports those that do not.


Some forecasters believe that U.S. net imports of petroleum will decline in December 2019 to 320,000 barrels a day, the lowest since 1949, from an expected 2.4 million barrels per day in 2018. And, in fact, in the first week of this month, it was reported by EIA that the U.S. was a weekly net oil exporter for the first since 1991. According to a report by the research firm IHS Markit, the United States could become a consistent net petroleum exporter by 2022. The firm projects that as petroleum exports increase, crude imports will decrease, turning the United States from a net importer to a net exporter by 2022.


In February, oil output hit 10.2 million barrels per day and gas production hit 87.6 billion cubic feet per day. The fact that US oil and gas companies are producing such prodigious quantities of energy — and by doing so, are saving consumers billions of dollars per year — should be headline news.


As my colleague at the Manhattan Institute, Mark P. Mills, has noted, the shale revolution has turned the US into an energy superpower. The combination of horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other technologies, he says, has resulted in “the fastest and biggest addition to world energy supply that has ever occurred in history.”


How big is that addition? Over the past decade, merely the increase — I repeat, just the increase — in US oil and gas production is equal to seven times the total energy production of every wind turbine and solar project in the United States.


Climate-change activists like to claim that renewable energy can power the entire economy and that we should “do the math.” I couldn’t agree more — on the math part. In 2008, US oil production was about 5.2 million barrels per day. Today, it’s about 10.2 million barrels per day. In 2008, domestic gas production averaged about 55.1 billion cubic feet per day. Today, it’s about 87.6 billion cubic feet per day.


That’s an increase of about 32.5 billion cubic feet per day, which is equivalent to about 5.5 million barrels of oil per day. Thus, over the past decade, US oil and gas output has jumped by about 10.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.


Speaking of Malthusian B.S. & peak oil, they’re not having a good decade [fracking]:


The major shale oil fields are in southern and southwest Texas, Montana and North Dakota, and Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming and parts of Nebraska. There are also deposits east of the Mississippi in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. U.S. oil production averaged around 9.6 million barrels per day in 2017. The highest U.S. production based on monthly government data is above 10 million barrels per day, which dates back to 1970. Production hit 9.58 million barrels per day in May 2015 before prices dropped because of an oil glut.


The resilience of U.S. oil producers has come as the price of crude rose above $60 per barrel on world markets. Many shale drillers can start and stop on a dime depending on the world oil price. The sweet spot for shale profit is in the neighborhood of $55 to $60 per barrel.


An expanding world economy and production cutbacks by Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries have helped push prices above $60 per barrel in recent days.


The oil-friendly Trump administration has approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and is reportedly considering loosening offshore oil drilling regulations. The Republican tax bill that President Trump signed into law Dec. 22 allows oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a potentially rich pool but a move that conservationists oppose.


This tax bill trades away a national treasure — for what — oil we don’t need,” said David Yarnold [NOTE: This clown obviously doesn’t understand basic economics & also knows peak oil is a joke. The free market will determine production quotas, not an economically ignorant bureaucrat], president of the National Audubon Society, in a statement last week. Yarnold called the Arctic Refuge “one of the Earth’s last wild places.”


U.S. average daily oil production of 10 million barrels a day wasn’t thought possible a few years ago. Daily U.S. output plummeted to 3.8 million barrels per day in September 2005 and again in September 2008.


That’s nowhere near the almost 20 million barrels per day in petroleum products that the United States consumes. But the volume of domestic production allows the United States to tamp down oil prices by maintaining supply.


The increased production “doesn’t make us independent, but now we have a lot of low-cost natural gas and low-cost oil. And we have become exporters of natural gas,” Verrastro said. “It’s a rosy scenario. At least for now.”


Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, said the various shale producers have coalesced into a few big players, resulting in more predictable production. That results in a less volatile price.


These United States is the most energy-rich nation in the world (or at least the North American continent is). Peak Oil redux? Malthusian stupidity?


The Wall Street Journal recently printed an excerpt from "The Next Oil Crisis Looms Large – and Perhaps Close," printed in the Aug. 28, 1998 issue of Science magazine. According to a study from the International Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "sometime between 2010 and 2020 the gush of oil from wells around the world will peak at 80 million barrels per day, then begin a steady, inevitable decline."


Well, not quite. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 1998, when the article was written, global oil production was 75.7 million bbl/day. In 2014 it was 93.2, and our problem is too much oil. It's useful to remember such things when the "experts" grandly tell us what's going to happen.


It may not be, in some cases—what the experts are predicting, but what they are hoping happens. Some of them attempt to influence policy w/ grandiose & wild claims.


These United States is becoming the most energy-rich nation in the world. Here’s a fact-filled article (with plenty of links to outside material) on how the U.S. will become the Saudi Arabia of natural gas (specifically LNG—Liquified Natural Gas exports.)


Consider that U.S. export capacity for LNG is set to increase from an existing 584 BCF (BCF=1 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas) to 6.986 Trillion! In addition, the amount of natural gas we’ve recovered since 1967 (1,054 Trillion Cubic Feet) was 2x higher than what the Potential Gas Committee estimated.


Dang, those Peak Oil Malthusians are taking it on the chin indeed. Ouch!


Who can forget Jimmy Carter & his doomsaying from the 1970s? This was the President, the smartest man in the room (or maybe the dumbest because the lunatics who were pulling the strings got him to believe it & say it. It’s one thing to believe something insane, it’s another to make those view public), the leader of the free world & he told all of you dummies who were destroying the planet that you were just going to have to learn to quit living those comfortable lives sans oil.


That bubblin’ crude was about to run out so you didn’t have a choice. That was 1977…


[In April 1977], President Jimmy Carter delivered his Address to the Nation on National Energy Policy, better known as the "Moral Equivalent of War" speech. Seated behind his ornate desk in the Oval Office and wearing a sober pinstriped suit, he offered a litany of dark predictions:


"The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out."


"Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce."


 "World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that."


"We can't substantially increase our domestic production... Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil—from any country, at any acceptable price."


"If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions." […]


Four decades later, the world is consuming nearly 100 million barrels of oil a day, up from 60 million in 1977, at an inflation-adjusted price little different than it was 40 years ago [Obama or his hubby Michelle didn’t build that. Bernie Sanders didn’t build that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & her philosophy of economics degree didn’t build that. Capitalism & hard work did. If you drove to work 5 days a week for decades because it was too long for a horse—thank someone in the Oil & Gas Industry]. U.S. natural gas production is booming. Armageddon, so far, has not occurred.


It's tempting to ridicule Carter for his gloomy claims. But he was hardly a fool and his proposals and predictions echoed those made by esteemed energy experts and world leaders at that time—and at various times before and since. The earliest expert prediction I've seen that the world would soon run out of oil was John Strong Newberry in 1875. The most recent chorus was about a decade ago.


So, the next time the room temperature IQ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, that pervert Stan Seder, I mean Sam Seder, senile Mike Malloy or anyone at CNN or MSNBC start yammering about “climate change bringing irreversible destruction in X years”—you can just laugh.,2528093&dq=john+holdren&hl=en


John Holdren, formerly Barry Oboingo’s ‘Science’ Advisor didn’t need peak oil, he just thought no investment in energy would be a great idea. No word yet on whether he’s moving to Sri Lanka or not.


Anyways, the man is such an alarmist, he makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Sam Seder seem sane. He’s also been wrong most of the time (not because he actually believes what’s coming out of his mouth, but because he has an agenda) & makes himself look like a kook. At least he got paid well, Sam Seder must beg for donations.


Holdren wrote this 1975 newspaper article, entitled Too Much Energy, Too Soon, a Hazard, about the dangers of having too much energy available for human use. Among some of the gems of wisdom there, we find this:


Finally, less energy can mean more employment. The energy producing industries comprise the most capital intensive and least labour intensive major sector of the economy. Accordingly, each dollar of investment capital taken out of energy production and invested in something else, and each personal consumption dollar saved by reduced energy use and spent elsewhere in the economy will create more jobs than are lost.”


Now, one doesn’t need to be an economist to see the problem with this position. Holdren thinks that because the energy sector generates so much energy so efficiently with so few people and with so much capital investment, that must be a bad thing. He is either unaware (he can’t be that stupid) or he chooses to hide the fact that all of that energy is demanded by the rest of the country for everything we do. Energy enables people to make things and provide services.


As I’ve said before (and I’ve asked some of the nation’s top economists about the validity of my views), if you really want full employment, just put everyone to work digging holes in the ground and filling them up again. Just having “jobs” is not the desired goal; what we do in those jobs makes all the difference. Jobs must efficiently provide goods or services desired by the rest of society in order for everyone, poor and rich alike, to prosper. And abundant, affordable energy is required for all of those productive jobs. It literally scares me that people like this have so much influence in our country.


Holdren could commission the building of a dam & would have the employees moving dirt with teaspoons. Holdren probably also uses a reel-to-reel tape recorder when he wants to save a speech, instead of an external Blue Yeti microphone connected to his PC.


And to think someone gave this guy a degree. Yikes!,709750&dq=holdren+green+revolution+technological+bludgeon&hl=en


Holdren isn’t done cramming his feet in his gullet:


They’re wrong now, and they were wrong decades ago, when the new “green revolution” of crop technology was heralded as feeding a growing population, the environmentalists predicted disaster. Here’s John Holdren in 1970, telling a reporter that the new crops being developed by Dr Norman Borlaug were a disaster, and not suitable for Africa and Asia:


“We cannot use the same technological bludgeon on the underdeveloped countries that we have used on our own, seriously deteriorating our environment” said John P. Holdren of Stanford University.


Uh, yeah. That Norman Borlaug guy was a complete loon, let’s hope his ideas never get replicated. What’s next? They’ll tell us we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices?!?!


Understand this: John Holdren poo-pooed what is arguably the greatest agricultural breakthrough of all-time. John Holdren is indeed very sloppy & Obama thought this guy would be a great science advisor? That tells us more about Obama than it does Holdren.




Bangladesh under water by 2000, by 2019, whatever year that’s getting pulled from someone’s nether regions


A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.


Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.


He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives [NOTE: The Maldives didn’t get the memo, see NOTE below] and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people.


Don’t worry folks, the forecast has been adjusted again—Bangladesh is doomed by 2100 & this time they mean it! And by mean it, WE’RE TALKING FULL ON CAPS LOCK, RITALIN DOSAGE HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED MEAN IT!


NOTE: On September 26, 1988, experts predicted the 1,196 islands of the Maldives would drown in the next thirty years. That date has passed, and they only missed by 1,196 islands.


Someone forgot to tell Maldives that they’re supposed to be underwater & all dead now. Male International Airport just expanded.


As they say on TV, that’s not all folks. Let’s keep this crazy train going! The 1989 warning of impending doom wasn’t the first warning from the all-encompassing United Nations. In 1982, the end was nigh as well.,351973&dq=ecological+holocaust&hl=en


Mostafa Tolba, Executive Stooge of the U.N. Environment Program, told delegates from >100 countries that, in the last decade “on almost every front, there has been a marked deterioration in the quality of our shared environment.”


He went on to say that world government must take action now or face disaster. Using holocaust comparisons, by the turn of the century we will have an environmental catastrophe. He chastened governments for not spreading enough wealth around & shirking their environmental duties.


Good thing we didn’t listen, if we had ratified Kyoto or something similar, CO2 levels would still be much higher than in 1982, but we’d all probably be a lot poorer.


Most of the pols & bureaucrats in Washington would still be living high on the hog. You know what to think the next time the “experts” at the United Nations issue a “tipping point” or “brink of destruction” report.


File it under “G”, for garbage.


Rajendra Pachauri, an ever-reliable source of information declared back in November 2007: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”


Now that it’s too late, we might as well move on. I call on every Dumocrat POTUS candidate who is in elected office right now to immediately resign & go find something better to do. I’m sure Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can find a village missing its idiot and fill the void—so she can leave w/ them. Sashay away Alex, sashay away.






Oh noes! WebMD tries to get political, tells us that crop yields may (or may not, maybe, possibly) crater if you don’t get rid of your SUV & live in a log cabin using cow dung for heat. Well, that’s not going to happen because thankfully there’s still a large segment of mankind who are incredibly intelligent & useful.


Unlike Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One never had a long-term job in the private sector & the other one filled up glasses for drunks at the local watering hole.


And although 815 million people worldwide are still undernourished, according to the United Nations, the number of hungry people has declined by two billion since 1990. Additionally, research shows there is now 17 percent more food available per person than there was 30 years ago -- all during the period of purportedly dangerous climate change.


A study cited by NASA recently confirms the Earth is greening significantly, with forests, grasslands, gardens, and areas of flowering plants expanding as carbon dioxide increases the rate of photosynthesis and improves plants’ water-use efficiency and pest resistance. The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found, “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”


This study confirms what several reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) have concluded over the years: Human carbon dioxide emissions have greened the earth, transforming some former desert regions into verdant oases of greenery, and contributed to record crop yields. reported in 2016 world cereal production broke records for the third straight year, exceeding the previous record yield, recorded in 2015, by 1.2 percent and topping the record yield recorded in 2014 by 1.5 percent. In September 2018, FarmWeekNow reported the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated the United States corn yield would top 181.3 bushels per acre, a new record, up 4.7 bushels per acre from 2017. USDA estimated nationwide corn production at 14.827 billion bushels, the second-largest amount on record, behind only the 15.1 billion bushels produced in 2016. USDA’s soybean estimates also reached record levels of 4.69 billion bushels of production nationwide, with a record yield of 52.8 bushels per acre, up 3.7 bushels from last year.


My Heartland Institute colleague James Taylor detailed in a recent American Thinker article, crop yields are setting records abroad as well, most importantly in developing countries, where food supplies are typically scarcest. Government data from India (2017 through 2018) and Bangladesh (2016), show rice and coarse cereal production set new record highs. The subcontinent’s growth in food production is part of a long-term trend as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased. Honduras set new records in recent years for its production of staple and commercial crops, such as coffee, maize, rice, and wheat.


Oh noes! It’s another edition of “Crop yields gonna tank unless we give control of our economy over to the EPA, the United Nations or Barack’s husband Michelle.” Uh, ok.


Well, if these crop yields are going to be devastated by climate change/global warming/weird weather/dirty weather/extreme weather/less mild days because our model said so… Well, I am still waiting for it. Another Malthusian prediction down the tubes.


The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is serious this time, ratify a Kyoto-like Treaty or you’re going to starve to death! Meanwhile, world grain production has almost quadrupled since 1950.


A glut of corn, soybeans & wheat make me think, the end must be nigh.


Not quite crop yields, but it’s agriculture & close enough. Back in 2012, the highly reliable, Risperdal-riddled clowns at ThinkProgress (please hold your laughter until the end of the show) predicted that “climate change gonna make Bessie quit givin’ that there milk, so we better ratify that Kyoto thing.”


The Independent, back in 2015 was caterwauling that we had basically reached peak everything, all because the yield growth had slowed. What kind of sorcery is this? It’s called alarmism & it’s a mental disorder.


If you completely ignore that food production per person is still increasing then yes, you can wring your Vienna sausage fingers over peak milk, peak eggs, peak vegetables. Let’s hope we never reach peak Ritalin, or these clowns will be running around unmedicated, who knows how chaotic they’ll become.


By 2015, U.S. milk supplies had skyrocketed to a level where some milk was being disposed of because buyers can’t be found. THE END IS NIGH FOLKS, GET READY!


Paul Ehrlich’s mind went off into the ether decades ago, but his mouth is still flapping. Back in 2014 he was predicting we’ll be out of food & everyone will be so hungry they’ll be eating corpses. Ehrlich’s brain was apparently already exhumed by one of George Romero’s zombies.


Not to be outdone, then Secy. of State John Kerry (who suspiciously looks French) was in India [2015] jacking his jaws saying, “Global climate change is already violently affecting communities, not just across India but around the world. It is disrupting commerce, development and economic growth. It’s costing farmers crops.”


Unfortunately for Kerry, the country he was in has seen crop yields for rice & wheat increase almost monolithically since the late 1950s. How dumb can someone be?


Have you seen this movie before? I have!


The WSJ notes: “In 1798 Thomas Malthus, a British essayist, argued that humanity would reproduce faster than food production could rise, leading to destitution and starvation. He was wrong. The Western world’s population grew rapidly over the 19th and 20th centuries, with a dip in 1918-19 because of World War I and the Spanish flu pandemic. But rising agricultural productivity proved more than capable of feeding the extra mouths.”


Humanity found ways to produce more food per unit of land through innovations like synthetic fertilizers and increasingly advanced genetic modification techniques. As production increased, prices fell, calorie consumption increased, and undernourishment fell even as the world’s population grew.


Malthus’ mistake was to ignore human beings’ ability to innovate their way out of problems. But, as Julian Simon found in The Ultimate Resource, people are excellent problem-solvers. A challenge (feeding a growing population), led to technological innovation (the Green Revolution and GMOs) and that led to a solution (higher agricultural productivity and falling food prices).


That all said, the Progressive ecokooks are still reciting the same old song, over & over & over & over & over again. They never learn & they will never quit, so when you hear stuff like this from “Face Bloat” Sam Seder (who just copies from the loudest noisemakers), Bill McKibben (he is the modern day Paul Ehrlich, he shouts this nonsense every day of every year), Al Gore, Robert Kennedy Jr., James Hansen et al. – just laugh & make sure you pass this info onto others so they be a pushback when the hysterics begin.


We’re not all going to die if Washington doesn’t control the economy from top to bottom, we’re not all going to die if Washington doesn’t take care of use from cradle-to-grave, from womb-to-tomb.


Folks like the pervert Stan Seder, I mean Sam Seder may need Washington to do everything for them because they’re incompetent as a comedienne, incompetent as a husband & incompetent as a talk show host. Stan Seder is not a maker, he is a taker. He consumes, but he never creates. Stan is a loser, a failure & he hates successful folks.


We’re not all like that & you don’t have to be a victim, blaming others for your failures. But I digress.


Media outlets ranging from Newsweek and Time [2015], to National Geographic and even the Weather Channel, all recently ran articles on the so-called “Overshoot Day,” which is defined by its official website as the day of the year “when humanity’s annual demand for the goods and services that our land and seas can provide—fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, wood, cotton for clothing, and carbon dioxide absorption—exceeds what Earth’s ecosystems can renew in a year.”


This year, the world allegedly reached the Overshoot Day on August 13th. Overshoot Day’s proponents claim that, having used up our ecological “budget” for the year and entered into “deficit spending,” all consumption after August 13th is unsustainable. Let’s look at the data concerning resources that, according to Overshoot Day’s definition, we are consuming unsustainably…


Since millions of people rose from extreme poverty and starvation over the past few decades, the world is consuming more fruits and vegetables than before. We are also producing more fruits and vegetables per person than before. That is, partly, because of increasing yields, which allow us to extract more food from less land…


As people in developing countries grow richer, they consume more protein (i.e., meat). The supply of meat and fish per person is rising to meet the increased demand, just as with fruits and vegetables. Overall dietary supply adequacy is, therefore, increasing.


It is true that the world is losing forest area, but there is cause for optimism. The United States has more forest area today than it did in 1990. As Ronald Bailey says in his new book The End of Doom, “In fact, except in the cases of India and Brazil, globally the forests of the world have increased by about 2 percent since 1990.” As the people of India and Brazil grow wealthier and as new forest-sparing technologies spread, those countries will likely follow suit. To quote Jesse H. Ausubel, Director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University and Advisory Board member:


“Fortunately, the twentieth century witnessed the start of a "Great Restoration" of the world's forests. Efficient farmers and foresters are learning to spare forestland by growing more food and fiber in ever-smaller areas. Meanwhile, increased use of metals, plastics, and electricity has eased the need for timber. And recycling has cut the amount of virgin wood pulped into paper. Although the size and wealth of the human population has shot up, the area of farm and forestland that must be dedicated to feed, heat, and house this population is shrinking. Slowly, trees can return to the liberated land.”


Cotton yields are also increasing—as is the case with so many other crops. Not only does this mean that we will not “run out” of cotton (as the Overshoot Day proponents might have you believe), but it also means consumers can buy cheaper clothing. Please consider the graph below, showing U.S. cotton yields rising and cotton prices falling.


These people only exist to try to scare you into voting for more government, but government didn’t cause these massive crop yield increases—that was human ingenuity. Sam Seder didn’t build that; he can’t even manage a marriage or a little talk show on Err America—what makes you think the old fella could do anything to make humanity better?  When you hear that troglodyte Sam Seder say, “The experts agree…” go watch a cat video or something until your IQ hits equilibrium.


If farming were as inefficient today as it was a century ago, we would be using a lot more land for farmland. Instead, it is spared the plow & can be returned to nature. That’s a “green” gesture we can all appreciate, sans the frothing-at-the-mouth antics of the ecokooks.


Some blame meat for eating land. Like the demand for forest land, land used for meat is the product of an identity: population times wealth ($/person) times diet (kg meat/$) times feed conversion efficiency (kg feed/kg meat) times 1/crop yield (hectares per kg of feed). In the USA between 1967 and 1990, while MacDonald’s multiplied, US land used to make meat shrank. Population and wealth increased, but diet favored meat less, the feed needed to make meat declined, and the hectares needed to grow the feed lessened as yields rose. Net, about 2% less US land each year made meat…


US farmers, by raising grain yields, have spared about 150 million hectares since 1940 from what otherwise would have been needed: an area 3 times the size of Spain. Alternately, compare a US city of 500,000 people in 2000 and the same city of 500,000 people with the 2000 diet and the yields of 1920. Farming as Americans did 80 years earlier while eating as we do now would require 4 times as much land, about 450,000 hectares instead of 110,000. Looking to a US 70 years hence with 100 million more people and the 2000 diet, farmers will spare 4 times the area of Iowa or more than one Spain if they lift yields only 1%/yr.


What is the global outlook for restoration? If the world farmer reaches the average yield of today’s US corn grower during the next 70 years, ten billion people eating as people now on average do will need only half of today’s cropland. The land spared exceeds Amazonia. This will happen if farmers sustain the yearly 2% worldwide yield growth of grains achieved since 1960, in other words if social learning continues as usual. If the rate falls by one half, an area the size of India, globally, can still revert from agriculture to woodland or other uses. If the ten billion in 2070 prefer a meaty diet of 6,000 primary calories/day for food and fuel (twice today’s average primary calories), they roughly halve the land spared. A cautious global scenario of sustained yield growth and more calories still offers more than 10% of present world farmland, more than 10 Iowas or 3 Spains, for the Great Restoration.




We’re going to run out of precious metals & chemical elements (Simon Abundance Index) [This piece focuses on a laundry list of failed predictions, but does dovetail w/ the Simon Abundance Index. My personal favorite is Paul Ehrlich’s statement that he would “take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Uh, ok.]


More Malthusian nonsense from the pie holes of the brilliant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the vacuous bald-headed doofus Bill Maher.


The one concern that we believe people do not have to worry about is the overuse of resources. Late last year, we co-authored a study titled, The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources. In that paper we looked at the prices of 50 foundational commodities covering energy, food, materials and metals. Between 1980 and 2017, our findings howed, resources have become substantially more abundant. Our calculations confirmed the insights of the University of Maryland economist Julian Simon who observed in his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource that humans are intelligent beings, capable of innovating their way out of shortages through greater efficiency, increased supply, and the development of substitutes.


To arrive at our conclusions, we have come up with four new concepts: Time Price, Price Elasticity of Population, the Simon Abundance Framework and Simon Abundance Index ®. Today marks the second installment in what we hope will become an annual update of the relationship between population growth and resource availability. As was the case last year, we have looked at the prices of 50 basic commodities tracked by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (see Figure 1). The Simon Abundance Index ® 2019 covers the time period between 1980 and 2018…


The price elasticity of population (PEP) allows us to measure sensitivity of resource availability to population growth. Between 1980 and 2018, world’s population increased by 71.2 percent. The time price of commodities fell by 72.3 percent. As such, the time price of commodities declined by 1.016 percent for every 1 percent increase in the world’s population. Put differently, over the last 38 years, every additional human being born on our planet appears to have made resources proportionately more plentiful for the rest of us.


The Simon Abundance Framework uses the PEP values to distinguish between different degrees of resource abundance, from decreasing abundance at one end of the spectrum to superabundance at the other end. Considering that time price of commodities decreased at a faster proportional rate (-72.3 percent) than population increased (71.2 percent), we conclude that humanity is experiencing superabundance.


Bill Maher is akin to a clown who comes out for a few minutes, spews some talking points & then heads behind the curtain—wipes off his paint, throws down the gunboat shoes & heads to the Rusty Lunchbox for a Schlitz & a burger.




The Union of Concerned Scientists gave us a laundry list of warnings back in 1992, most didn’t pan out in any fashion. These warnings have been released again & THIS TIME THEY ARE SERIOUS!


You must do what they say, you must exit that comfortable lifestyle (however, for folks like Barry Obama & Bernie Sanders, that requirement can be waived) & begin a carbon-zero existence. THE FATE OF HUMANITY IS AT STAKE (again)!


Here are some of the UCS’ warnings:


Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops… We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water.


So, what about those pollution warnings?


I covered the topic of pollution/air pollution here (begin @ 17:00) & here (begin @ 16:18), but here’s some more supplemental information.


The energy sustainability triad has been depletion, pollution, and climate change. A fourth area, energy security, primarily relating to unstable oil imports from Middle Eastern countries, arose in the 1970s and peaked with the Gulf War in 1990–91… Regarding the once vexing problem of urban air pollution, the US Environmental Protection Agency has documented a 73 percent decline in criteria emissions since 1970 with further improvement expected. Technology in light of achievable regulatory rules has made fossil fuels and clean air a success story that industry critics did not think possible early on.


Now, some Progressives will autistically-repeat “Gubmint did that, that was gubmint!” As if the gubmint didn’t build roads, “There would be a Sears store over there & your house over here, and everyone involved would be just standing there scratching their heads” (ala Tom Woods) if the gubmint didn’t build roads (or have an EPA). If it weren’t for the U.S. federal gubmint, the English language probably wouldn’t exist, right?


The belief in gubmint being the be-all-end-all (folks like that pervert Sam Seder) borders on a mental illness. Well by golly, despite this increased population & all this urban sprawl, evil oil refineries, readily-available Ritalin for folks like Jaclyn Glenn—air pollution is a far better today than in 1970. We feed billions more, with a pittance of farmers (relative to the number in 1900).


Didn’t you know the gubmint mandated back in 1900 that we should reduce the number of farmers significantly yet grow more food. Gnomesayin’?


So, let’s dispense w/ the cheerleading about how great the EPA is, because if you’d like to go that route, I have numerous complaints to register about your statist god & you aren’t prepared to answer them, trust me.


If you want more data, take a gander at some of these datasets & be astonished at how much more efficient our economy is & Barack Obama, you didn’t build that little man.


CO2 emissions, per person; CO2 emissions in kilotons, CO2 emissions in kilograms, per 2010 U.S. dollar of GDP; Methane emissions in kilotons of CO2 equivalent & Nitrous oxide emissions, thousand metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Our economy has become so much more efficient, if any of the Founding Fathers were alive today to see this (assuming they were never chaperoned to the District of Columbia), they would be astonished.


And here we go AGAIN w/ the talking point that pollution is getting worse, U.S. air quality is declining & it’s probably because of Donald Trump. Anyways… here’s the money-line:


The truth is that the changes in air quality cited are statistically insignificant, largely driven by wildfires, and do nothing to contradict claims that America’s air is as clean as it has ever been.


The metric the pair chose to use to prove that air quality is “slipping” is the Air Quality Index, or AQI. Based on a Twitter exchange Borenstein had with Junk Science founder Steve Milloy, the reporter appears to believe that use of AQI is an appropriate way to measure changes in air quality. In response to Milloy’s query whether or not tightened EPA standards were factored in, Borenstein replied, in part: “Change in air quality standards factored in. Spent weeks double checking this, other data issues w/EPA. Apples to apples comparisons.”


As an air quality professional, I do find it troubling that a reporter could spend “weeks” on a story like this and still get it so very wrong. AQI doesn’t “factor in” changes in air quality standards. Concentrations of pollutants that would have resulted in a “moderate” AQI rating in 2014 could have, and often did, cause unhealthy AQI ratings in 2018, because the standards were different in 2014 and AQI is benchmarked to the standards in effect at the time the rating is applied.


Put another way, what was “clean air” one day can magically become “dirty air” the next by the simple expedient of tightening standards.


As the EPA explains in their AQI Brochure: “An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the national air quality standard for the pollutant, which is the level EPA has set to protect public health. AQI values at or below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory.” AQI values between zero and 50 are rated “good,” and between 51 and 100 are rated “moderate.” Ratings greater than 100 are divided into four categories indicative of undesirable amounts of air pollution: “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” “unhealthy,” “very unhealthy,” and “hazardous.”


The two pollutants that have the greatest effect on AQI calculation are ozone (aka, smog) and fine particulate matter. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for each have recently changed, from 0.075 parts per million for ozone to 0.070 parts per million in 2015 (eight-hour average basis) and from 15 micrograms per cubic meter for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5) to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (annual basis).


While the change in the annual PM-2.5 standard didn’t effect AQI calculations, it being an annual standard that isn’t used in the AQI determination, the change in the ozone standard certainly did. When the ozone standard was lowered on Oct. 26, 2015, a day when the ambient air concentration of ozone was determined to be between 0.071 and 0.075 parts per million, and that would have been tagged “moderate” the day before, was now deemed “unhealthy for sensitive groups.”


There’s quite a bit of what appears to be sleight of hand in Borenstein and Forster’s story. And, like any good magician, they keep their audience distracted as they pull rabbits out of their hats. The AQI and monitoring data that follows can all be accessed at this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, should readers want to check the data for themselves.


The story restricts its analysis to “American metro areas,” known as “core-based statistical areas” (CBSA) in government-speak. County-level data is also available, data that covers the entire nation, not just CBSAs. Why not use the county-level data? Could it be that it would make for a less damning story? In general, you find more pollution in CBSAs, because of population density, which skews the data in the authors’ apparently desired direction.


It should also be noted that mobile sources (cars, trucks, etc.) are particularly important AQI drivers in CBSAs. Given a booming economy, ever increasing numbers of Uber and Lyft drivers trolling the streets for fares, and Amazon trucks delivering more and more parcels, one would expect their influence to grow even more.


Borenstein and Forster also use total AQI “bad air days” as their basis of comparison. That’s just sloppy statistics, since not every reporting entity reports AQI every day. Many reporting entities miss days. Monitors malfunction. The number of unreported days thus varies each year. So the only true basis of comparison is the percentage of “bad air days” as a function of total reporting days.




What would an article about erroneous Malthusian manifestos be without some of the super-duper dire predictions about the end being nigh on Earth Day 1970. I’m sure anyone manufacturing Ritalin had quite a good day.


Kenneth Watt [NOTE: Who wrote a book called “Understanding the Environment” & was apparently a faculty member at UC-Davis) is either the biggest idiot on the planet that got a degree from an institution of higher learning or someone paid him a lot of money to use his position (or taxpayer dollars) to make some grandiose claims. Joke’s on Ken.


One of the commenters echoes some of my sentiments (if you’re a naturalist & I am not) concerning starvation & famines. Since the universe doesn’t care & we’re slime on a planet w/ one sun, we’re not special—we are just bags of meat accidentally functioning—is famine really that bad?


Humans aren’t special in a naturalist framework (evolutionary empathy?), so if the survival of the fittest means there’s only so much room for “the fittest” & a billion (or so) of us go the way of the Dodo that means we’ll go back to equilibrium. Here’s what he said in its entirety (from a man using the moniker “Seawriter”).


The first slide in the body of my presentation was a collection of the most dire Y2K predictions. I would ask the audience what they thought. Then I put up the next slide, with the most apocalyptic predictions about the year 2000 I could find dating back to Earth Day 1970. The world would have so many people we would all starve. Except we would not starve because we would all be dead because of pollution. Except we would not die from pollution because we were going to run out of oil – and so on. It included some of the predictions in this list.


“Senile” Bernie Sanders & other low-IQ people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez don’t really believe in Peak Oil because if they did, they wouldn’t be engaging in hair-on-fire hysterics over fossil fuels.


They would just let it run out & the economy would be forced to retool. Unless they’re going to claim it will run out in ~50 years (here we go again), but we only have (here we go again redux) 12 years to save the planet.


Trying to figure out what’s bouncing around in their brain pans is quite difficult. I know, Bernie & AOC care about people, they care so much they confiscate billions from taxpayers so black children can be snuffed out in the womb at Planned Parenthood. But I digress.


I think one of the main reasons they believe this doomsaying (assuming they actually believe it) is because they’re not makers, they’re takers. They’re not starting the next Uber, they’re not Norman Borlaug, they’re not the folks who originally began siphoning crude oil out of the earth & found a use for it, they didn’t discover Penicillin, they didn’t come up w/ the internal combustion engine, they didn’t invent roving oil drilling platforms, they weren’t the brainchild for the microchip, they didn’t eradicate measles, they didn’t come up w/ the idea for the assembly line, they didn’t invent refrigeration, they didn’t perfect heavier-than-air flight—they didn’t do anything & they do nothing.


They are a waste of space, noisemakers & bad ones at that. I think that’s one of the main reasons they go into hysterics, it’s their way of getting some attention & seeking to mean something. Neither of them have done anything to benefit mankind, unless redistributing wealth from entrepreneurs to poverty-stricken inner-cities for decades & decades (wash, rinse, repeat—2nd verse, same at the 1st) & doing nothing to change the culture is your goal.




Climate cult guru James Hansen debates himself…. And loses!


Just in time for holiday season [December 2016], and for the Trump Administration, the father of the climate alarm, formerly a climate scientist with NASA/GISS, and now a full-time scientist/activist, has ameliorated his grand climate alarm. The 10-year ultimatum announced in 2006, made more dire in 2009 and since, is now moderated.


This October, we were told that the net emissions of of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must go negative. Now, “we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”


A climate scientist might want to see Dr. Hansen’s math and model simulation to understand the revision in the last sixty days. Maybe the climate can survive Donald Trump after all! Here is the history:


Old View (July 2006): “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”


Revised View–Worse Than Thought (2009): Several years later, with the publication of his 2009 manifesto Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save the Planet, he shared “some bad news” (p. 139) with readers: “The dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago. Sorry about that mistake. It does not always work that way. Sometimes our estimates are off in the other direction, and the problem is not as bad as we thought. Not this time.”


“The climate system is on the verge of tipping points,” Hansen stated (p. 171). “If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.”


Also in 2009, he told the press: “We cannot afford to put off [climate policy] change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”


Revised View–Need to Go Emissions Negative (October 2016): “Contrary to the impression favored by governments, the corner has not been turned toward declining emissions and GHG amounts. The world is not effectively addressing the climate matter, nor does it have any plans to do so, regardless of how much government bureaucrats clap each other on the back.…. Negative CO2 emissions, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.”


New View (December 2016): “Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.”


“The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future.”


“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.” […]


Anthony Watts commentary: I think Dr. Hansen has come to the conclusion that climate sensitivity is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as it was once thought to be in his original a, b, and c scenarios from 1988. We’ve noted previously, that it is 150% wrong.


Jimmy’s “review” of Al Gore’s toilet paper in The New York Review of Books he wrings his hands about animals being on the run, plants being on the run, Sam Seder’s wife being on the run from Stan Seder, animals are adapted to specific climate zones & let me stop the old fella right there.


As I covered in my piece on Ocean Acidification, there are a number of studies covering a number of marine faunae who adapted rather well to less-than-hospitable pH levels. It’s almost as if they were pre-programmed to deal w/ climatic variability.


I find it sad that such an educated man doesn’t know this & if he does—he sees his fans as dupes who will believe whatever he regurgitates out of his pie hole.


Hansen is no stranger to hyperbole, back in 2009 we were subjected to the following tall tales:


Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe… Hence his warning to Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as US president on Tuesday. His four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right, Hansen said. If it fails, global disaster - melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts - awaits mankind.


"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."


Notice his nauseous adherence to the cult of the presidency mentality—this clown might be better suited living in a dictatorship, throwing flowers at a reviewing stand & worshipping the Dear Leader.


What a sad, miserable sack James Hansen is. Also notice the header proclaiming this article is more than 10 years old, yet we are still here. Hansen reminds me of Jack Van Impe or the Watchtower. Always predicting doom, always predicting the end. But the predictions never end, because they’re never right.


James Hansen’s erroneous temperature/CO2 scenarios [ p.9347] (see p.4)


Back in 1988, Hansen made some predictions regarding temperatures (remember, he’s an expert) in various CO2 scenarios.


We had the severe CO2 cuts after 1988 & no growth after 2000 scenario. We had the “fewer CO2 emissions” proposal & the real time rise in CO2 emissions scenarios. Hansen was off by a YUUUGE margin.


One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”:


Figure 3: Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.


Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises. In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased – which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.


A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report.




On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where he expressed his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the claimed CO2 induced “greenhouse effect and observed warming.”


The 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have turned out. In an article in the Wall Street Journal today, climatologist Dr Patrick Michaels and meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue compare Hansen’s predictions to actual reality over the past 30 years. Instead of the gloom and doom we heard in 1988, we have an earth that is only moderately warmer, and closer to Hansen’s “scenario C”, the bottom graph below, which is overlaid with actual global temperature data in red.


Here’s some excerpts from the article by climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels and meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue:


“Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago…”


“Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.”


It turns out that global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16.


And it isn’t just Hansen who got it wrong, models devised by the IPCC have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.


What about Hansen’s other claims? He claimed that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.


In 2007, Hansen stated that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the next 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine demonstrated this to be impossible.




James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?


Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.


The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.


Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise. Previous failed-prediction postings.


Hansen was also on the “droughts will get worse” bandwagon (to be covered shortly), so you can add that to your list of items he was incorrect on. If he would just quit being an ideologue, a useful idiot for big government, maybe he would have some more credibility.


He’s just an envirokook in a suit, no more credible than John Holdren.


James Hansen frowns upon the current envirokook tactic, screeching endlessly about “the hottest year ever.” Ouch!




Arctic summer sea ice is going to disappear by X & when it doesn’t happen, we’ll predict that the summer of Y is when it’s going to happen.


Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.


Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.


Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.


As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.


Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.


Japanese climate blogger Kirye caught my eye here at Twitter when posting a comparator chart of Arctic sea ice extent (and thickness) for 2007, 2015 and this year (2016) for September 4. In a nutshell, what is all the alarm about?


She comments that “Arctic ice is not doomed in the real world.” Clearly Arctic sea ice this summer will most likely not set a new record. There’s far more ice up there then what global warming alarmists hysterically projected earlier.


Also a recent chart of Arctic sea ice extent by the National Snow Ice and Data Center (NSIDC) shows that current sea ice extent is some half a million square kilometers over the 2012 level:


Clearly over the past years Arctic sea ice has refused to have anything to do with the often claimed “death spiral” and alarmists are always forced to go back a number of years in order to get the sharp downward overall trend they want to see.


Lately, however, it has not been downward at all. Looking back at the past 10 years, we see there has been practically no downward trend whatsoever… Tipping points postponed again!


It looks like those chicken-little “predictions” (hopes?) concerning summer Arctic Sea Ice aren’t panning out. So much worse for the facts, eh?




The megadroughts are coming, the megadroughts are coming!


Long story short – envirokooks be like (in 1988) “a megadrought be comin’, batten down the hatches & if you’re a Stan Seder Majority Report member you need not worry because you’re already in mom’s basement. Might want to brush your teeth though!”


Some observations are in order, aside from the fact that this megadrought never materialized. Jonathan T. Overpeck & Connie A. Woodhouse noted that the Great Plains are at a great risk (the climate models told them so) because of scumbag human beings like Al Gore, but also noted that the megadroughts of the 16th & 13th centuries were civilization-wreckers. They also noted that mini droughts of the 1930s & 1950s happened approximately twice/century for the last 4 centuries. In addition, prior to the 14th century, droughts were typically longer or more severe when they did occur.


However, this time it’s man fault & this megadrought is coming… except it didn’t. The Capital Weather Gang didn’t miss a beat (because they’re so in-tune w/ the contemporary literature) & start yammering about how much rain we’ve been getting & by golly, there seems to be no end in sight.


These rains are man’s fault & can be inextricably linked to evil CO2 & probably your SUV. Maybe the Crapital Weather Gang didn’t get the memo, NASA “experts” were predicting a megadrought again in 2015. Watch out folks, a megadrought (or a big flood) might be coming sometime in the next century & that wouldn’t be outside the norm if you haven’t been living under a rock.


If you own a SUV, it’s still your fault & you should feel bad.


If you know general weather patterns & variability well enough & understand climatic cycles—just predict droughts constantly—eventually you will be right.


“I bet the Dow Jones Industrial Average is going to fall 5%.” Just repeat that crap every single month for the next 50 years & eventually you will be right. You’re still an idiot, but you would be right for once.


“The Midwest is going to see rainfall more than one standard deviation above the 1950-2000 average sometime in the next millennium for a few years in a row.” Is this actual climate science or astrology?


Australia’s worst drought on record (1895-1903) had nothing to do with CO2 or your SUV.


Debunking the claim that climate change/global warming/climate disruption/whatever buzzwords are working today—is causing extreme droughts & extreme floods & flooding.


Please note that the guy running this website is certainly NOT any sort of “conservative Republican” (or at least the Australian equivalent of) or Evangelical. But since he doesn’t get in bed (and I would rather hang out w/ an atheist that voted for Ron Paul than a Christian who voted for Bernie Sanders or the demented Hillary Clinton) w/ the ecokook bedwetters he would be evil personified (but remember, to most Progressives, evil is subjective—so you’re evil if you make them “butthurt” or dare to disagree /w one of their “well thought-out” positions).




Weather extremes are a commonly cited line of evidence for human-caused climate change. Despite the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) having found little to no evidence that global warming triggers extreme weather, the mainstream media and more than a few climate scientists don’t hesitate to trumpet their beliefs to the contrary at every opportunity…


Getting a good handle on drought has only been possible since the end of the 19th century, when the instrumentation needed to measure extreme weather accurately was first developed. The most widely used gauge of dry conditions is the Palmer Drought Index that measures both dryness and wetness and classifies them as “moderate”, “severe” or “extreme.” The figure below depicts the Palmer Index for the U.S. during the past century or so, for all three drought or wetness classifications combined.


What jumps out immediately is the lack of any long-term trend in either dryness or wetness in the U.S. With the exception of the 1930s Dust Bowl years, the pattern of drought (upper graph) looks boringly similar over the entire 112-year period, as does the pattern of excessive rain (lower graph).


Much the same is true for the rest of the world. The next figure illustrates two different drought indices during the period 1910-2010 for India, a country subject to parching summer heat followed by drenching monsoonal rains; negative values denote drought and positive values wetness. The two indices are a version of the Palmer Index (sc-PDSI, top graph), and the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI, bottom graph). The SPI, which relies on rainfall data only, is easier to calculate than the PDSI, which depends on both rainfall and temperature. While both indices are useful, the SPI is better suited to making comparisons between different regions.


You’ll see that the SPI in India [NOTE: Severe droughts in India—especially in the industrial age aren’t unprecedented. Find a CO2 signal if you can] shows no particular tendency over the 100-year period toward either dryness or wetness, though there are 20-year intervals exhibiting one of the two conditions; the apparent trend of the PDSI toward drought since 1990 is an artifact of the index. Similar records for other countries around the globe all show the same thing – no drying of the planet as a whole over more than 100 years.


Recently, the mainstream media created false alarm over drought by mindlessly broadcasting the results of a new study, purporting to demonstrate that global warming will soon result in “unprecedented drying.” [NOTE: If the “fingerprint of warming” goes back to 1900, it would be hard to link drought to AGW] By combining computer models with long-term observations, the study authors claim to have definitively connected global warming to drought.


But this claim doesn’t hold up, even in the study’s results. Although the authors were able to match warming to drought conditions during the first half of the 20th century, their efforts were a dismal failure after that. From 1950 to 1980, the “fingerprint” of human-caused global warming completely disappeared, in spite of ever-rising CO2 in the atmosphere. And from 1981 onward, the fingerprint was so faint that it couldn’t be distinguished from background noise. So the assertion by the authors that global warming causes drought is nothing but wishful thinking.


As further evidence that climate change isn’t exacerbating drought, the final figure below shows the Palmer Index for the U.S. since 1996. Just like the record for the period from 1900 up to 2012 illustrated in the first figure above, there is no discernible trend in either dryness or wetness. While the West and Southwest have both experienced lengthy spells of drought during this period, extreme dry conditions now appear to have abated in both Texas and California.


Maybe this is why Marc Morano calls global warming a cult:


In order to know if a theory could be true, there must be a way to prove it to be false. Unfortunately, many climate change scientists, the media and activists are ignoring this cornerstone of science. In this bizarre new world, all unwelcome climate events are caused by climate change. But as legendary scientific philosopher Karl Popper noted, “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”


Marc Morano explains. Transcript:


Morano: Did you know man-caused climate change is resulting in LESS snowfall…but also MORE snowfall? Or that it leads to drought, EXCEPT when it leads to flooding? Or that it causes MORE hurricanes — or FEWER hurricanes. Or that it causes our days to get longer… but ONLY when it’s not causing them to get shorter? Are you confused? Who wouldn’t be?


This is where the scientific principle that requires theories to be “falsifiable” should come into play. Simply put, there must be a way to prove a theory false in order to know if it could be true. This idea was proposed by Karl Popper in the mid-20th century and it has been a central tenet for all scientific inquiry ever since.


For example, horoscopes are not scientific because there is no way to disprove claims that are broad, vague and contradictory. How could you disprove a horoscope that says, “Now is a good time to be starting something new,” or “The universe is pushing you into a more polarized environment”?


Conversely, Sir Isaac Newton’s theories ARE falsifiable. Because we can test the idea that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know that the principle is true.


Now consider some of the claims being made by climate change activists. We’ve been told climate change leads to less snow AND that it leads to more snow. It makes wet places wetter and dry places dryer… EXCEPT when it is making wet places dryer AND dry places wetter. It causes more hurricanes and fewer hurricanes, longer bird migrations and also shorter bird migrations. Global warming causes more crime, but, get this, reducing crime causes more global warming. And if you disagree with any part of this of scenario…you might just be a “climate denier”— and belong in jail yourself!


And that’s only a small sampling of all the things attributed to climate change… the opposite of which are ALSO attributed to climate change.


Karl Popper would call BS on all of this. If any and all climate conditions are being attributed to climate change, then how can we design any observation or experiment that would make climate change falsifiable? We can’t. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science.


Today…A sort of “climate astrology” has taken over. Many climate claims have descended into the realm of the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar.  There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens “proves” their case.


And if that isn’t confusing enough already, how do we design an experiment to know what changes in the climate are due to human activities or are part of the natural order of things. In other words, is there any experiment or observation that can distinguish what is man-caused climate change and what is simply just… natural climate? There isn’t one today and there may never be one.


If scientists want the public to take the theory of man-caused climate change seriously, they need to become a lot more disciplined. Claiming that human-induced climate change is responsible for just about every typical AND atypical climate event doesn’t pass the sniff test. Essentially, climate activists have announced that many “bad things” will happen because of man-made global warming — and lo and behold, every time something bad happens, they say ‘See we told you so!’ As Karl Popper would say, A theory that explains everything, doesn’t really explain anything.


I covered this very subject here (begin watching @ 13:43). Climate “science” or astrology?




Since Mark mentioned snow so many times, how have “end of snow” predictions panned out?


More Malthusian predictions go the way of the Dodo. “We’s gonna not know what snow is cause it gonna be gone” proclaim the ecokooks. Notable nuts such as Dr. David Viner, the IPCC itself, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research & Daniela Jacob proclaimed the end of snow. Your kids aren’t going to know what snow is! Take it from the experts.


They all pounded their fists, utilized a willing antique media who wants to implement top-down governmental control of the entire economy & caterwauled, “Der end of SNOOOOOW!” Well, looks like the joke is on them. I would invite David Viner to sleep in my backyard this December-March so he can celebrate “the end of snow” in great disappointment—but since coyotes come around occasionally, he can stay in whatever carbon-guzzling flat he’s currently residing in.


Some dingbat named George Moonbat, er, George Monbiot was also being a trailblazer, er, echo chamber & proclaiming “the end of snow” but not sure he’s worth a mention. He’s a lemming anyways.


Next time you run into an ecokook proclaiming the end of this, the end of that—tell them to take their Ritalin, you’ve cried Apocalypse one too many times. I explored the “expert” Jekyll & Hyde relationship to lots of snow/no snow here (begin @ 14:40).


Bill McKibben contradicts all of them by saying blizzards are climate change at work. I guess if you cover all the bases (more snow, less snow, no snow, hardly any snow except for the occasional blizzard, etc. etc. etc.) then you can literally attribute everything (see Morano transcript above) to climate change/global warming/climate disruption.


You might as well be using a magic 8-ball to forecast the climate.


This goes well w/ the previous posts.


Greenland and Arctic record cold and snow are once again being blamed on “climate change,” according to an article in Scientific American. The July 13 article declares a “Lost Summer for Greenland” as “a record late snowpack—lingering into July” harms the shorebirds breeding season. Jeroen Reneerkens, an avian ecologist at the University of Groningen who has studied Greenland’s shorebirds since 2003, expressed bewilderment at the winter conditions in summer. “The tundra was 100 percent covered in snow, and it was a very deep layer,” he says, estimating an average depth of about one meter. “It was a big shock to see the place like that,” he added…


The article reported: “This year broke all records,” Reneerkens says. “I know my literature about Arctic shorebirds very well and I have never come across something like this.” He is uncertain how this “disastrous” incident will affect the overall populations of these shorebird species. But “given the scale that this happening [on],” he says, “I do expect that this will have large consequences.” He estimates the record-late snowmelt impacted half of the global breeding area for sanderlings, red knots and ruddy turnstones.


And it’s not just Greenland experiencing a year without a summer. According to Scientific American, “Researchers elsewhere in the Arctic are also reporting unusually late snowmelt this year, with repercussions for shorebirds.


How does Scientific American account for the “lost summer for Greenland”? The article blames “climate change” for the record cold and snow. “Senner fears this nonbreeding year in eastern Greenland could herald an alarming trend. Climate models predict the Arctic atmosphere will hold more moisture as global temperatures rise, he notes. A wetter atmosphere means more snow in winter and spring, potentially causing late snowmelt to interfere with shorebird reproduction,” the article reported.


Danged if you snow, danged if you don’t snow. Where’s my magic 8-ball?


Take it from the IPCC, snowfall is slowly going away, your kids will never play in it. Uh, okay.


The record snowfalls of 2018 that are sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere and continuing the growth trend in winter snowfall levels provide yet more compelling evidence that the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 climate report and models are flawed because this report concludes that future snowfall level trends will only decline.


NOAA Northern Hemisphere snowfall recorded levels in the last 10 or more years show increasing trends in winter snowfall over the prior such period in both North America and Eurasia with 2018 snowfall records likely further adding to these trends.


These real world snowfall level trends suggests that climate models are both unreliable and inadequate for representing global climate and thus inappropriate for use by governments in establishing costly and unjustified global climate policy.


The AR5 WG1 report concludes in the Executive Summary of Chapter 12 Long-term Climate Change the following major finding regarding the relationship between global warming and snowfall level trends in the Northern Hemisphere:


“It is very likely that NH snow cover will reduce as global temperatures rise over the coming century”


Additionally the AR5 report further notes in the same Chapter at section Changes in Snow Cover and Frozen Ground: “Future widespread reductions of SCE (Snow Cover Extent), particularly in spring, are simulated by the CMIP3 models (Roesch, 2006; Brown and Mote, 2009) and confirmed by the CMIP5 ensemble (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013).”


Note that the phrase “Future widespread reductions, particularly in spring” clearly suggests snowfall trend declines in other seasonal periods with those being fall and winter. This finding and conclusion exclusively addresses only declining Northern Hemisphere snowfall level trends in our future and further fails to address any discussion of future increasing snowfall level trends at all… There is no discussion in the many thousands of pages of the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report of global warming increasing snowfall level trends but instead only exclusive discussion of declining recent and future Northern Hemisphere snowfall level trends.


Maybe we need to ask Al Gore & Michael “Climate Gate” Mann about snow?


Former Vice President Al Gore has weighed in on the record cold and snow in the U.S. “It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” Gore wrote on January 4 on Twitter.


Gore linked to one of his organizations’ articles on the brutal winter weather written by Climategate professor Michael Mann: The Climate Reality Project: A ‘PERFECT STORM’: EXTREME WINTER WEATHER, BITTER COLD, AND CLIMATE CHANGE. In the Gore touted article, Mann linked the cold and “lots of snow” to “climate change.”


Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth did not warn of record cold and increasing snowfalls as a consequence of man-made global warming. And as recently as 2009, Gore was hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming. Source: “Gore Reports Snow and Ice Across the World Vanishing Quickly.” […]


But as the snow piled up, the climate change claims were adjusted and cold and snow were added to the list of things caused by “global warming.” See: Warmists Wheel Out “Record Cold Due To Global Warming” Argument Again. In 2010, Gore claimed “increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with… man-made global warming.”


Predictions of less snow and less severe winters were hammered into the public by global warming scientists. But once that predictions failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became—what they expected.


If “climate change” is causing record cold and snow, then it would stand to reason that Gore is suggesting that if the U.S. had ratified the UN’s Kyoto Protocol treaty on “global warming” back in the 1990’s — the winter of 2018 would have been warmer?


Which Al Gore & Miss Michael Mann do we believe (Gore isn’t a scientist; he is a schmuck but a lot of celebrities & celebutards in the climate change/global warming debate cling to him because he’ll get their face on TV & in the snooze)? The ones who tout a lack of snow & mild winters as proof man should leave the planet? Or… or… do we believe the ones that tout blizzards as the harbinger of death for mankind.


I don’t think they even know & nor do they care. They are simply interested in central planning, operated by unelected bureaucrats.


Probably Uncle Al Gore’s most well-known & oft-repeated diatribe was back in January 2006. We had 10 years, count them, 10 years to seriously reduce greenhouse gases or we would reach a point of no return. Here we are at that point—the snow is still falling; the hurricanes aren’t doing anything unprecedented & we’re not all peeing in buckets.


Noticing a trend folks? Never, ever make predictions & never, ever believe an ecokook when he/she predicts the Apocalypse—no matter how long they’ve been unmedicated & no matter how loud they screech. Wash, rinse, repeat.


Back in 2000, Michael Oppenheimer observed astutely:


“’I bought a sled in ’96 for my daughter,’ said Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. ‘It’s been sitting in the stairwell and hasn’t been used. I used to go sledding all the time. It’s one of my most vivid and pleasant memories as a kid, hauling the sled out to Cunningham Park in Queens.’ […] Dr. Oppenheimer, among other ecologists, points to global warming as perhaps the most significant long-term factor.


Hey Mike, you have to actually get the sled out of the stairwell, carry it outside w/ your Vienna sausage fingers, throw it on the ground & use it. It won’t use itself & it won’t come get you, informing you that it just snowed & it’s time to go outside.


Ecokook Eric Holthaus was predicting/hindcasting/hoping/magic 8-ball—that climate change/global warming was the cause of all these dang blizzards.


[Holthaus says] In addition to El Niño, human-caused global warming has helped lift current Gulf Stream water temperatures just off the East Coast to record levels. Sea levels are rising in the Northeast at a faster rate than almost anywhere else on Earth, and climate change is already adding about a foot to each coastal flooding event, as it will with this one. The extra boost from the warmer water is adding even more energy into this storm system, increasing the availability and transport of moisture toward land and producing more efficient wind gusts to the surface. In short, climate change is making this blizzard worse.


See folks, it isn’t the end of snow, it’s the end of the world (with lots of snow). If the Progressive Northeast has a few years of very little or no snow, that will be your SUV’s fault.


Speaking of the Progressive Northeast, Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels found (at least for Boston and the Northeastern U.S.) that a warmer climate will lead to less snow.


And here’s a set of very important points concerning snowfall measurements.


Official measurement of snowfall these days uses a flat, usually white, surface called a snowboard (which pre-dates the popular winter sport equipment of the same name). The snowboard depth measurement is done ideally every 6 hours, but not more frequently, and the snow is cleared after each measurement. At the end of the snowfall, all of the measurements are added up for the storm total.


NOAA’s cooperative climate observers and thousands of volunteers with the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS), a nationwide observer network, are trained in this method. This practice first became standard at airports starting in the 1950s, but later at other official climate reporting sites, such as Manhattan’s Central Park, where 6-hourly measurements did not become routine until the 1990s. Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.


You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.


That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!


Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.


This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.


So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples. Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch). But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.


That said, see if you can find an AGW-driver for seasonal (and keep the previous information in mind please) snowfall in New York City’s Central Park. Good luck! [this is from the article above, but this is an archived link, as it is no longer live]


Steven Goddard sums up the “expert” opinion on whether global warming/climate change will make it snow more, snow less, harsh winter, mild winter, etc.


Heads I win. Tails you lose. There is a 97% chance that climate science is completely corrupt and incompetent.


The IPCC’s reliable climate models (as well as regional climate models) predicted a likely increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in a future warmer world. However, the results from Switzerland throw cold water on this prediction.


Maybe climate models are B.S.? Garbage in, garbage out.


Speaking of garbage in, garbage out. Another edition of... climate models versus reality.


[T]wo Italian researchers investigated the accuracy of simulations of snowfall throughout the Italian Alps that were provided by two GCMs (HadCM3, CCSM3), which are included within the family of models employed by the IPCC. This was done by comparing the models' output with a set of comprehensive ground data obtained from some 400 snow-gauging stations located within the region of interest for the period 1990-2009.


In examining the model versus observation comparison, Soncini and Bocchiola determined that "the investigated GCMs provide poor depiction of the snowfall timing and amount upon the Italian Alps," noting, in fact, that the HadCM3 model actually "displays considerable snowfall during summer," which they indicate "is clearly not supported by ground data." In addition, they report obtaining "contrasting results between the two models," with HadCM3 providing substantially constant volumes of snow received over time, and CCSM3 projecting decreasing snowfall volumes.


"Overall," in the words of the two researchers, "given the poor depiction of snowfall by the GCMs here tested, we suggest that care should be taken when using their outputs for predictive purposes." Or, perhaps the two models should probably not be used at all for predicting the future of snowfall in the Italian Alps or anywhere else for that matter.


It’s James Overland vs. James Overland on global warming/climate change & what it will make winter do. This guy is an expert, so you best heed his advice. Although, reading some of his conclusions, I am confused as to whether I should get rid of the snowblower or not.


James Overland 2004: When scientists trained their analytical tools on the North Pole and its environs, they quantified the local knowledge: The polar ice cap is 40 percent thinner and millions of acres smaller than it was in the 1970s.


What happens at the North Pole can affect the rest of the planet, potentially altering the course of the Gulf Stream, which moderates climate from the East Coast of the United States to the British Isles. Closer to home, the jet stream that dictates much of Seattle’s weather can be diverted when the polar vortex speeds up.


It’s probably contributing to the fact that it’s warmer and we’ve been getting less snow,” Overland said.


James Overland 2011: Our region experienced record snowfall last winter, topping the charts dating at least as far back as the late 1800s. In all, more than six feet of snow fell at sites such as Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. Extreme weather nailed other U.S. cities last winter, too, and swaths of Europe saw unprecedented snowfalls and record cold temperatures. This year, the nation’s capital has suffered one unusually severe storm. Parts of the East Coast from Atlanta to Boston have been experiencing blizzard conditions. Last week, a vast swath of the country’s midsection and East Coast got deluged with sleet and snow, paralyzing travel. What gives?


To understand how warming and snowstorms may be connected, it helps to start with the epicenter of winter weather. Around the North Pole, some of the world’s coldest air currents blow in what’s typically a tight loop known as the polar vortex. Air masses inside the vortex tend to have not only low temperatures but also low barometric pressures compared with air outside the vortex. The surrounding high-pressure zones push in on the vortex from all sides, helping the cold air stay where it belongs, at the top of the world…


The root of the problem, Overland says, is melting sea ice. Sea ice forms in the Arctic Ocean during the cold, dark days of fall and winter and hangs around, melting slowly but not completely vanishing, throughout the summer. In recent years, more sea ice has melted during the warm months than can be replenished during the chillier ones.