GWPF Newsletter: Arctic Refreezes After Warm El Nino Year, Melting Pause Continues

14 Climate Bullies Attack Susan Crockford For Telling The Truth About Polar Bears

In this newsletter:

1) Arctic Refreezes After Warm El Nino Year, Melting Pause Continues
Ron Clutz, Science Matters, 3 December 2017 
 
2) 14 Climate Bullies Attack Susan Crockford For Telling The Truth About Polar Bears
Thomas Fuller, Climate Scepticism, 1 December 2017

 
3) Back To Black: U.S. Senate Tax Bill Pivots Away From Green Energy 
Los Angeles Times, 2 December 2017
 
4) Carbon Taxes Increase Global CO2 Emissions. Period.
Spencer P Morrison, National Economics Editorial, 1 December 2017
 
5) Ian Plimer Interview: The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff
GWPF TV, 2 December 2017
 
6) Benny Peiser: 'What I Told Cambridge University's Spoiled Green Students'
GWPF TV, 4 December 2017 
 
7) Tesla Has Been Removed From The List Of Electric Cars Eligible For Subsidies In Germany
Reuters, 1 December 2017 

Full details:

1) Arctic Refreezes After Warm El Nino Year, Melting Pause Continues
Ron Clutz, Science Matters, 3 December 2017 

Latest observations show that Arctic sea ice extent has not declined in the last decade



Given the fluctuations in daily sea ice measurements, climatology typically relies on monthly averages.

November daily extents are now fully reported and the 2017 November monthly results can be compared with years of the previous decade.  MASIE showed 2017 reached 9.7M km2, 0.2M below the 9.9M November 10 year average.  SII was slightly lower at 9.5M for the month.

The 10 year average for SII is about 200k km2 lower than MASIE, with a similar differential appearing in 2017.  In either case, one can easily see the Arctic ice extents have not declined in the last decade.  MASIE shows 2017  matching 2007, higher than 2012 by 200k km2, and 844k km2 more than 2016.

Sea Ice Index statistics are from recently released SIIv.3.0,  as reported in Sea Ice Index Updates to v.3.0.

The graph below shows November comparisons through day 334 (Nov. 30).


Note that 2017 in both MASIE and SII tracked the 10 year average, slightly lower throughout.  SII is now about 240k km2 less than MASIE. 2012 grew strongly to approach the 10 year average, recovering after being decimated by the August Great Arctic Cyclone. 2007 lags behind, and the lackluster 2016 recovery is also evident.

The narrative from activist ice watchers is along these lines:  2017 minimum was not especially low, but it is very thin.  “The Arctic is on thin ice.”  They are basing that notion on PIOMAS, a model-based estimate of ice volumes, combining extents with estimated thickness.  That technology is not mature, with only a decade or so of remote sensing. The image below from AARI shows widespread thick ice at end of November 2017.



The formation of ice this year shows solid concentrations in the central Arctic.  Watch the November refreezing of Arctic marginal seas from the center outward.



Click on image to enlarge.

At the top, open water in Chukchi is shrinking while neighboring Beaufort and East Siberian seas freeze completely. On the left, Hudson Bay starts with fast ice on the western shore, now growing extent strongly.  On the right, Kara ice cover is 90% complete.

Full post

2) 14 Climate Bullies Attack Susan Crockford For Telling The Truth About Polar Bears
Thomas Fuller, Climate Scepticism, 1 December 2017

The purpose of the attack on Dr Susan Crockford is not to communicate. It is to excommunicate.


Canadian zoologist Dr Susan Crockford

Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ specifically to associate opponents with those who deny the Holocaust occurred.

But when they talk about male scientists they are somewhat restrained. Here’s Michael Mann on Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT, and one of the most famous skeptics: “So Richard Lindzen is a scientist from MIT who has expressed contrarian views about climate change.” When astrophysicist Ken Rice, a consensus defender writes of Roger Pielke Jr., who disputes some elements of the consenssus, he writes “Okay, I do think that trying to improve the climate debate is commendable, so kudos to Roger for at least trying. ”

But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her – Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.

The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.

Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’

A paper published Nov. 29 in the American Institute of Biological Sciences journal ‘Bioscience’ bears the title ‘Internet Blogs, Polar Bears and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy’ calls Susan Crockford a denier. Their evidence is that other unidentified blogs that the paper’s authors call ‘denier’ blogs (without citing them, without showing what it is about those blogs that render them anathema) link to Dr. Crockford’s weblog.

Let’s be clear about this. Dr. Crockford does not deny climate change. She writes about polar bears and clears up some misconceptions being published about them. But because weblogs this paper’s authors don’t like link to Crockford, she is now labeled a ‘denialist.’ But again, the casual dismissal of her life’s work is more personal than professional. She is derided as someone who focused on dogs,with an inferred snigger.

This is actually a common Consensus tactic–when they cannot criticize the science, they go after the scientist. Or even the scientists’s fans… The truth about polar bears is that they have survived warmer periods than those predicted for us by the IPCC. Their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. And the biggest threat to polar bears are hunters–as many as 1,000 per year (out of a total population of about 30,000) are shot.

The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.” Crockford’s publications are listed here and include papers published in Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, Canadian Journal of Zoology and International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, among many others.

It is another attempt to delegitimize a respected and credentialed scientist, based not on what she writes, but on what others write about her.

The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents.

The paper’s authors are Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, Michael E. Mann.

Michael Mann is famous–or infamous–as author of the Hockey Stick chart. But Jeffrey Harvey is not. Harvey is willing to defend Paul Ehrlich, who to my knowledge has never been right about anything, but is willing to throw fellow scientist Susan Crockford under the bus. Here’s Harvey defending Paul Ehrlich:

“Effectively, these scientists – experts with many hundreds of peer-reviewed articles amongst them and with many awards (e.g. Paul Ehrlich has been a past winner of the Crafoord Prize, an equivalent to the Nobel Prize in fields outside of that award) – have drawn conclusions that an ‘expert’ like Fuller disagrees with.”

Stefan Lewandowsky, famed for having retracted his flagship paper and moving out of the country to live down the shame of it, deserves little mention.

The central point emerging from their paper is unintentional on their part. Their opponents are eager to cite scientists in their arguments. Rather than denying science, they are eager consumers of it. […]

On Susan Crockford:

Richard Littlemore: “Has beens, also-rans, deniers-for-hire on retainer at “think tank”. The scientists, ranging from …a sessional lecturer on the evolution and history of the domestic dog (Susan Crockford), include no top climate scientists currently publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.”

At the end of the day, members of the Consensus will dismiss this blog post in the same way they dismiss Susan Crockford–not because of the accuracy of the quotes listed here, not because of the truth or falsity of its central point, but because of provenance. It is posted on a blog called Climate Scepticism and hence is beyond the Pale.

The paper I am criticizing reminds me of several other junk science publications–‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ (Cook, Nuccitelli et al), ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change,’Anderegg, Prall et al and literally anything written by the biggest charlatan in climate science, Stefan Lewandowsky (one of the authors of this paper as well).

The purpose of these papers is not to communicate. It is to excommunicate.

Full post & comments

see also 
Larry Kummer: A new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

Susan Crockford: Twenty Good Reason Not To Worry About Polar Bears

3) Back To Black: U.S. Senate Tax Bill Pivots Away From Renewable Energy 
Los Angeles Times, 2 December 2017

The Trump administration’s campaign for “American energy dominance,” which focuses on elevating the nation’s fossil fuel production, received a potential big boost from Republican senators early Saturday.

The tax measure they approved proposes to open the Arctic to oil and gas development, weaken investment incentives for solar and wind production, and end a big tax credit for new electric vehicles.

Taken together, the Senate tax provisions are clearly allied with the Trump administration’s goal to shift American energy development back to black fuels and reverse Obama-era programs to encourage cleaner technologies to generate electricity and move people and goods.

Arguably the most significant Senate tax provision is meant to tilt a 40-year-old conflict between the oil industry and conservationists toward opening a 1.5-million-acre stretch of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration. The struggle over the so-called 1002 Area, one of the longest running and most intensely debated in U.S. environmental history, has commanded the attention of every president since Jimmy Carter.

The Senate’s decision to proceed with oil and gas exploration was hailed today by its chief champion, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

“Opening the 1002 Area and tax reform both stand on their own, but combining them into the same bill, and then successfully passing that bill, makes this a great day to be an Alaskan,” she said in a statement.
Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups responded with vows to keep the entire 19.3-million-acre refuge undeveloped.

“This fight is not over. The oil industry and its allies in Congress may think they can sneak this past the American people, but communities across the country are speaking out every day,” said Jamie Williams, the president of the Wilderness Society. “The Arctic Refuge drilling provision has no legitimate place in a tax bill, and this backdoor political deal now threatens to destroy the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System.”

The Senate proposal to explore for energy in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not contained in the House version of the tax measure that passed last month. The two tax proposals will be reconciled by House and Senate conferees this month. If it survives, the Arctic drilling plan would be another step in the Trump administration’s effort to reverse Obama-era measures to curb fossil fuel development, reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere and encourage more environmentally sensitive electrical generation and transportation.

Other provisions in the Senate tax bill are a boost to the White House fossil energy initiatives. One would treat investment tax credits for wind and solar plants as income and levy a tax on them. Wind and solar developments are eligible for a 30% tax credit under legislation approved in 2015. The nearly $50 billion invested annually in solar and wind projects in the United States has generated hundreds of thousands of jobs and been helped by the $12 billion to $15 billion in tax credit investments by multinational banks and other financiers.

If the charge on investment tax credits is made law, big investors are likely to exit the American clean energy market, said Gregory Wetstone, the chief executive of ACORE, the American Council on Renewable Energy, a trade group in Washington.

4) Carbon Taxes Increase Global CO2 Emissions. Period.
Spencer P Morrison, National Economics Editorial, 1 December 2017

Not only does the logic show that carbon taxes in the West will invariably increase global CO2 emissions, but so does the empirical evidence.


Largest interregional fluxes of emissions embodied in trade (Mt CO2 y−1) from dominant net exporting countries (blue) to the dominant net importing countries (red). Fluxes to and from Western Europe are aggregated to include the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Sweden. Source: Davis, S. J., and K. Caldeira (2010), Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions, PNAS March 8, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0906974107

As the hysteria over global warming heats up, carbon taxes have become the “cool” on.  Environmentalists love them.  So do politicians, who are more than happy to raise taxes while scoring political points.

Carbon taxes, or other analogous pricing schemes, are now prevalent in Western Europe, and are making headway in North America.  For example, California recently joined forces with the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to create an integrated cap-and-trade carbon market.

On top of this, many well-known economists support carbon taxes, thinking they’re the best way to mitigate man’s contribution to climate change. A new report written by thirteen leading economists under the direction of professors Nicholas Stern and Joseph Stiglitz—who won a Nobel Prize in 2001—recommends the adoption of a global carbon tax.

The tax would value carbon emissions somewhere between 50 and 100 USD per ton by 2030, and would cost upwards of $4 trillion.  Theoretically, the tax would raise the cost of using carbon-intensive sources of energy, thereby nudging producers to switch from fossil fuels to “green energy” sources like wind and solar power.  Likewise, it would raise the cost of electricity, thus creating an incentive to use energy more efficiently.

This makes sense in theory.  There’s just one problem. It won’t work.

In reality, carbon taxes are just that: taxes. They’re a money-grab disguised with good intentions.  Worse still, carbon taxes will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.



Instead, adopting carbon taxes in the West will actually raise global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from relatively environmentally-friendly places, like the USA and Germany, to places with lax environmental laws, like China. […]

Together, these studies conclusively show that the offshoring of Western industry to China has actually increased global carbon emissions.  It is unreasonable to assume that a carbon tax, which will further increase the incentive for business owners to offshore, will magically reduce global carbon emissions.  There is no silver bullet.  Carbon taxes are a pipe dream.

Full post

5) Interview with Prof Ian Plimer: The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff
GWPF TV, 2 December 2017



Benny Peiser talks to Prof Ian Plimer about his new book, The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff'.

6) Benny Peiser: 'What I Told Cambridge University's Spoiled Green Students'
GWPF TV, 4 December 2017 



Benny Peiser opposing the motion 'This House Would Rather Cool Down the Planet than Warm Up the Economy' at the Cambridge Union.

7) Tesla Has Been Removed From The List Of Electric Cars Eligible For Subsidies In Germany
Reuters, 1 December 2017 

(Reuters) - A German government agency has removed Tesla from the list of electric cars eligible for subsidies, sparking a row with the U.S. company over whether its Model S is too expensive to qualify for the scheme.



Tesla customers cannot order the Model S base version without extra features that pushed the car above the 60,000 euro ($71,500) price limit, a spokesman for the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Controls (BAFA) said on Friday.

Germany last year launched the incentive scheme worth about 1 billion euros, partly financed by the German car industry, to boost electric car usage. A price cap was included to exempt premium models.

"This is a completely false accusation. Anyone in Germany can order a Tesla Model S base version without the comfort package, and we have delivered such cars to customers," Tesla said in a statement.

The carmaker said the upper price limit was initially set by the German government to exclude Tesla, but later a compromise was reached "that allows Tesla to sell a low option vehicle that qualifies for the incentive and customers can subsequently upgrade if they wish."

Full story
 
see also: Electric Vehicles Aren’t Taking Over Our Roads as Fast as Hype Artists Claim

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.