Climate hoaxing again

Vincent J. Curtis

11 Jan 25

RE: Winters feeling warmer? News item by Matthew van Dongen The Hamilton Spectator, 11 Jan 24.

It’s all so soft and vague and dreamy, the insinuation of CO2 induced climate change: winter’s feeling warmer, sensing this, vaguely recollecting a distant past.  A busy-body, activist “research non-profit” called Climate Central “suggests”, on the basis of a model, that, “on average” Hamilton’s winters now have eleven more days of above freezing temperatures than they did a decade ago. And this is due to the agent “climate change”: it’s not ‘may be due to’, but is.  Being so programmed, the model says so. (Since it’s a program, that’s how they can obtain an average on the basis of a one-off; it’s a probability, not a fact.)

Okay, let’s take that as read: The Climate has Changed (albeit for the better!). We know from climate physics that bad weather is not caused by carbon dioxide; and we also know from climate physics that rising carbon dioxide levels cannot account for substantially increasing global temperature.  What isn’t admitted is that the planet is in an interglacial period; that it’s still thawing out from the Little Ice Age, and global temperatures today are cooler than they were during the Medieval Warm Period, and cooler still than during the Holocene Climate Optimum, when the Arctic ocean really was ice-free in summer.

The upshot is that the planet has been here before, and we’re just along for the ride. The claim that CO2 is responsible for bad weather and for planetary overheating are ridiculous nonsense designed to control people, not the weather.

It’s time to call B.S. on the climate hoax.

-30-

Climate Quackery

Vincent J. Curtis

26 Dec 24

RE: Health care and the climate crisis. By Wendy Levinson. Op-ed the Hamilton Spectator 26 Dec 24.

Professor of Medicine Wendy Levinson of the University of Toronto is another climate activist to whom the Spectator has lent its platform.  Let’s ignore for the moment that there is no climate crisis, according to 2022 Nobel Laurate in Physics, Dr. John Clauser.  Let’s ignore for the moment that the “carbon dioxide causes bad weather” thesis is falling apart as the censorship of free speech is eased.  Let’s ignore for the moment that Canada’s contribution to so-called greenhouse gas emissions is insignificant. Let’s focus on the hard evidence offer by Dr. Levinson to make her specific claims.

All the evidence are percentages of this and that under the unwarranted assumption that these are dangerous to the climate: she offers us accounting games without references. We have no evidence of the quality of her non-data: who made these estimates, and based on what?  Never mind that percentages of nothing aren’t hard data anyhow.

It doesn’t occur to her to consider the costs of reducing use these medications, or of any other of her recommendations. What does it cost the patients in pain and survivability to allegedly save the climate? She has no analysis of that. It doesn’t occur to her to say that medicine is too important an area to cut.

Dr. Levinson is another half-informed climate activist whose disastrous recommendations would cost her nothing if implemented.

-30-

Dismiss with costs

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Dec 24

RE: Ontario asks court to hear youth-led climate case. The Canadian Press; published in the Hamilton Spectator 24 Dec 24.

Canada has the Notwithstanding Clause to make sure of parliamentary supremacy, and that the courts don’t have the final say, as they do in the United States.  It is therefore strange for Ontario to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case, brought allegedly by “young people” but in fact funded by activists, to challenge Ontario’s so-called “climate plan.”

The case alleges that the Charter provision for their right to life is violated by Ontario’s emissions targets. The case would require the court to decide what Ontario’s emission targets ought to be.  While the court could make this decision, the rationale would be arbitrary, and it would open to the door to all sorts of other challenges to government policies based on some theory of personal endangerment. The construction of Highway 413 could be challenged, for example, both for and against construction based on some theory of general endangerment to life from traffic flow.

But there is no science backing the claim of these youths.  Their theory would hold that their lives would be endangered if they moved to Florida or to Hawaii, due to the warmer climate of those places; and this in itself ought to falsify the endangerment claim.  A second definitive disproof is Ontario’s contribution to climate change, insofar as any can be shown at all, is dwarfed by the contributions of the rest of the world. It is simply implausible to claim that Ontario’s action, or lack thereof, endangers the lives of these “youths” in any provable way.

Case dismissed; plaintiffs pay costs!

-30-

Climate con is science success

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Dec 24

RE: Big success for Canadian science. By Abhiraj Lamba. The Hamilton Spectator 21 Dec 24.

Taxpayers ought to know that climate change is a talisman by which scientists con grant money out of the government.  If you want to study the sex life of the salamander, just say you want to study how climate change affects the sex life of the salamander and the money is yours.

So it is with this success of researchers at the University of Waterloo.  They wanted to see if, by satellite spectroscopy, they could determine the concentration of HFC-125 in the middle atmosphere.  What was the justification? Why, climate change!  HFC-125 has 3500 times the “global warming potential” of carbon dioxide!

This is elaborate nonsense. What they’re actually talking about is the absorption coefficient of HFC-125 at a particular frequency in the IR spectrum.  Absorption coefficients drop as concentration rises in orders of magnitude; and they’re comparing a gas at a concentration in the pptv range to CO2 at 400 ppmv, a million times more concentrated than HFC-125. A poor bureaucrat is easily bamboozled with this elaborate handwaving.  The effect of doubling HFC-125 in the atmosphere is the equivalent of adding 2 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere, which might add a thousandth of a degree to global temperature; and that’s it, at best.  (Note, neither CO2 nor HFC-125 are sources of heat, and the alleged global warming effect is due to heat retention due to BB-IR absorption.)

The triumph of Canadian science is two-fold: being able to measure HCF’s in the middle atmosphere by satellite spectroscopy; and bamboozling a bureaucrat and the public to get the money.

-30-

A Linney Christmas

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Dec 24

RE: Don’t be a Scrooge this Christmas. OP-ed by Grrant Linney. The Hamilton Spectator 14 Dec 24

Grant Linney may think “A Christmas Carol” is the movie of the Christmas season, but for me the ultimate Christmas movie is “Die Hard.”  But what’s a secular grinch to do this Christmas season except to turn the customs of this time to political use?

Grinch, er, Linney complains of the richest one percent being too rich; he falsely claims that the oil and gas industry received $7 Trillion in subsides (Oh, I’m sure he can quote a source for this, but it remains fanciful accounting nevertheless); and oil & gas are to be censured again for daring to lobby on behalf of the industry. He complains of Canadian banks for their association with the oil and gas industry. (Are we noticing a pattern here?) The Federal Conservative party is to be censured for opposing a worthless carbon tax, fossil fuels having fanned the forest fires that caused the evacuation of Yellowknife.

But we can atone for our sins by following Linney’s example of goat-giving. The giving of goats as gifts, to third world children.

You’re all bad people, you understand? Especially, if, like me, you prefer Bruce Willis to Alastair Sim as your Christmas hero. Don’t acquire; give to people you don’t know; suffer; remorse; reduce your carbon footprint, and be miserable, for there’s and O&G executive having dinner with a banker somewhere and laughing it up on the strength of a $7 Trillion handout.

-30-

Rejoice: She’s lost hope!

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Dec 24

RE: Feeling hopeless about the climate emergency? Op-ed by Tricia Clarson a “Climate Change Columnist” The Hamilton Spectator 13 Dec 24.

Tricia Clarkson has lost hope that rising CO2 emissions will ever be reduced in time to meet 2030 targets. Her groan was occasioned by the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, and “Sadly, Trump will be the only president in the world that has declared climate change a hoax.”

This may technically be true, as neither Presidents Xi of China nor Putin of Russia has said as much; nor has Prime Minister Modi of India, but those three countries collectively are responsible for over 50 percent of global CO2 emissions, and those leaders act like it’s a hoax. The United States is responsible for only 14 percent, and Canada only 1.5 percent.

Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laurate in Physics, offers hope.  He declared in his keynote address at the Quantum Korea 2023 Conference, “There is no climate crisis, and climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” Clauser has also said, after examining the climate models, that he was appalled at the poor quality of the science that went into them.

Clarkson sighs over nothing. Climate change is a hoax; the 2030 targets are nonsense; and even if they aren’t there’s absolutely nothing Canada and the United States can do about rising CO2 emissions.

-30-

Low carbon fuelishness

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Dec 24

RE: B.C. refinery creates low carbon jet fuel. By Chuck Chiang, The Canadian Press.  The Hamilton Spectator 12 Dec 24.

If you used the term, ”bio-diesel” or “methyl oleate” you’d get a ho-hum reaction; but use “low-carbon jet fuel” and you create a sensation.  Low carbon jet fuel: what a great idea!

The expression “low-carbon” is a sales gimmick, as there is no standard for saying that a liquid hydrocarbon is “low” or “high” in carbon.  What makes the molecules of these fuels different from the molecules of ordinary jet fuel is the presence of oxygen in them.  Already one can see the folly in the “low carbon” claim: the hydrocarbons in these being already partially oxidized, it means you must burn more of it to get the same amount of energy as from burning a non-partially oxidize molecule.  You can’t beat thermodynamics.

If the B.C. refinery can make lots of money selling their “low carbon” jet fuel: good on them, for they’re putting one over on the gullible. Noteworthy is that the refinery is calling on the Federal government for a subsidy to make more of their product.

-30-