- The New York Times warns us that “Home Insurance Rates in America Are Wildly Distorted. Here’s Why. Climate change is driving rates higher, but not always in areas with the greatest risk.” Well, either that or people who do risk for a living understand it better than people who do gotcha for a living. Even, in this case, one with a “BA (Hon.), Politics” and a “Master of International Affairs, Public policy and journalism” and another with “a dual degree in international relations and studio art from Carleton College and a masters in design from Pratt Institute.”
- Some nasty industrial pollution washed up on the beaches of Nantucket following the failure of what dirty obsolete form of energy? Why, wind turbines. The Boston Herald reports that “All beaches on the island reopened to swimming on Wednesday after lifeguards and workers removed truckloads of debris. Southern-facing beaches had to shut down Tuesday as crews cleaned up the mess.” Truckloads. And all just from one blade. Or rather, a small part of one. Despite which the company’s operations were entirely shut down. Good thing these monstrosities aren’t all over the place with people counting on them for power, isn’t it? (P.S. Another big piece fell off Thursday so this is a, well, breaking story. Including the bit where local authorities are now suing the company.)
- The law of unintended consequences strikes again: the New York Times warns of soaring metal theft, especially copper, saying “Metal theft has been an urban plague for decades, often rising alongside commodity prices. But the combination of the economic ills and social malaise lingering since the pandemic and soaring demand for metals, especially for copper, has brought this street crime to new levels.” It creates public safety hazards and even desecration of cemeteries. And as the piece finally blurts out: “The thefts come amid a feverish demand for copper and other metals. Copper, in particular, is at the heart of the evolving economy – a key component of battery-powered cars, modern electrical grids and the giant new data centers powering artificial intelligence and other technology.” And indeed as the National Post reported, “World would need 55 per cent more copper mines to meet EV transition goals: study”. Oops. Didn’t see that one coming, huh?
- We ask again in genuine bafflement how the usual suspects can keep saying things like the New York Times “Climate Forward” pronouncement that “June was the Earth’s 13th consecutive month to break a global heat record and more than a third of Americans are facing dangerous levels of heat” or NOAA’s recent “The global climate summary for June is out and June 2024 was the warmest June on record for the globe in NOAA's 175-year record. It was also the 13th month in a row of record-hot temperatures, tying the previous record.” As Climate Realists observed in reXing it, NOAA has no thermometer readings for most of the planet 175 years ago, and mostly not even 100, so they’re making it up. But if the entire world is experiencing record heat, why are so many places having normal or even cooler than normal temperatures? Does “globe” not mean what we think it means?
- Of course it’s different inside the fishbowl. For instance here are the headlines from just one day’s email teaser (July 15, 2024) to the insider Canadian publication The Hill Times: “Disaster management must include ways to tackle gender-based violence”; “Canada’s discourse on finfish aquaculture is environmental extremism at its finest”; “Deadly Hurricane Beryl a stark reminder of the need to confront climate change, says Saint Kitts and Nevis envoy”; “Oilsands alliance can’t handle the truth” and “Nuclear a dirty, dangerous distraction”. They really do live in a different world.
- From the “no duh” department, Scientific American somehow thinks it newsworthy that “Geoengineering the Climate Could Pose a New Risk to the Planet, U.N. Fears”. Given the pernicious babble that habitually emanates from that body, we are still tempted to be somewhat encouraged that “A new U.N. Environment Program report focuses on geoengineering’s potential dangers to the planet, from disease to unlivable places”. Except since they also apparently think another 0.3°C would produce the same sort of disaster, their judgement as to what causes diseases to spread into places no human can live isn’t very dependable.
- One significant problem with climate panic is that it doesn’t just force expensive and often disastrous policies on vast swaths of humanity, it also diverts attention, effort, time and money away from other real environmental problems. And to strike a positive note, when the latter are taken seriously, results not short of miraculous can occur. For instance who, on the first Earth Day in 1970, would have believed that half a century later a headline would proclaim “Lake Erie has just been named the best lake in the U.S. and it’s a diving hotspot/ This Great Lake is tops in the nation, according to USA Today”. But it did.
- From the “it’s harder than you think” file, some chirpy writer with WhoWhatWhy explains “How to Refute Climate Change Deniers” and says “Might be easier than you think” because “temperatures hit record highs month after month and the seas boil”. Whereas if people go and look at the ocean and it’s not boiling they might decide you’re a simpleton who has never, in fact, changed anyone’s mind with your patronizing clichés but is too self-absorbed to notice.
See Comments 
Tidbits
24 Jul 2024 | News Roundup
The Attribution Science experts all crowed about how climate change made some aspect of Hurricane Beryl 50 times more likely (timing or some region or its strength). Where is the “analysis “ about the likelihood that there hasn’t been a hurricane since? What are the chances of that?
I spent a week vacationing at the beach two weeks ago. I didn’t boogie board once because the water was too cold. So, 72degF is boiling?
"Some nasty industrial pollution washed up on the beaches of Nantucket following the failure of what dirty obsolete form of energy? Why, wind turbines. "
I was going to write a comment here on this subject, but remembered I'd already done so on Robert Bryces' recent substack which has garnered quite a few likes, so I'll just give you the link:
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/breaking-wind/comment/62882816
Hint - it does bring into question the overall desirability of wind power.
Home insurance IS increasing. And it IS because of climate change. But not because the climate is changing and driving up the risk of damage to property. It’s because insurers are seeing a rise in absolute costs due to more properties becoming a bigger target for weather events. In principle, bigger cities mean more risk of damage somewhere — but also more insurance premiums. The costs for damage should be rising (roughly) proportionately to premiums.
But, when almost every politician and climate activist is telling the world that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change, it presents a great opportunity to point to the rise in absolute costs and use that “fact” to justify jacking up premiums.
NOAA not only doesn’t have the capacity to measure the world’s temperature 175 years ago or 100 years ago, they do not have the capability to measure it’s temperature for the last 13 months either. To do so they would have to have the capacity to take the temperature of every spot on earth, including the entire air over the surface of all bodies of water, all at EXACTLY the same time, which is essentially impossible. Alternatively, they could take the temperature at RANDOMLY selected points, the number sufficient to provide a suitable probability that all localized weather and terrain are adequately represented, again all at the same time with certified measuring instruments. This has never been done, but could be achieved at great expense, but no effort has been made to accomplish it, likely since 2/3ds of the spots would be in random ocean locations. The measurements NOAA does collect are not random and so cannot adequately measure the temps (as well as being thoroughly corrupted by urbanization).