The media and government are portraying a tragic tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that eliminating fossil fuels will save us from—even though there is no tornado trend, and we have achieved unprecedented safety from climate thanks to fossil fuels.
THREAD
Is the recent, deadly tornado in Kentucky a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster? The only scientific way to answer this question is to look for long-term trends in dangers from storms and other climate disasters. And if we do, we find that storm deaths are declining.
Has global warming been causing a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity? Here's the data for the continental US, the most tornado-prone area on the planet, since the advent of comprehensive doppler-radar. There is no trend in tornado frequency or intensity.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms the lack of a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity: "In the United States... The mean annual number of tornadoes has remained relatively constant"
The tragically high death toll from the Kentucky tornado was due, not to some disastrous trend in tornadoes, but to specific factors such as the high population density of the region hit and the fact that it was nighttime (when people are less inclined to grasp the full danger).
Fossil fuels have made us far safer from storms and other climate disasters by providing the low-cost, reliable energy we need to build and power sturdy buildings, warning systems, evacuation vehicles, etc.
Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century.
Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions *have* contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today's.
As we get safer from climate thanks in large part to fossil fuels, we also become better at protecting property from disasters like tornadoes. That said, impactful tornadoes happen irregularly. 2021 seems to be one such outlier year. Not part of a trend.
Instead of acknowledging the non-trend in tornadoes and the decline in climate danger, the media and government are denying them. Our FEMA director says, "This is going to be our new normal and the effects that we’re seeing from climate change are the crisis of our generation.”
Why do the media and Administration portray a climate that fossil fuels have made safer than ever as a catastrophe? Because they hold the anti-scientific, anti-human dogma that human impact on Earth, including climate, is intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
We can see a bias against human impact in Biden’s post-tornado claim that “everything is more intense when the climate is warming.” Actually, warming often makes life better—e.g., preventing cold-related deaths, which far exceed heat-related deaths.
Our society's bias against human impact is revealed by the fact that in the 1970s, when the media were warning of human-caused global cooling, they assumed that it would also make all kinds of climate dangers worse—including tornadoes.
The truth about safety from climate is that it is overwhelmingly determined by our ability to master climate, not the exact state of the global climate system. This is why Americans, using low-cost, reliable energy, can thrive in every climate—from polar Alaska to swampy Florida.
The media and administration are putting forward the false narrative of a fossil fueled climate catastrophe to justify fossil fuel elimination policies such as “Build Back Better.” But in reality the world needs far more fossil fuel.
Billions of people desperately need low-cost, reliable energy, which for the foreseeable future largely needs to come from fossil fuels. 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking.
Solar and wind can't come close to replacing fossil fuels. They only provide electricity (20% of energy use)--and they don't even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don't replace reliable power plants--they add to the cost of reliable power plants.
Poverty is still rampant around the world. Poverty is due to lack of productivity. Productivity requires low-cost, reliable energy.
The world needs far more energy, which means more fossil fuel. This matters far more than whether the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is .03% or .05%.
The media and Administration are engaging in deadly pseudoscience by portraying the tragic Kentucky tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that requires eliminating fossil fuels. More fossil fuel is needed so that everyone can live in an abundant, safe world.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The "Build Back Better" legislation you are considering will be an unmitigated disaster for the West Virginia energy industry and economy.
No handful of compromises will change this.
Any vote other than no will do irreparable damage to your state.
THREAD
As an energy expert and concerned citizen, I am writing you because I believe you are our greatest hope of stopping the worst energy legislation in US history, which will especially harm your state of West Virginia: the “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill.
According to press reports and insiders, you are in active negotiations to change or remove several provisions of BBB that you are concerned will be particularly harmful to West Virginia. But no compromise is possible, because BBB is through-and-through destructive to your state.
Today, 12/7, is the deadline you gave natural gas CEOs to respond to your letter blaming them for rising natural gas prices—which you are in fact to blame for.
Here’s how proud gas CEOs would answer you if they were not afraid of your political wrath.
👇
Dear Senator Warren,
In your letter you claim “concern about rising natural gas prices,” which you attribute to my and other “energy companies’ corporate greed.”
But if you want to avoid unnecessarily high gas prices, you must recognize that they are your fault, not ours.
There are three basic facts that explain unnecessarily high natural gas prices: 1. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “greed.” 2. America has an effectively unlimited supply of gas. 3. You and other anti-gas politicians have artificially restricted the supply of gas.
Anti-fossil fuel politicians are in a bind: they want the *prestige* that comes with their decades of opposing the production/transport of fossil fuels, but they do not want the *results*: voters angry about rising rising fuel prices.
Do not forget their track record.
THREAD
Joe Biden, who now claims to be concerned about fossil fuel shortages and rising prices, in 2019 said: "I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.“
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who now claims to be concerned about fossil fuel shortages and rising prices, in 2016 said in 2016: We ought to be doing everything we possible can to keep fossil fuel energy in the ground.”
I highly recommend the latest article by @DoombergT, which does an excellent job debunking "RethinkX"--one of the leading crackpot "plans" to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, and batteries.
One great point in @Doomberg's debunking of "RethinkX" that applies to all solar fantasies is: "it is based on a fatally flawed assumption about why solar capital costs *had* been decreasing over much of the past decade (as we’ll see shortly, solar costs are going up in 2021"
China "leveraged cheap labor, had minimal environmental restrictions ...blatantly stole intellectual property...poured tens of billions of illegal subsides into the industry...used ready access to cheap coal None of this has anything to do with S-curves and innovation" @DoombergT
@Starbucks, an advocate of disastrous “net zero” and "100% renewable" policies, positions itself as proof that these policies can work.
In fact, Starbucks’ stores, supply chain, and rapid expansion in China are mostly powered by fossil fuels.🧵
Starbucks is a major supporter of “net zero” and “100% renewable” policies. They are a founding member of the “Transform to Net Zero Initiative,” which pushes businesses and government to rapidly eliminate the fossil fuels that today provide 80% of the world’s energy.
To help justify its support of “net zero” and “100% renewable,” Starbucks portrays itself as well on its way toward these goals, with stores that are already powered by solar and wind energy.
I had experience today that I believe showcases how universities can and should foster the open discussion of ideas.
I spoke to Prof @RogerPielkeJr’s “Energy, Policy and Society” class about the future of fossil fuels.
Here are 4 things that impressed me about Roger’s class.
🧵
1. Expressing strong challenges and disagreements with politeness.
I was impressed by the fact that whatever the level of a given student’s (or Roger’s) apparent agreement or disagreement with me, they expressed themselves with politeness and nothing resembling personal attacks.
2. Understanding someone’s views before challenging them.
I was impressed by the several students who challenged me *based on an accurate portrayal of my views*.
This is in wonderful contrast to the “straw-manning” of controversial views that often occurs on campuses.