Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather

sunshine hours

Cold Kills

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.

Around 7.71% of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around 3% in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11% in China, Italy, and Japan. Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29% of all deaths), while just 0.42% of all deaths were attributable to heat.

The study also found that extreme temperatures were responsible for less than 1% of all deaths, while mildly sub-optimal temperatures accounted for around 7% of all deaths — with most (6.66% of all deaths) related to moderate cold.

View original post


2018 Update: Best Climate Model INMCM5

Science Matters

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hindcasting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century, in contrast to the other models programmed for future warming five times the past.

In a recent comment thread, someone asked what has been done recently with that model, given that it appears to be “best of breed.” So I went looking and this post summarizes further work to produce a new, hopefully improved version by the modelers at the Institute of Numerical Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

A previous post a year ago went into the details of improvements made in producing the latest iteration INMCM5 for entry into the CMIP6 project.  That text is reprinted below.  Now we have some initial and promising results Simulation of…

View original post 3,354 more words

Electri-Fried Ford Fusion

From Watts Up With That:

Andy May / October 21, 2018

Guest Post by Renee Hannon

My dad is an off-the-grid kind of guy and the cost of his lifestyle choice is usually secondary. He was one of the first in Delaware to install a solar hot water heater on his roof in the early 1970s. During the past decades a gorgeous oak tree grew tall and shaded his solar panels. But that’s OK because the oak tree brought birds, squirrels and other wildlife near his deck for countless hours of viewing pleasure. So, in a
sunny spot he put solar panels on the garage roof plus a new free-standing solar panel by the driveway. That free-standing solar panel is big enough to park a car under and, so far, the neighbors haven’t complained. I’m not sure what those solar panels cost but his electric bill is about $5 a month.

Solar panels on garage roof and additional free-standing solar panel.

My dad was also one of the first people to heat and cool his Delaware house with geothermal energy. He drilled three wells about 175 feet deep to tap ‘free’ energy. The upfront costs won’t be paid off for 15 years or more, probably after his funeral. He doesn’t really care about initial investment costs because he’s less dependent on the “grid” or “providers.” And the geothermal energy maintains his house at an even and very comfortable temperature.

Then of course, we have electric cars.   According to my dad, any gasoline price over $1 per gallon is outrageous let alone the fact that vehicle emissions are a pollutant. Although a gallon of gasoline energy is cheaper today than a gallon of water and automobile fuel emissions are stabilizing. His first electric car was the Toyota Prius. He loved that car and bragged about how it cost only $20 to drive from Delaware to Florida. Well, that wasn’t good enough. He saw a 2017 Ford Fusion and within a week he traded in his Prius and bought a new Fusion Platinum energi. EPA-estimated rating quoted by Ford is 104 city/91 hwy/97 combined MPGe. MPGe is the EPA equivalent measure of gasoline fuel efficiency for electric mode
operation. The Fusion’s CO2 emissions are virtually zero.

Photo of the Ford Fusion Platinum Electric Car

Two months later, the Ford Fusion was driven to Florida with minimal luggage since the trunk is about the size of a large laundry basket due to batteries stored there. My mother wouldn’t drive the car because of
all the intimidating electronics, vibrations, beeps and buttons. After a few months in Florida, she finally
drove about 6000 feet to the store and back home.

The charging plug-in is illuminated brilliant blue. It’s a great night light while grilling on the porch in Florida during dusk. Dad is so proud of his electric car. He loves planet Earth, conserving energy and reducing emissions. He’s minimally dependent on the grid with his solar and geothermal energy home and new electric car.

Picture of the cool illuminating charge port.

Things were good when my parents left Florida and headed 1250 miles north to their Delaware home for the
summer. Oh, I need to mention he didn’t have to fill the gasoline tank for five months while in Florida and averaged about 100 miles MPGe.

Once back in Delaware, a thunderstorm came passing through. Not a notable storm, just a typical summer storm. The house was struck by lightning on September 7, 2018. Mom and dad heard a loud crack. They were fine and didn’t think too much of it.

The next couple of days were challenging as they discovered all the damage.  The typical stuff.  They found lots of electrical components blown out that didn’t work. They had to replace the hot water tank, the computer was fried as well as several other electrical items. He had a large deductible on his homeowner’s insurance. I think they were getting close to paying off all the repairs and the insurance deductible. A week after being struck by lightning they thought they were in the clear.

Then dad was driving his beloved Ford Fusion and realized it was not holding a charge and other strange stuff was happening with the electronics. The car had been parked in the detached garage and was plugged into the grid. But wait, wouldn’t you think a modern electric car would be designed with a built-in circuit breaker for electrical storms like this? Guess not! He immediately drove his electric car straight to the Ford dealer and said something was wrong.

That was SIX long weeks ago and no end in sight. Turns out the Fusion had an en-lightning experience and is completely incapacitated. Car insurance doesn’t know how to deal with electric cars that have been struck by lightning. They want pictures. Really? What does an electric car demobilized by lightning look like? Well, the same as an electric car that hasn’t been struck by lightning. Except none of the 2 separate battery compartments work now. It turns out the lightning strike blew out the electrical circuit boards. After weeks of back and forth with the insurance company, things started progressing. Repair work is underway.

My mom thinks this is one of the first Ford electric cars struck by lightning to be repaired.  The dealer and insurance company need to keep calling Ford’s corporate office in Atlanta to find out what to do.  Now the dealer says they need a special circuit board, but there are none available to fix my dad’s Ford Fusion.  After six weeks of ongoing efforts, Ford will not have the circuit board until January 15th……for sure, or so they say.  Wait, the car went into the Dealer’s shop in early September and repairs will take over five months?  Insurance won’t total the car, and nobody knows how much it will cost to repair this modern, energy efficient, low CO2 emissions electric car.  Well, how about trading his car in for another one?  Nope, the Ford dealer can’t find another electric Fusion in the area.  Well, there’s always the old reliable gasoline fueled car as a backup.

Over the past decade, my parents have driven to Florida every November.  Because my Dad is trying to do the environmentally right thing by owning an electric car, he won’t be driving to Florida any time soon.  And it’s all due to a natural event, a lightning strike, which happens about 8 million times a day on planet Earth.

I haven’t told my dad yet, but according to the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report, scientists have a “medium confidence level” of more extreme storms in the northeastern U.S. due to human causes despite my dad’s most sincere efforts. I didn’t ask my dad, but I have a “very high confidence level” that while the IPCC report mandates carbon emissions must be cut by 45% during the next 12 years and shifts to electric transport systems are essential; nobody from the IPCC has contacted
him about his electri-fried Fusion.

Did I mention my parents found four dead squirrels in that old oak tree the day after the lightning strike?


Interesting comment thread (here on WUWT) with references to Teslas hit by lightning.  –Hifast

The Hidden Cost Of Wind Power – Booker


By Paul Homewood

Booker on the cost of wind power today:


In the past year or two there has been an extraordinary attempt by ministers, the renewables industry and green pressure groups to convince us that electricity from wind and the sun is now cheaper than that from fossil fuels. This issue has come up yet again with the refusal of the BBC to uphold a complaint from the Global Warming Policy Foundation about remarks made by Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), chairman of the Climate Change Committee, in an interview by John Humphrys on Today on Radio 4.

Although the BBC upheld one part of the complaint, it rejected another against Deben’s claim that onshore wind is now “the cheapest form of producing electricity”. It came up with Government figures to show that onshore wind is now marginally cheaper than any other power source.

What the BBC and the…

View original post 134 more words

Methods and Tricks Used to Create and Perpetuate the Human-caused Global Warming Deception

From Watts Up With That:

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

These opening comments will trigger knee-jerk responses from proponents of the human-caused global warming deception. Just saying President Trump is sufficient to trigger them. However, when I add that he handled the Lesley Stahl CBS interview well, the comments will appear without them reading any further. Poke them, and they blindly respond triggered by the tunnel-vision of political ideology and the source of their funding.

This article is a response to an interesting experience involving an article I wrote for WUWT. As most readers know, I rarely reply to comments and almost never go back to read my earlier articles. While preparing to produce another article I needed to confirm something from one of these articles. I was astonished to read that in response to a complaint from two researchers Anthony added a foreword to the article.

It is Anthony’s website, and he is entitled to control it however he chooses. Over the years there were several cases when he questioned, challenged, ask for a revision, or simply would not publish a comment. However, we always worked these out to our mutual satisfaction. One of the things I did to offset many of Anthony’s concerns was to place the qualifier “Guest Opinion” after each headline. Again, I am not challenging Anthony’s right to add the qualifier to the article in question. My concern is what triggered his action. I immediately recognized the technique used by the perpetrators and believe that everyone should understand what was done. Problems are only problems if you are unaware of them. That is also true about biases.

I am more than qualified to speak about this topic after 40 years of dealing with all types of media and people on all sides of an issue in a variety of formats from all over the world. Besides this university of the real world, I took courses in communication and media as part of officer training in the military and continued as a student and practitioner ever since. Clear patterns emerge, a few of which I discuss here, however, the overall pattern is that the mainstream media was unchanged for at least 236 years. It was and remains a vehicle for the power elite, as William Cowper’s 1782 poem The Progress of Error reveals.


How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,

The God of our idolatry, the press?

By thee, religion, liberty and laws

Exert their influence and advance their cause;

By thee worse plagues than Pharaoh’s land befell,

Diffused, make Earth the vestibule of Hell:

Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;

Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;

Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee!

What changed was the advent of the Internet that bypassed the mainstream media and gave ordinary citizens access to more information than many governments had in the past. It meant that people using the Internet developed the methods and tricks of the mainstream media. Change the word “press” in Cowper’s poem to the Internet, and you see what I mean.

I was part of a group gathered in Washington in November 2015 to talk about policy for climate and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during a Trump Presidency. The consensus was that he should avoid making decisions based on bad science. It is bad science, but at least 80% of the public don’t understand any science; therefore, they cannot identify bad science. In addition, no matter how much you prepare, somebody will ask a question you can’t answer, and it only needs one. Instead, he should exit the Paris Climate Agreement because it is a bad deal and fits his main theme of improving or expunging them.

As the media loses its power and control over the information the people access most, they chose to become aggressive, uncivil, devious, and biased. I experienced it as they changed. It is telling that the FOX news slogan is “Fair and Balanced.” They did it because the competition was no longer fair and balanced. Of course, FOX only pays lip service to the idea by having a few token liberals in what are, from my observations, contrived and stupid.

The technique of mainstream media interviews was on full display in the Stahl interview. The interviewer begins by establishing a false premise, with a false fact, or a quote from a person who doesn’t know the subject. Stahl did it with the information about Greenland ice chunks breaking off and raising sea level. It is a technique used throughout the environmental and the human-caused global warming hysteria.

For example, Paul Ehrlich already established the false premise of overpopulation in his 1968 book The Population Bomb. In 1977, he followed it up in a book, “Ecoscience,” co-authored with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor with proposals for mitigating the false problem. One proposal said,

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

That sounds reasonable on the face of it. However, you understand the deception when you ask questions that expose the technique.

  • Who concluded that such laws were sustainable?
  • Who decides there is a population crisis?
  • Who decides when it endangers society.

In each case, the answer is, they do.

Maurice Strong and the creators of Agenda 21 introduced a similar technique when listing the Principles for that global policy document. It incorporated the most popular justification for action by environmentalists, namely the precautionary principle. If the facts are not available, then argue that we should act ‘just in case.’ Here it is as Principle 15.

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Again, it sounds reasonable, especially to the casual reader. The questions are

  • Who decides the environment needs ‘protecting?
  • Who decides how to protect the environment?
  • Who decides which States are capable?
  • Who decides the level of capability?
  • Who decides what are “serious threats”?
  • Who decides when the damage is approaching an ability to reverse it?
  • Who decides what is an appropriate level of “scientific certainty”?
  • Who decides what “cost-effective” measures are?

Again, the answer is they do.

I quickly learned that the first thing you must do is question the false premise. This brings me to the issue that triggered this article. I went back to an article on the need to address the motive behind the AGW deception. I argued that once you get the public accepting that the idea that science was corrupted to produce a predetermined outcome. This involved narrowing the science through definitions and limitations of variables to a focus on CO2. After they accept these ideas, the next logical question is to ask about the motive? I pointed out in the article that in many recent media interviews this was one of the first questions.

Anybody who reads the comments about articles on WUWT knows the pattern of responses and the core of people and their positions. I know the comments that topics will elicit. The most predictable responses are whenever the question of motive is raised. The perpetrators and ongoing supporters of the AGW deception used it to push a socialist agenda.

The complaint from the two people appeared as an article titled “A big goose-step backward” and was referenced by Anthony at the beginning of my original article. I will not repeat their names, suffice to comment on the obvious bias because of their positions and funding, identified by several people in their comments. As Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” (I know it is sexist as stated but still applicable to all with salaries).

Their complaint was about the use of the word denier to describe those who questioned the IPCC science. It was in the context of the change from global warming skeptics to climate change deniers. I added, the phrase, with all the holocaust connotations of the word, hence the reference to goose-stepping. They began their complaint with establishing a false and emotional premise designed to marginalize any who might question their charge. They introduced the word “Nazi” followed by the claim I was debasing the entire debate. I never used the word “Nazi.” I referred to the use of the term because I lived through the evolution of the word denier in the climate debate. The term was deliberately and carefully chosen for precisely the connotation I gave it.

To understand the tenor and tone of what went on, consider Michael Mann’s comment in a 2004 email about the RealClimate website,

“…the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about.”

On that website, a 16 December 2004 entry asks,

“Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?”

They provided their answer on 22 December 2004.

We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).

The second sentence is the key to their deceptive practices. They acknowledge that consensus does not apply to science, but then use it because it will deceive the public. And what is the consensus, on which they agree? The scientists at the IPCC agree, therefore there is a consensus.

In the same year, 2004, emails between “Nick” at the Minns/Tyndall Centre, the group involved in handling PR for the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), identified their dilemma. He wrote,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

Swedish alarmist and climate expert on the IPCC, Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

In that year, across the media, the term global warming was replaced by the term climate change, when talking about the work of the IPCC and the threat to the world. However, they didn’t leave it there. Global Warming Skeptics became Climate Change Deniers. Why make that change? The switch from Global Warming was necessary to hide the fact that their theory no longer matched the evidence. It would have been reasonable to simply call those who continued to question the science, Climate Change Skeptics, but they decided not to do that.

The answer to that question involves the nature of another debate on the front page at the time, namely the battles with David Irving, renowned Holocaust denier. He went to trial in 2001 and was sentenced and jailed in 2006. If you are interested, the recreation of the events and entire trial were portrayed in a movie called Denial.”

The motive behind the entire misuse of climate for a political agenda was to create a world government. Maurice Strong made that clear to Elaine Dewar who concluded after five days with him at the UN and hearing him explain his goals that,

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

If you are not convinced that the people at the CRU would connive and manipulate both the science and the people, go and read the leaked emails. On the back of their book, Crutapes” Mosher and Fuller summarized them for you,

  • Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
  • Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
  • Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.

If you don’t think the fight is political with all the accompanying nastiness, lies, and deceits, then ask yourself why, if you accept the theory of AGW you are liberal and informed. However, if you question at all, you are conservative and uninformed, regardless of your actual political views. It is the nature of the left to attack the individual in the vilest ways possible and without any evidence. It is their nature to isolate those who dare to question their orthodoxy.

No, I will not be bullied by those with a political agenda and vested interests. I stand by my comment about the connotations of the use of the phrase holocaust deniers. Besides, I lived through the war in England and know what the Germans did.

Tesla Powerwall Price Hiked 18% to $7,800

We are told that the cost of Li-ion storage batteries is decreasing. Not so with Tesla, which has just increased the price of its 13.5 kWh Powerwall unit plus supporting hardware from $US6,600 ($489/kWh) to $7,800 ($578/kWh). The $100/kWh “holy grail” price considered necessary to support mass deployment of battery storage is obviously still some way off. To follow we have our usual mix – the latest doings of OPEC; natural gas in California; coal in the US, Germany and Finland; nuclear in Japan, Ontario, India, Belgium and Germany; hydro and pot in Canada; 100% renewables in Puerto Rico and Scotland; the Ireland-Wales Greenlink; the UK backs off EVs; car bodies made from carbon fiber batteries and what climate change is going to do to beer.

Greentechmedia: Tesla Hikes Powerwall Prices to Better Reflect ‘Value’

If you looked at Tesla’s Powerwall website earlier this week you might have noticed that the price for “supporting hardware” had quietly ticked up.

That hardware, known as the Gateway, was previously listed at $700. Recently, it climbed to $1,100. Today, Tesla followed up with an official global pricing adjustment for the Powerwall, its famed home energy storage system. In addition to the Gateway increase, the price of the Powerwall itself rose to $6,700 — up $800 from $5,900. The company already increased the Powerwall price once earlier this year, from $5,500 to $5,900. “We occasionally adjust our global pricing to best reflect what we’re offering to customers and the value of our products,” a Tesla spokesperson wrote in a Friday morning email. “The price adjustments made today are the latest example of that.”

Why the Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the 19th century 

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Grand Aletsch Glacier, Switzerland [Image credit: Wikipedia]
It’s not the conclusion some might be expecting…

Analysis of ice cores delivers continuous data for the first time on industrial soot from 1740 to today, reports HeritageDaily.

In the first half of the 19th century, a series of large volcanic eruptions in the tropics led to a temporary global cooling of Earth’s climate.

It was a natural process that caused Alpine glaciers to grow and subsequently recede again during the final phase of the so-called Little Ice Age.

This has now been proven by PSI researchers, on the basis of ice cores.

View original post 283 more words