Weekly ESG clippings #54 - hot models, hot Sun, drought, cold ESG, climatism rules, environmentalist death, splintering EU, EV danger

 

SCIENCE

Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers "It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high."

Our take: When a research paper says "All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally" then it means there is a false assumption baked into the models. In this case it is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) that has been the subject of much debate because it is so often inflated. If your model assumes the CO2 has a strong effect while observations of the real world do not, what do you do? In many cases we have seen the historical data record being modified to make the past cooler and the present warmer, thus twisting the data to fit the failed models. But this does not serve to benefit society since it creates lies about an issue that is consuming trillions of dollars of wealth that could be put to better use. Lies don't pay off, eventually the truth wins.

How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present "To recapitulate, we have seen that the changes caused by the Sun on the surface have inverse dynamic patterns to those of the stratosphere, which is the same fingerprint at CO2-driven warming. We have seen that the Sun causes temperature changes in the ocean far greater than expected, and that it influences ENSO, a major global climate phenomenon. We have seen that the Sun regulates the strength of the polar vortex, which affects the frequency of very cold winters in much of the Northern Hemisphere, and we have seen that it alters the rotation of the planet. None of this can be explained by a 0.1% change in the energy reaching the planet’s surface from solar minimum to solar maximum. There is something else. Something that has been studied since 1987 that can explain these effects. The IPCC knows about it and mentions it in its 5th report, but is unwilling or unable to understand its global significance."

Our take: you would think the power of the Sun to influence climate cycles on Earth would be obvious, but when you are determined to prove man-made carbon dioxide is the only cause you must close your mind to other possibilities and find ways to exclude them. Eventually the truth will be clear, but how much damage to humanity will be done before then, and do you think the carbon dioxide alarmists will accept responsibility for the suffering they caused?

What the IPCC Says about Drought The image below, a screenshot from the IPCC AR6, is worth looking at closely. It shows:

"Low confidence (2 in 10) in detection of changes in drought across the U.S., with the exception of increasing “agricultural and economical drought” in Western North America at medium confidence (5 in 10).

"No ability to express any confidence in how drought may change from a 1995 to 2014 baseline under future temperature changes of >1.5C from that baseline (Note: a 1.5C change from that recent baseline is about the same as a 2.5C change from preindustrial, which is similar to a “current policies” baseline and well below a SSP2-4.5 scenario).

"In fact, the IPCC has not achieved detection of trends in drought anywhere in the world at a level consistent with the IPCC’s threshold for detection (i.e., at least very high confidence or 9 in 10). The IPCC has detected an increase in hydrological drought in the Mediterranean and North East South America with high confidence (8 in 10) but has, respectively, only medium confidence and low confidence in attribution in those two regions (5 in 10 and 2 in 10).

Our take: this discussion of drought is just one more of the many human impact indicators the IPCC is searching for and not finding. It's amazing how great is the gap between the IPCC science reports and their Summary For Policymakers, and then the media hype and political alarmism.

INVESTMENT/ECONOMICS

Business school teaching case study: Unilever chief signals rethink on ESG "The change in approach is not limited to regulatory compliance and corporate reporting; it also affects consumer communications. While Jope believed that brands sold more when “guided by a purpose”, Schumacher argues that “we don’t want to force fit [purpose] on brands unnecessarily”.

"His more nuanced view aligns with evidence that consumers’ responses to the sustainability and purpose communication attached to brand names depend on two key variables: the type of industry in which the brand operates; and the specific aspect of sustainability being communicated."

"Among investors, too, “anti-purpose” and “anti-ESG” sentiment is growing. One (unnamed) leading bond fund manager even suggested to the FT that “ESG will be dead in five years”.

"Yet some executives feel under pressure to take a stand on environmental and social issues — in many cases believing they are morally obliged to do so or through a desire to improve their own reputations. This pressure may lead to a conflict with shareholders if sustainability becomes a promotional tool for managers, or for their personal social responsibility agenda, rather than creating business value."

"Alison Taylor, at NYU Stern School of Business, recently described Unilever’s old materiality map — a visual representation of how companies assess which social and environmental factors matter most to them — to Sustainability magazine. She depicted it as an example of “baggy, vague, overambitious goals and self-aggrandising commitments that make little sense and falsely suggest a mayonnaise and soap company can solve intractable societal problems”."

"In contrast, the “realism” approach of Schumacher is being promulgated as both more honest and more feasible. Former investment banker Alex Edmans, at London Business School, has coined the term “rational sustainability” to describe an approach that integrates financial principles into decision-making, and avoids using sustainability primarily for enhancing social image and reputation. Such “rational sustainability” encompasses any business activity that creates long-term value — including product innovation, productivity enhancements, or corporate culture initiatives, regardless of whether they fall under the traditional ESG framework."

Our take: this gets to the heart of the purpose of this blog, to illustrate to Canadian investment managers that they are wrong to swallow the ESG ideology unchallenged and then stake their reputation on it. In the case of the Canadian mutual fund company we follow most closely on this, they have positioned ESG as a core element across every one of their investment management teams, as if ESG is some magic discovery that was previously ignored by thinking people, and which will now make everything better, including investment results, and will save the world through Net Zero. Absurd on the face of it, but so many have hopped on the bandwagon and have not yet seen it is headed for a cliff that risks severe harm to their reputation because it is harmful to humanity.

How EPA's power plant rule will destroy our grid - "EPA's rule is literally the single greatest threat to our grid in the history of electricity, since it would ban up to 1/6 of our reliable power and prevent replacements amid an electricity."

1. Our grid is in crisis

2. EV + AI demand will make things far worse

3. EPA’s rule will shut down almost all our coal plants and prevent new natural gas replacement plants

4. Unreliable solar and wind can't make up the difference

Our take: the same thing is happening in most of the free countries, to the degree climate alarmism is entrenched and used as a rationale to force wind and solar onto the grid. Meanwhile, China and India are building fossil fuel and nuclear power plants faster than any country ever has. How much damage will be done before policymakers awake to the suicidal aspect of committing to intermittent, unreliable and expensive wind and solar electricity?

Environmentalism In America Is Dead - It has been replaced by climatism and renewable energy fetishism. "As I reported last year in “The Anti-Industry Industry,” the top 25 climate nonprofits are spending some $4.5 billion per year."

"Just for a moment, imagine what Podesta’s group, or the  Sierra Club, would be saying if those scalawags from the oil industry were planning to put hundreds of offshore platforms in the middle of whale habitat."

"The punchline here is obvious: it’s time to discard the shopworn label of “environmentalism.” The NGOs discussed above, and others like them, are not environmental groups. Their response to the specter of catastrophic climate change will require wrecking our rural landscapes, the killing of untold numbers of bats, birds, and insects, and industrializing our oceans with large-scale alt-energy projects.

"America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them."

Our take: the last sentence is the key. What we need is a morality that values human life as the primary, and seeks to create the best environment for human life, instead of seeking some idyllic environment un-impacted by humanity.

‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice "Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growing of the genetically modified (GM) crop Golden Rice in the Philippines could have catastrophic consequences. Tens of thousands of children could die in the wake of the ruling, they argue."

"But campaigns by Greenpeace and local farmers last month persuaded the country’s court of appeal to overturn that approval and to revoke this. The groups had argued that Golden Rice had not been shown to be safe and the claim was backed by the court, a decision that was hailed as “a monumental win” by Greenpeace."

“The court’s decision is a catastrophe,” said Professor Matin Qaim, of Bonn University, and a member of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, which promotes the introduction of the crop. “It goes completely against the science, which has found no evidence of any risk associated with Golden Rice, and will result in thousands and thousands of children dying.”

"Vitamin A is found in most foods in the west but in developing countries it is conspicuously lacking in diets, a deficiency that “is associated with significant morbidity and mortality from common childhood infections, and is the world’s leading preventable cause of childhood blindness,” according to the World Health Organization. Estimates suggest it causes the deaths of more than 100,000 children a year."

"Countries including America, Australia and New Zealand have ruled Golden Rice is safe. Yet three decades after its development it has still to be grown commercially – thanks to the green movement’s vociferous opposition to the growing of any GM crop, regardless of any potential benefit it might possess."

Our take: this type of story is always revealing of the true morality of the environmentalist movement. They want nature to be un-impacted by humans, in this case genetically improved rice, and to heck with the human lives lost in pursuit of their ideology.

Apart at the Seams - Will green energy myopia be the undoing of the European Union? "While it might be comforting to propagate the interpretation with tiresome “left/right” name-calling, we believe there is a deeper, underreported tension that puts the European Union (EU) at risk of disintegrating: the so-called green energy agenda is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. There is no denying that a shift away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy necessitates deep cuts in standards of living, lower standards of living are unpopular, and democratic elections are popularity contests. Unable to achieve popular support for proactive energy martyrdom, the ruling class turns to force, which only drives down their popularity further. 

"Arising from this set of circumstances is populism—it’s right there in the name, after all—and no amount of data massaging, propagandizing, and mud-slinging can break the link between physics and economics. The sooner Europe gets its energy policy right, the quicker it can stabilize its various political crises."

Our take: when you inject a deeply irrational and anti-human ideology such as ESG into a society it must create friction between the people pushing the ideology and those who oppose it or whose lives are damaged by it (almost everyone). It sets neighbour against neighbour, group against group, political cronies against other cronies and leads to a war of everyone against everyone. Will the EU dissolve over this?

Katherine Brodsky: Owning an electric vehicle is madness and I regret ever buying one "The problem is that while the government is pushing for EVs to dominate the market, it avoids a simple reality: EVs are currently only feasible for those who have financial resources. The cost of charging is often on par with filling a gas tank, but takes significantly longer — that is, if you even manage to find an available charger nearby. So, for most people, charging at home is the practical option. But when you’ve got stratas that can cut off their residents at any moment, this becomes an option only for those who own their own homes, or have moved into condos with sufficient charging infrastructure."

Our take: this story only identifies a small part of the problems with EVs, but is is one of the problems very close to home for the EV owners.

Electric vehicles twice as likely to hit pedestrians, research shows - Electric cars were also three times more dangerous than gas-powered vehicles in the city. Here is the original study "Electric cars were not more dangerous in the countryside, but “strong evidence” suggested they were three times more dangerous than ICE vehicles in the city."

Our take: bet ya didn't see that one coming!

ABSURDITIES

Turns Out Those ‘All-Electric’ ‘Zero Emissions’ Fire Trucks Have Diesel Engines 'When the first Pierce Volterra Electric Fire Truck rolled out in Madison, Wisconsin, the vehicle was repeatedly called “all electric” or “zero emissions.” You had to listen eight minutes into the presentation to get to the part where a fire chief admits there’s an internal combustion engine for pumping water on a fire."

"The new fire trucks come with a hefty price tag – 40% to 50% more than a comparable diesel fire truck. or example, the New Mexico hybrid fire truck that has been ordered costs the local government $1.8 million with $400,000 coming from a federal grant." 

Our take: could the irony be any stronger? Bragging about firetrucks with super-expensive electric engines that have diesel pumps for the most important function of the vehicle - fighting fires - and claiming climate salvation is at hand? How much of their brains did they have to shut down to make this decision?

Pete Buttigieg Explains Biden's $7.5 Billion EV Charger Boondoggle "The Federal Highway Department says only 7 or 8 charging stations have been built despite having a $7.5 billion investment that taxpayers made back in 2021."

Our take: government trying to run a business and costs are impossibly high while nothing gets done - is anyone truly surprised?