Climate experts Tom Harris and Bob Carter have written another fine essay - this one examining the battle between two Democratic Senators. Sheldon Whitehouse of seaside Rhode Island is blaming Joe Manchin’s coal producing and using state of West Virginia for causing “dangerous manmade global warming” that Mr. Whitehouse says will cause widespread flooding and destruction in coastal communities.
As Harris and Carter make clear, global warming ended 18 years ago, the alleged connection between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change has been wildly exaggerated, ice packs are not melting, and humans have no control over the natural forces that actually do control sea levels. Senator Manchin, they suggest, should resist Senator Whitehouse’s nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.
Thank you for posting their informative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.
Whitehouse is misguided on sea level rise: seacoasts won’t be flooded due to coal burning
Tom Harris & Bob Carter
It must have taken the patience of Job for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to participate in Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate change tour of the Ocean State on October 10. Whitehouse promised Manchin that he would go to West Virginia to learn about the coal industry if Manchin would come to Rhode Island to view the supposed effects of global warming on sea-level.
It is important to put the concerns of the two senators in perspective.
On the one hand, Manchin is fighting for the survival of West Virginia’s coal sector, his state’s most important industry, the source of 95% of its electricity, and the foundation for thousands of jobs in dozens of communities. The state’s use of abundant, domestically mined coal gives West Virginia the 7th lowest electricity costs in America - at about one-half the price in California, New York, Rhode Island and several other states.
But West Virginia’s coal sector is under siege from increasingly damaging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Those rules have meant total coal production in West Virginia declined 9% between 2012 and 2013, a period during which 17% of the Mountain State’s coal mines closed, and coal employment decreased 6.4% for a loss of 3,457 jobs already. Even before the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan regulations, which Whitehouse promotes, come into force, the EPA and Obama Administration’s “war on coal” has already cost West Virginia billions of dollars.
Senator Manchin, in other words, is concerned about the immediate, real-world impacts of climate change regulations on real people, families and businesses in his state.
Senator Whitehouse has a different perspective and is apparently not concerned about the cost of EPA emission regulations. Rhode Island gets none of its electricity from coal, having chosen less-carbon-intensive natural gas as its preferred source of power.
As a result, the state has the 7th highest electricity prices in the continental United States. The impact of these high prices on hospitals, schools, churches, businesses and families is significant.
The White House, of course, shares Senator Whitehouse’s perspective. Neither seems worried that, under the EPA rules, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” as Obama put it when describing his energy plans as Democratic candidate for president in 2008.
Mr. Whitehouse is, however, worried about the hypothetical future impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired power stations on “global temperatures.” He believes this will cause “dangerous” sea-level rise along Rhode Island’s coast. Mr. Whitehouse does not hide the fact that, because of these beliefs, he sees his mission as “more or less” to put the coal industry out of business.
If it were known with a high degree of probability that dangerous human-caused sea-level rise was right around the corner, then Mr. Manchin might have reason to sacrifice his constituents’ livelihoods to help save Rhode Islanders from being submerged. But this is not the case.
The September 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change states: “Sea-level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea-level continues to increase at its long-term rate of 1 to 2 mm/year [0.04-0.08 inches/year] globally” or four to eight inches over the next century.
As it happens, sea-level rise on the coast of Rhode Island is slightly faster than the global rate about a tenth of an inch per year in Newport, for example or ten inches over the next 100 years. Nonetheless, such a slow rate of rise is relatively easy to adapt to, and certainly not worth ruining West Virginia’s economy on the off-chance that it would make any difference to coastal conditions in Rhode Island.
Bear in mind that sea levels have already risen nearly 400 feet since the end of the last Pleistocene Era ice age some 12,000 years ago.
The conflict between the two senators arises because of Mr. Whitehouse’s outmoded belief that rapid CO2-driven global warming is occurring. This, he believes, will cause accelerated glacial melting, the ocean volume to expand, and global sea-level to rise quickly. That in turn would subject low-lying coastal areas of Rhode Island to increasingly intense peak-tide or storm-surge flooding.
Drastically reducing our CO2 emissions is necessary to avoid this looming crisis, he asserts.
However, every step in Whitehouse’s chain of reasoning is either wrong or misleading and based on computer models that falsely assume rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause rapid global warming. In reality, no global (atmospheric) warming has occurred for the last 18 years, even though CO2 levels have risen 9% during this time.
Neither has there been significant ocean warming since at least 2003. As a consequence, the ocean is not expanding and cannot be causing extra sea-level rise. In fact, the global rate of sea-level rise has actually decreased over the last decade.
The only way the sort of sea-level rise feared by Mr. Whitehouse is possible is if massive quantities of the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps melted. Not only did that not happen even during the two-degree warmer Holocene Optimum, five to nine thousands years ago, but both the Greenland and Antarctic ice fields have been expanding in recent years.
Moreover, rates of modern sea-level change are controlled by the volume of water in the ocean (which is dependant on worldwide volumes of land ice at any given time), by dynamic oceanographic features such as movements in major ocean currents, and by the uplift or subsidence of the solid earth beneath any measuring station. Humans control none of these factors.
Senator Whitehouse should recognize that Rhode Island’s coastal management problems are his own state’s responsibility, not those of West Virginians. As sea-level continues its natural slow rise along Rhode Island’s coast, flooding due to peak tides and storm surges will continue much as it has for the past century. The way to cope with any small increase in the magnitude of these events is to apply and strengthen current strategies that increase coastal resilience.
In his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries, President Obama said, “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment...when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
Senator Whitehouse may still believe this pious dream. However, Senator Manchin must resist the nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (www.ClimateScienceInternational.org). Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.
The Austrian online Kronen Zeitung here has an article about something most German-language media outlets have been too red-faced to report on: The sudden growth in polar sea ice.
The Kronen Zeitung opens with:
A huge growth in ice at the poles has surprised scientists and is casting questions. Is global warming taking a break? [...] For the prophets of climate change the new figures pose questions: “At the poles of Mother Earth, in complete contradiction to prognoses of a complete polar melt, there is an ice growth like one not seen in decades.”
Almost the entire mainstream media has been quiet about this development. So it is refreshing to see that some media are reporting the “good” news that the planet is not warming alarmingly.
Antarctic ice growth “problem for penguins”
The Kronen Zeitung reports that Antarctic sea ice is growing at an average annual rate of 16,500 square kilometers since 2007. The case is pretty much the same for Arctic sea ice, the online Austrian daily reports.
The Kronen Zeitung also writes that the rapidly growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica is a “huge problem” for penguins, who need open water.
“Climate science turned on its head”
Moreover, the Kronen Zeitung mentions the surprise of the National Snow and Ice data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado concerning the growth in the Arctic:
Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder (Colorado) in any case have to admit that instead of a global warming, a global cooling is taking place. [...]
At the moment this development appears to have turned climate science on its head globally.”
The Kronen Zeitung then explains how the climate models have failed in that they predicted the very opposite to happen and that some scientists even desperately claimed that the measurements were wrong.
Max Planck scientists: “colder winters and cooler summers”
To explain what is happening, Kronen Zeitung turned to Professor Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin. Tsonis says there are many factors at play. “Currents, winds, precipitation and foremost the upper and lower water layers.”
At the end of its article, Kronen Zeitung explains how the recent slowdown in overall solar activity may be playing a major role on the climate.
For years few sunspots could be observed. Colder winters and cooler summers could once again be the consequences, Max-Planck scientists say.”
Reported or not, the polar sea ice is there, and it cannot be ignored.
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/15/austrian-daily-reports-huge-ice-growth-surprises-climate-scientists-like-one-not-seen-in-decades/#sthash.bVU563Yc.dpuf
Well done by all three of you and greatly appreciated the efforts all three of you went to shedding some light of fact on a fictional landscape. I was delighted (and a bit shocked) you were able to negotiate the alarmists going first in the presentations. That is usually an iron-clad rule the politically virulent rarely yield. It must have been traumatic for them to have to sit and listen to reality without being able to pull out the usual inventory mantras of sophistic non-sense to obscure facts. The presentations by Dr. Easterbrook, Dr. Morner and you, if compared to the recent travesty of clown science at the Hammer Museum, hopefully clarifies and separates the critical issues to a few more folks. Wonderful!
The debate went very well, because we had real scientists on our side and the best the other side could muster were two professional propagandists and one weak correspondence-school meteorologist. Since our opponents were heavily into the 97% nonsense, I asked where were their 97 PhD scientists to counter the three of us? The audience easily saw through the attempts of the other side to exaggerate their own credentials and support.
I made sure that those supporting Global Warming went first, because they were the proponents, and we were the opponents. That gave us a clear target, not the nebulous nonsense we usually face. And it was not difficult to anticipate what they would say, because none of our opponents were the least bit sophisticated. The first alarmist to speak was Kyle Dittmer, a hydrologist pretending to be a meteorologist. He sounded like the inept scientist he is, never doing more than vaguely addressing the supposed link between man’s CO2 releases and ‘climate change.’ I’m sure that the audience recognized Dittmer’s weakness.
The succeeding presentations from the other alarmists got worse not better. Their former Greenpeace organizer, Ryan Rittenhouse, lectured the audience about “confirmation bias,” suggesting that it was something we were guilty of and he was not. That was ludicrous on the face of it because of his total lack of any scientific credentials. But he was completely convinced of his righteousness because 97% of scientists and peer-reviewed papers agreed with him! Furthermore, Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ had to be correct, because the UN IPCC keeps using it!
Then came the witch Daphne Wysham. Her very first words were a personal attack on Professor Morner that she must have retrieved off the Internet. Then she continued with attacks on Fred Singer, Joe Bast, and the Heartland Institute over Naomi Oreskes’ tobacco allegations and Koch brothers financing. Her only discussion of the actual topic were references to an “unequivocal consensus,” quotes from Skeptical Science, and a harangue about coal-fired power plant ‘carbon pollution’!
Our presentations were far different, because they were filled with the logic and evidence of science. Don Easterbrook spoke first for us and second overall. His very effective technique is to present a great deal of the data that show what is really going on. People instantly realize that they are listening to a professor who surely knows his field very well. Morner sounded a little more eccentric, with his Swedish accent, sense of humor, and concentration on a single topic: seal level. But he was hugely credible too. I batted cleanup and was ready for the sort of nonsense and hatred that Wysham spewed. In fact, all I had to do was to take apart some of her specifics in the three minute rebuttal at the beginning of my remarks and then launch into my prepared text. I went back to prepared remarks to make sure that I did not forget something important in the fifteen minutes we were allotted.
Were we successful? I think that we were very successful. One of the best indications was a compliment from the head librarian who thought that we had been very “educational.” Since that is my entire strategy, it must have worked. But let me be sure to give credit where due. Our opponents were so bad as to help us enormously.
Although we did not have time for questions during the program, I stayed until we had to vacate the room to answer the many good questions that people had. They wanted to discuss the science. The other side slunk away, except for Rittenhouse who was so annoyed that he is still throwing insults our way days later.
Many thanks to Professors Don Easterbrook and Nils Axel Morner for their participation. They both did a great job that made all the difference.
Global Placebo Effect: Windmills, taxes, solar panels - slowed global warming before they were built.
New Global Placebo Effect (GPE) announced by Baroness Verma in the UK.
It’s a scientific breakthrough. Global warming may be stopped by the mere thought of trying to reduce CO2, even if that thought fails to bring down actual CO2 levels.
The central dilemma: CO2 levels have been rising “faster than expected” for the last twenty years, yet global warming has been rising “slower than expected” for almost as long.
Matt Ridley was questioning Baroness Sandip Verma at the House of Lords this week. He pointed out to the peers that even the IPCC admits there is “hiatus” that modelers can’t explain. Verma responded: “It [global warming] may have slowed down, but that is a good thing. It could well be that some of the measures we are taking today is helping that to occur.” [Source: Dailymail]
Verma raises the intriguing possibility that windmills and solar panels that were built after 2005 have managed to keep global temperatures constant starting from ten years before they were constructed.
What’s even more remarkable is that none of these projects or activities have reduced global CO2 levels. It follows then, that the mere thought of building windmills is enough to change the weather.
Furthermore, it’s well known that more expensive placebo’s are more effective. Hence the final-final copy of the latest IPCC report—issued on Friday after the leak, the draft, and the redraft—will explain that they are 95% certain that if we spend $2 billion dollars a day on renewable energy (instead of just $1 billion) there will be no more category five storms, seas will stop rising, and goats will stop shrinking.
This morning, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron offered to give The Royal Society 350 billion pounds to research the new GPE. Sir Paul Nurse promised to start experiments straight away—beginning by asking seven million British school students to do a coloring in competition on emissions reduction every Monday in 2015 to see how much global temperatures can be reduced compared to other days of the week.
The University of East Anglia announced they will simultaneously set up a new division to monitor Mondays on HadCRUT and also on their Global Climate Models. We don’t know whether models are subject to the placebo effect, but we suspect they might be said a spokesman. The project is due to start in January. Nature has already accepted their paper.
But Dr Roy Spencer was skeptical, and suggested that the correlation may work the other way in models. “The more money we spend on models that predict warming, the less warming we seem to get” said Spencer.
EPA to ban Argon, one of the largest components of the atmosphere
Did you know that Argon, an inert “noble gas” element, one of the basic building blocks of nature, is the fourth most plentiful substance in our atmosphere? It’s true. There’s more Argon in our atmosphere than anything other than molecular Nitrogen and Oxygen, and then Water.
In chemistry, a “noble gas” is one of the elements on the periodic table that is usually listed on the far right side*, which represents an element whose electron configurations are ‘full.’ What this means is that these elements don’t really react much. They don’t even usually form molecules**, rather just preferring to float around as lone atoms. They don’t react, they don’t corrode, they don’t do anything really.
Think about the difference between Hydrogen and Helium. Hydrogen is a strongly reactive gas, explosive in the right conditions, as we saw in the Hindenburg disaster. Helium however is a noble gas, and is perfectly safe, unlike Hydrogen. Argon is another noble gas, about as reactive as Helium.
I guess the Obama folks never took Chemistry in school, spending all their time in racist studies courses, and so don’t know what ‘inert’ means. However they have their work cut out for them trying to ban 1% of the global atmosphere.
*I guess someone told the EPA that Argon is a far right Koch element.
**When noble gases do form molecules, they are created artificially, with the heaviest noble gases like Xenon, and are highly reactive. For example XeF₄ must be kept in special containers of Nickel, and will spontaneously react with any water, including in the air, so can only be used it completely dry environments. This illustrates just how difficult it is to get a noble gas into a molecule. Even if you cram it in there, it’ll try to get out.
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Supporting document to docket# EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558
Listing of 72 chemical substances proposed for removal from the currently approved inert ingredient list.
My locally saved file: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0002 (PDF)
As a commenter said, “Wish the EPA would ban jackasses...then they would all have to “find” a secure place to live.”
Another atmospheric scientist bemused:
“It is the theater of the absurd. As we now know, the enviros are now writing many of EPA’s rules. Unfortunately, knowledge of any science is not a prerequisite. Unfortunately, it is not a requirement for being a lawyer or judge either. However, you have to look at it through the eyes of an enviro. The concentration of Ar in the atmosphere is 9,400 ppm and the concentration of CO2 is 400 ppm and we know that is bad. So anything at 9400 ppm must be bad!”
Oct 16, 2014
Trouble Ahead…Administration has Its Head in the Sand
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Hudson Litchfield News
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that his cap-and-trade proposal to control greenhouse gas emissions would mean higher energy prices for Americans.
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama said.
As president, Obama never got his cap-and-trade proposal through Congress. Instead, Obama has been using the Environmental Protection Agency to achieve his energy policy goals. And this winter, New Englanders will bear the brunt of Obama’s skyrocketing electricity rates.
Residents of the northeast spent as much last winter as they did in all of 2012. Most residents of Massachusetts and much of New Hampshire can expect to pay 30-50 percent more for electricity this winter.
Dan Dolan of the New England Power Generators Association said the rising winter prices are a side effect of New England wanting more electricity from gas, and less from other sources, without moving ahead to build more pipeline capacity into the region.
“We had a nuclear plant in Vermont, Vermont Yankee, that’s retiring, a coal plant in Massachusetts, Salem Harbor, that’s retiring, and with that, it’s basic economics: Fewer plants, less supply to meet demand, and there’s a price response” in the form of higher rates, Dolan said.
National Grid, Massachusetts’s biggest utility, said it needs to seek a 37 percent rate hike for the six months beginning November 1. In New Hampshire, the Public Utilities Commission already has granted an average 47-percent rate increase to Liberty Utilities.
The reason for the sharp increases: tight supplies of natural gas in New England, despite booming production of the fuel nationwide.
New England’s dependence on natural gas for electricity production has increased dramatically in recent years as ever more stringent environmental regulations have forced coal and oil-fueled power plants to shut down. Coal now produces just 1 percent of New England’s electricity and oil has fallen off the grid altogether.
Fortunately, Public Service of New Hampshire their rates will remain relatively. PSNH, the largest utility in the state, has a large scale clean coal fired power plant that saved its customers over $100 million last year and may well do that again this year. Coal is what is keeping the lights on at an affordable level.
The legacy of last year’s brutal winter has natural gas inventories starting 10.7% less than last year at this time and 11.4% below the five-year (2009-13) average.
John Kerry and Obama believe they have the answer ‘green energy’. “The solution is staring us in the face. It’s very simple: clean energy,” Kerry said, noting the prospects for creating millions of jobs worldwide in the sector. Total malarkey. The data shows that those investments have brought few benefits, and produce much harm.
European studies have found that expensive, unreliable wind and solar power kills two to four jobs for each “renewable” energy job this heavily subsidized industry creates, and only 10% of renewable jobs were permanent. In Spain, unemployment soared to 27.5% after heavy subsidization caused energy prices to skyrocket driving industry to China and India.
EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger recently said European energy policies must change, from being climate driven to being driven by the needs of industry, and job preservation. He could have included families, because millions of European households can no longer afford to heat their homes properly, due to soaring energy prices.
Cold with high energy cost is deadly. Increased winter deaths were associated with respiratory and circulatory diseases and influenza, and affects mainly the poor and elderly. Many have to choose between heating and eating. In the UK alone over 35,000 excess winter deaths have been recorded in each winter since 1998 as the climate cooled. Many residents of Europe are in energy poverty.
Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered ministers to ditch the ‘green crap’ blamed for driving up energy bills, hurting the poor and making business uncompetitive.
The US instead of learning from the EU’s mistakes is intending to follow their example. The poor and middle class are the ones that will be hurt the most.
In Europe, including Spain, the governments stopped the subsidies. Germany is building 24 coal plants and reinstating nuclear power as brownouts and blackouts cause electricity prices to skyrocket and industry to move. 600,000 Germans had their power turned off because they could not afford to pay their bills.
We were told by the Director of Pennsylvania Power and Light that their reliability study forecasts even gas producer Pennsylvania will have rolling blackouts this winter if it is cold. NY and New England will be much worse off.
We forecast in July 2013 an historic winter last year even as NOAA predicted widespread warmth. NOAA forecasts warmth again this year, but there is strong evidence an even colder winter will follow in the east and south. The US winters have cooled for 25 years at an accelerating rate according to NOAA’s own data.
This bleak probability will expose an egregious error in government climate and energy policy that will cost much pain and many lives.
The environmental movement and our politicians, which have promoted this “green energy” debacle, should be held primarily responsible for this unfolding tragedy.
See rebuttal on the scientific method and consensus here.
Britain Announces Emergency Measures To Prevent Winter Blackouts
Anthony Watts / 6 hours ago October 28, 2014
MODIS_UK_SnowFrom the GWPF: Cold Winter Could Cause Britain’s Lights To Go Out
Emergency measures to prevent blackouts ths winter have been unveiled by National Grid after Britain’s spare power capacity fell to just 4 per cent. Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 27 October 2014
The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years. Everyone seems to have seen this coming except the people in charge. Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014
National Grid has warned that there has been a significant increase in the risk of electricity shortages and brownouts this winter after fires and faults knocked out a large chunk of Britain’s shrinking power station coverage. The grid operator admitted that in the event of Britain experiencing the coldest snap in 20 years, a 5 per cent chance, then electricity supplies would not be able to meet demand during two weeks in January. Tim Webb, The Times, 27 October 2014
The UK government will set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts as a “last resort”. The price to Britons will be high. Factories will be asked to “voluntarily” shut down to save energy at peak times for homes, while others will be paid to provide their own backup power should they have a spare generator or two lying around. Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014
Oct 13, 2014
Confusion about the scientific method and the big lie of consensus
In the last local weekly, a letter to the editor called Contrary to the Scientific Method questioned a column I wrote showing how empirical data falsifies AGW. He implied the so called 97% consensus and the many papers published on global warming instead prove the theory, and this constitutes the ‘scientific method’ and trumps the data I presented.
See Richard Tol’s ravaging attck on Cook’s 97% ERL paper here. He concludes:
In sum, one of the most visible climate papers of recent years is not sound. Whereas previous critique could be interpreted as a lack of competence (Tol, 2014a), the later data release suggests that Cook et al., perhaps inadvertently, worked towards a given answer. This reflects badly on the authors, referees, editors and publisher. It also weakens the activists and politicians who cite Cook et al. in support of their position.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method does not involve a poll or vote by scientists (that is in the realm of politics where you vote on a law), but validation of a theory with facts, which is what I have done for four decades and in my local posts.
The famous Cornell Nobel prize winning Physicist Richard Feynman explained the scientific method.
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is.. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
The way you validate or invalidate a theory in the scientific method is with empirical evidence. In many of my posts, I showed empirical evidence that falsify virtually every claim made based on the theory.
As for the 97% consensus claim, that was shown wrong here and here. In fact in a recent Forbes article, it was reported only 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show earth scientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
Michael Crichton, famous author often about claims of a consensus.
Crichton continued “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
PEER REVIEW PAPERS PROVE IT MUST BE RIGHT
Thousands of papers listed supporting global warming is no surprise given the $165B given to universities and researchers (Universities, NOAA, NASA, national labs) to produce papers focusing on what would happen IF the climate models were right. Even with that, there were 1350 peer review papers questioning global warming and1000 papers believing cooling has begun.
Scientists are aware of the failures too and now have proposed 54 excuses as to why their models have failed.
The real scientific method would have them throw out the theory and come up with a new one. But the fat cats in government, industry, environmental groups and universities that have benefited from this public scare would have too much too lose so they hang on.
We will pay the price this winter - especially the poor and middle class, reeling from the ACA and the other bad national and state energy and environmental policies already implemented.
A storm of sorts has been brewing in Australia, a tempest caused by anthropogenic global warming activism. Scientist Jennifer Marohasy and environment editor Graham Lloyd, among others have been reporting on the fact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been “fudging” historical temperature records to fit a warming narrative.
On her blog, Marohasy reported,"[T]emperatures have been diligently recorded at places like Bourke in outback New South Wales since 1871. Then there’s the Bureau’s official record that takes a revisionist approach: first truncating the data and then passing it through complex mathematical algorithms.”
“[BOM] has constructed a synthetic climate record whose relevance to climate change is not scientifically defensible,” said William Kininmonth, a retired meteorologist and former head of the National Climate Centre (NCC) at BOM.
Prof. Bob Carter, science policy advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), said, “Official correction of the temperature records by national agencies was first detected in the USA for NASA, and shortly thereafter the release of the Climategate emails revealed similar procedures were in use by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which prepares the UKs temperature records.”
Changed Cooling to Warming
Marohasy reported she had “analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.”
“In many cases,” Marohasy added, “temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.”
BOM said the agency had used global best practices and a peer-reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records from weather stations across the country. The data from some of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenization,” allegedly to correct for anomalies. Historical data was altered to account for a wide range of non-climate-related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure, and where it was located.
However, Kininmonth noted, “There is no justifiable basis to modify actual observations without evidence of changed instrumentation or environmental factors; where there is evidence of such changes the adjustments can only be considered speculative, especially if the adjustments are made on the basis of statistical links to independent observations from tens of kilometres away.” According to former television meteorologist Anthony Watts, “[e]ssentially all the homogenization does is spread the warm bias around.”
Specific Data Manipulation Revealed
The Australian and Weekend Australian have been closely following and reporting on this developing story through environment editor Lloyd. In the August 23, 2014 Australian, Lloyd wrote, “It goes to heart of the climate change debate, in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last.”
In a statement to Environment & Climate News, Lloyd emphasized, “The Australian responded to legitimate concerns that were being widely raised. It is the media’s job to ask questions with the aim of making people better informed. I will leave judgement about who is right to others.”
On her website, Marohasy cited a problematic example of the BOM’s temperature alterations: “[T]he unhomogenised/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December last year shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35C per 100 years. After homogenisation there is a warming trend of 1.73C per 100 years. [T]his warming trend essentially was achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913.”
Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore blasted the process as “institutional lying.” “Firstly, ‘homogenization’ of temperature readings is a new and contrived concept. It is a pure rationalization to fake the actual record. Secondly, the motivation for this institutional lying is the continued flow of taxpayer money to support the fiction that we are responsible for the natural change in climate that has been going on since life began,” Moore said.
‘Reason for National Shame’
A 2011 independent review panel told BOM “to be more transparent and make public all details of the computer models used to adjust historic temperature… [and] to clearly explain any changes that were made between raw and homogenised data.”
Lloyd said, “Transparency is always important. This was clearly recognized by the bureau’s own independent peer review panel, which called for greater openness. Publication of all adjustments made and the decision making process is good practice.”
Marohasy has covered this story extensively on her blog. At the outset of the controversy, Marohasy wrote, “the adjusted records resemble propaganda rather than science.” More recently she wrote, “That the Minister has not yet intervened, and that many within the Australian scientific community attempt to justify the practice of homogenisation that creates these adjustments that changes cooling trends to warming trends at a whim, is reason for national shame.”
D. Brady Nelson is a Washington DC-based neo-Austrian economist, writer, and speaker from Brisbane, Australia and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is a regulation expert with The Heartland Institute.
Guest speakers are a common occurance at Towson University and, for the most part, they attend without stirring up controversy. Things changed, however, when David Legates, a professor of geography from the University of Delaware and a skeptic of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change, was invited to speak on campus Thursday.
“I think it was unfortunate to bring in only one speaker and have it be such a minority view,” said Brian Fath, a professor in the department of biological sciences.
Fath was at the lecture Thursday night and was one of a handful of TU faculty who challenged what Legates was saying at the end of his talk.
Legates shared data and other evidence that, according to him, show that the scientific community is wrong and misguided about anthropogenic climate change.
“My concern is that carbon dioxide is not the main player in climate change,” Legates said. “It’s probably only a bit [of a] player.” During his talk, he went through examples that he said did not see a strong relationship between human activity and a changing climate.
However, as was pointed out by members of the audience after Legates’ lecture, he mostly stands alone in his view.
“Doctor Legates does not represent what the majority of the scientific community who study climate change thinks,” Joel Moore, an assistant professor in the department of geosciences, said.
Legates came to campus as a part of the What Matters Speaker Series, which has been put on by the Department of Geography and Environmental Planning. He came because of a grant from William Murray, a member of the board of directors of the TU Foundation.
Yet, according to Virginia Thompson, chair of the department, Legates would not take any compensation for lecturing at the University.
“Although Doctor Legates’ views do not reflect my own, I wanted to give him a venue to express his opinions so that we could have a conversation about it,” Thompson said.
Thompson said that she was met with pushback from Towson faculty when she announced that Legates would be coming to campus. Some of the immediate reaction she received was concern that there would be no rebuttal to what Legates was saying.
Both Fath and Moore said in interviews that they would have liked to see some sort of panel or rebuttal during the event. Moore suggested a panel that accurately represented the scientific community.
“So maybe four or five people who study different aspects of climate change, and then Legates,” Moore said.
Legates said that he had no problem with investing in clean technology and embracing conservation methods. His qualm, however, is how climate change is presented to the public. He does not believe that the issue is presented honestly or without bias. He said that he thinks scientists “overstating” the dangers of climate change is “disingenuous.”
Legates also said that he thought that the focus should be more on how to reduce human vulnerability to a changing climate, rather than trying to keep the climate from changing.
“The point is that climate is going to change. Climate is always variable,” Legates said. “So as a result, we need to figure out how we live with these things.”
Some Towson faculty thought his message was potentially harmful because of the viewpoint it presented.
Fath said he thought that without “perspective and context” Legates’ message could potentially misinform students.
Fath was not alone in his concern.
Moore said that Legates’ message could be a “disservice” to students and members of the community who don’t have a strong background in and an understanding of Earth’s climate.
Despite the controversy, Legates was not met entirely with disagreement.
Moore, for example, said that what Legates said about human activity increasing floods by creating non-permeable surfaces was “absolutely true.”
“That in of itself was fine, I agree with him on that,” Moore said. “But I don’t agree with how it connects to the bigger picture.”
Thompson said that she agreed with Legates in his view that humans are putting themselves in a dangerous position.
“Almost every climate scientist can agree that human behavior is increasing human vulnerability to climate,” she said. “Some will also include greenhouse gasses, [Legates] won’t.”
Oct 26, 2014
It’s rarely about the environment anymore
Big Green ideologues continue to run masterful, well-funded, highly coordinated campaigns that have targeted, not just coal, but all hydrocarbon energy. They fully support the Obama agenda, largely because they helped create that agenda. These Radical Greens, in and out of government, seek ever-greater control over our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. They know they will rarely be held accountable for the callous, careless, even deliberate harm they inflict. They know their wealth and power will largely shield them from the deprivations that their policies impose on the vast majority of Americans.
They have shuttered coal mines, power plants, factories, the jobs that went with them, and the family security, health and welfare that went with those jobs. Now they are targeting ranchers ...and fracking. Meanwhile they allow renewable energy programs to completely avoid the endangered species and other environmental laws that are imposed with iron fists on mining, ranching and other industries. The November elections give us our first opportunity to strike a blow for freedom and prosperity.
It’s rarely about the environment anymore, about slashing our energy use, free enterprise, job creation, living standards and freedoms.
Back in 1970, when I got involved in the first Earth Day and nascent environmental movement, we had real pollution problems. But over time, new laws, regulations, attitudes and technologies cleaned up our air, water and sloppy industry practices. By contrast, today’s battles are rarely about the environment.
As Ron Arnold and I detail in our new book, Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-Earth money machine, today’s eco-battles pit a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. environmentalist industry against the reliable, affordable, 82% fossil fuel energy that makes our jobs, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality possible. A new Senate Minority Staff Report chronicles how today’s battles pit poor, minority and blue-collar families against a far-left “Billionaires Club” and the radical environmentalist groups it supports and directs, in collusion with federal, state and local bureaucrats, politicians and judges and with thousands of corporate bosses and alarmist scientists who profit mightily from the arrangements.
These ideological comrades in arms run masterful, well-funded, highly coordinated campaigns that have targeted, not just coal, but all hydrocarbon energy, as well as nuclear and even hydroelectric power. They fully support the Obama agenda, largely because they helped create that agenda.
They seek ever-greater control over our lives, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and wealth. They know they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for the fraudulent science they employ and the callous, careless, even deliberate harm they inflict. They also know their own wealth and power will largely shield them from the deprivations that their policies impose on the vast majority of Americans.
These Radical Greens have impacted coal mines, coal-fired power plants, factories, the jobs that went with them, and the family security, health and welfare that went with those jobs. They have largely eliminated leasing, drilling, mining and timber harvesting across hundreds of millions of acres in the western United States and Alaska - and are now targeting ranchers. In an era of innovative seismic and drilling technologies, they have cut oil production by 6% and gas production by 28% on federally controlled lands.
Meanwhile, thanks to a hydraulic fracturing revolution that somehow flew in under the Radical Green radar, oil production on state and private lands has soared by 60% - from 5 million barrels per day in 2008 (the lowest ebb since 1943) to 8 million bpd in 2014. Natural gas output climbed even more rapidly. This production reduced gas and gasoline prices, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in hundreds of industries and virtually every state. So now, of course, Big Green is waging war on “fracking” (which the late Total Oil CEO Christophe de Margerie jovially preferred to call “rock massage").
As Marita Noon recently noted, Environment America has issued a phony “Fracking by the Numbers” screed. It grossly misrepresents this 67-year-old technology and falsely claims the industry deliberately obscures the alleged environmental, health and community impacts of fracking, by limiting its definition to only the actual moment in the extraction process when rock is fractured. For facts about fracking, revisit a few of my previous articles: here, here and here - and another new US Senate report.
Moreover, when it comes to renewable energy, Big Green studiously ignores its own demands for full disclosure and obfuscates the impacts of technologies it promotes. Wind power is a perfect example.
Far from being “free” and “eco-friendly,” wind-based electricity is extremely unreliable and expensive, despite the mandates and subsidies lavished on it. The cradle-to-grave ecological impacts are stunning.
The United States currently has over 40,000 turbines, up to 570 feet tall and 3.0 megawatts in nameplate output. Unpredictable winds mean they generate electricity at 15-20% of this “rated capacity.” The rest of the time mostly fossil fuel generators do the work. That means we need 5 to 15 times more steel, concrete, copper and other raw materials, to build huge wind facilities, transmission lines to far-off urban centers, and “backup” generators - than if we simply built the backups near cities and forgot about the turbines.
Every one of those materials requires mining, processing, shipping - and fossil fuels. Every turbine, backup generator and transmission line component requires manufacturing, shipping - and fossil fuels. The backups run on fossil fuels, and because they must “ramp up” dozens of times a day, they burn fuel very inefficiently, need far more fuel, and emit far more “greenhouse gases,” than if we simply built the backups and forgot about the wind turbines. The environmental impacts are enormous.
Environmentalists almost never mention any of this or the outrageous wildlife and human impacts.
Bald and golden eagles and other raptors are attracted to wind turbines, by prey and the prospect of using the towers for perches, nests and resting spots, Save the Eagles International president Mark Duchamp noted in comments to the US Fish & Wildlife Service. As a result, thousands of these magnificent flyers are slaughtered by turbines every year. Indeed, he says, turbines are “the perfect ecological trap” for attracting and killing eagles, especially as more and more are built in and near important habitats.
Every year, Duchamp says, they also butcher millions of other birds and millions of bats that are attracted to turbines by abundant insects - or simply fail to see the turbine blades, whose tips travel at 170 mph.
Indeed, the death toll is orders of magnitude higher than the “only” 440,000 per year admitted to by Big Wind companies and the USFWS. Using careful carcass counts tallied for several European studies, I have estimated that turbines actually kill at least 13,000,000 birds and bats per year in the USA alone!
Wildlife consultant Jim Wiegand has written several articles that document these horrendous impacts on raptors, the devious methods the wind industry uses to hide the slaughter, and the many ways the FWS and Big Green collude with Big Wind operators to exempt wind turbines from endangered species, migratory bird and other laws that are imposed with iron fists on oil, gas, timber and mining companies. The FWS and other Interior Department agencies are using worries about sage grouse and White Nose Bat Syndrome to block mining, drilling and fracking. But wind turbines get a free pass, a license to kill.
Big Green, Big Wind and Big Government regulators likewise almost never mention the human costs, the sleep deprivation and other health impacts from infrasound noise and constant light flickering effects associated with nearby turbines, as documented by Dr. Sarah Laurie and other researchers.
In short, wind power may well be our least sustainable energy source and the one least able to replace fossil fuels or reduce carbon dioxide emissions that anti-energy activists falsely blame for climate change (that they absurdly claim never happened prior to the modern industrial age). But of course their rants have nothing to do with climate change or environmental protection.
The climate change dangers exist only in computer models, junk-science “studies” and press releases. But as the “People’s Climate March” made clear, today’s watermelon environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) do not merely despise fossil fuels, fracking and the Keystone pipeline. They also detest free enterprise capitalism, modern living standards, private property...and even pro football!
They invent and inflate risks that have nothing to do with reality, and dismiss the incredible benefits that fracking and fossil fuels have brought to people worldwide. They go ballistic over alleged risks of using modern technologies, but are silent about the clear risks of not using those technologies. And when it comes to themselves, Big Green and the Billionaires Club oppose and ignore the transparency, integrity, democracy and accountability standards that they demand from everyone they attack.
The upcoming elections offer an opportunity to start changing this arrogant, totalitarian system - and begin rolling back some of the radical ideologies and agendas that have been too institutionalized in Congress, our courts, Executive Branch and many state governments. May we seize the opportunity. PDF
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
THE debate about climate change is finished because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.”
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).”
“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.
John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’
He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
“Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
“There has been no warming over 18 years.”
The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.
US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, “are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data.”
Mr Coleman’s comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State’s energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President’s pledges to decrease it.
President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.
Despite this, the Energy Information Administration’s Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.
Global warming climate change lieThere has been no recorded global warming for 18 years [GETTY]
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman’s claims.
He added: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.”
“The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.”
In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
On October 15, 2014 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, discussed “The Myth of Carbon Pollution.”
“Carbon pollution” is a propaganda slogan for the campaign against carbon dioxide (CO2). It is not science. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant growth. Current CO2 levels are far below optimum for most plants, and far below norms of geological history, when CO2 concentrations averaged several times higher than present values. A substantial fraction, about 15%, of current world food production is due to the higher levels of CO2 compared to preindustrial values. Contrary to unambiguous computer predictions, there has been no statistically significant surface warming in at least 15 years. It is now clear that the warming potential of CO2 has been exaggerated by a large amount, and it is unlikely to be much more than 1oC for doubling of CO2. There is not the slightest evidence that more CO2 has caused more extreme weather or accelerated sea level rise. Nor is there the slightest support for the notion that government control of CO2 will “stop climate change.” Many real environmental issues need attention, smog, waste disposal, short-sighted suburban development, adequate clean water, public health, etc. These are being overshadowed by the phony issue of “carbon pollution.”
Dr. William Happer is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Princeton University, a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, and former director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. In addition to being a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Alfred P. Sloan fellowship, the Alexander von Humboldt award, the Herbert P. Broida Prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award.
Dr. Happer’s Powerpoint presentation is available here.
Marshall’s Dr. William O’Keefe leads a panel on the so-called “Social Cost of Climate”.
In 1900, long before talk of “climate change,” or, per recent presidential re-branding, “climate disruption,” high & low temps started being tracked by Indian Lake Dam keepers. They’re still at it, and their findings may surprise: Hottest-ever at our Dam - to this day free of Urban Heat Island asphalt, cars, heat ducts & tall buildings - was way back in 1911, not the 1990’s, let alone more recently.
All that water in our lake (March 1913 peak: 43.2 billion gallons/167.4 B liters; Feb. 1948 low: 1.5 B gal./5.8 B lit.) greatly moderates nearby air temperature. Hot days naturally get hotter far from shore. On clear, windless nights lake-warmed air stays put, while the air chills out in sheltered valleys away from the lake. The same moderating effect is at work in winter: Water warmth filters up ("sublimates") even through ice.
Point is, you’re in the mountains, on a ball of dirt called Earth unevenly warmed by the rather petite star it keeps circling. What goes ‘round, comes ‘round, so, as you venture afield, in whatever season you’re visiting us, be ready for encores of the “disruption” our star-performer months have staged. Illustrative highlights for these “Fab Five” are next, then their day-by-day readings.
A ho-hum opener, then two days of mini-thaw, gave way to one of the most relentless & extreme North Country assaults our Dam and guests have ever braved: 23 mornings at 0F/-18C or lower, 2 days entirely below zero F plus two consecutive -35F/-37C marks, counterpointed in less than 24 hours by a staggering 78F/43C slingshot up to 43F/+6C.
At Camp Driftwood, Jon Voorhees notched a tad under -50F/-45.6C (not “wind-chill"), paralleling the -52F/-46.7C with which Old Forge (western Adirondacks) tied the NY State all-time low, first set February 1934 at Stillwater Reservoir (near Old Forge). The frozen battery wouldn’t let Jon start his car, so, hands aching, he extracted the battery, hauled it down to the office and thawed it out. Hours later, sure of triumph at last, he painfully put it back in and did start the car...only to discover the transmission oil was frozen so hard, the gears refused to engage. Game over: Nature wins again.
Back then, soon after the Voorhees Family had taken over Camp Driftwood, cabins still were primitive: no hot water, no showers, no central shower, toilet access from back porches. Week-long a.m. 30’s at the Dam, starting with 32F/0C [20’s/-2 to -6 in the usual-suspect valleys], drove one disgruntled camper to coin a new Driftwood motto: “Dirty people freezing!”
Soaring from 42F/5.6C to 89/31.6, day one signaled history aborning. Four 100F/37.8C-or-more scorchers followed, including our Dam’s highest-ever-recorded 103F/39.4C. Extreme stayed the theme: Lake-side lows crashed to low 40’s (near +5C) in week #3 and 38F/3.3C on the 27th, with Big Brook & Cedar River valleys hitting 33F/0.6C to 29/-1C, then rebounding to 95F/35C at month’s end.
This roller-coaster soon plunged to -42F/-41.1C, lowest ever recorded at the Dam, rocketed 77F in under 24 hours to 35F/+1.6C, plummeted within a day back to -22F/-30C, soared in 24 hours back up to 35F, racked up more thaw highs for the whole week following, stayed above freezing all day the 15th and even vaulted to 48F/8.9C that afternoon...only to crater again, to -23F/-30.6C.
When the Man-Made Global Warming (AGW) scare was beginning an honest devotee Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said that anything proved AGW; Guilbeault stated:
Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that’s what we’re dealing with.
What a theory! Nothing disproves it and everything proves it!
There have been plenty of examples to this all embracing approach since. Most recently the record breaking sea ice in the Antarctic has been in the news. It’s a real slap in the kisser for all the alarmists; how can the planet be burning to a crisp when we’ve got more ice than we can ever use in our Scotch?
But credit where credit is due, the alarmists have come up with a new paper which proves all that sea ice is due to AGW. That’s right! More ice is firm evidence of more warming. The paper is by Bintanja et al and is in Nature, where else?
Bintanja et al’s theory is that melting of the Antarctic Sheet ice [ice on land] at its base, basal, is happening and this basal melt-water is flowing into the ocean trapping hot water underneath creating an inversion whereby the trapped colder surface water freezes which gives the erroneous impression that things are colder whereas it is AGW heating which sets the whole damn thing off.
It’s a pity for Bintanja that another paper shows that instead of basal melting there is basal freezing. In fact Bell et al conclude this basal freezing is expanding the Antarctic ice sheet.
Who to believe?
Well, the air temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t risen since 1979:
And Antarctic sea surface temperature has fallen since 2006, which would explain the extra ice:
And if we look at ARGO OHC measurements in the Antarctic we see there is no warming at any level in the ocean:
Who are we going to believe: the guys who show that it’s the cold which causes more ice in the Antarctic or the other ones who reckon the extra ice is because it’s getting warmer.
Climate change actually has little to do with energy choices
In his October 2 address on the economy at Northwestern University, President Barack Obama told students, “If we keep investing in clean energy technology, we won’t just put people to work assembling, raising and pounding into place the zero-carbon components of a clean energy age. We’ll reduce our carbon emissions and prevent the worst costs of climate change down the road.”
But what does climate change have to do with energy supply? Almost nothing.
Climate change issues involve environmental hazards, whereas energy policy is concerned with supplying affordable, reliable electricity to industries and families. So where is the relationship to climate?
Until the 1980s, there was none. That one is now perceived testifies to the effectiveness of relentless lobbying by environmentalists and commercial special interests towards the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from hydrocarbon-based power-generation will cause dangerous global warming.
So far, that has not happened. It has now been 18 years with no measurable planetary warming.
However, this warming disaster idea has become so entrenched that even prime ministers and presidents now misuse “carbon” as shorthand for “carbon dioxide,” and often call this plant-fertilizing gas a pollutant. For example, during his 13-minute address at the UN’s Climate Summit 2014 in New York City September 23, Mr. Obama referenced “carbon pollution” seven times and “carbon emissions” five times. That’s almost one misnomer per minute.
In reality, CO2 is environmentally beneficial. It is the elixir of life for most of our planetary ecosystems. Without it, life as we know it would end. No evidence exists that the amount humans have added to the atmosphere is producing dangerous warming or, indeed, any climate or weather events noticeably different in frequency, duration or intensity from human experience over the past couple of centuries.
Many negative consequences flow from wrongly connecting energy and global warming issues. Foremost among them has been a lemming-like rush by governments to generously subsidize what are otherwise uneconomic sources of energy, solar and wind power in particular.
The International Renewable Energy Agency reports that worldwide investment in renewables (not counting large hydropower) amounted to an incredible $214 billion in 2013 alone! IRENA insists that these expenditures need to more than double by 2030, to achieve the impossible goal of restricting average global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
However, results to date show that those investments have brought few benefits, and much harm. European studies have found that expensive, unreliable wind and solar power kills two to four jobs for each “renewable” energy job this heavily subsidized industry creates.
Mr. Obama paints alternative energy sources as environmentally virtuous, because they supposedly reduce CO2 emissions and provide renewable and clean sources of power. This too is highly misleading.
Wind and solar energy are certainly renewable - when the wind blows and the sun shines. But there is no power otherwise, so it’s tough luck if that’s when a hospital needs electricity for emergency surgery. Such intermittency also makes these sources entirely unsuitable as major contributors to national energy grids, to power factories, schools, businesses and families. The use of wind and solar power also increases the cost of electricity dramatically.
Moreover, these sources are assuredly not renewable when you consider the enormous amounts of land, mining, energy and raw materials required to build the wind and solar facilities, the extremely long transmission lines required to carry their electricity to urban centers, and the backup fossil-fuel generators needed the 80-90% of the time the renewable sources aren’t working.
Alternative energy sources are also far less environment-friendly than the President would have us believe. Wind turbines kill millions of birds and bats every year, and some rare species will undoubtedly be vulnerable to extinction if wind power continues to expand near important wildlife habitats. Massive solar installations have a disastrous effect on desert ecosystems and incinerate important bird species.
And yet the wind and solar generators are typically exempt from environmental laws that are used to block many other activities.
These problems are becoming apparent even to the European Union, once the world’s green energy leader. EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger recently said European energy policies must change, from being climate driven to being driven by the needs of industry, and job preservation. He could have included families, because millions of European households can no longer afford to heat their homes properly, due to soaring energy prices.
All nations need to return to the historic separation that previously existed between energy policy and climate policy. They must analyze and plan for both, in accord with their own distinct requirements and resources, and based on defensible environmental, technological, and economic analyses.
This means abandoning Mr. Obama’s naive mantra that our energy choices affect global climate.
Dr. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.
WEATHERTORIAL: The following opinions are mine alone. This weathertorial was very difficult to write because, as a professional meteorologist, I have been a supporter of The Weather Channel (TWC) since its inception in 1982.
I believed in The Weather Channel when it was in its infancy, when many thought it would fail. I watched TWC religiously as it reached maturity and became a major national weather force.
And then, growing beyond its optimal bounds, and succumbing to buyouts by Comcast and NBC-Universal, I watched as the behemoth grew top-heavy with corporate bureaucrats and started to topple. Now, more than 30 years old, TWC is, in my opinion, past its prime.
Hence, as of September 24, 2014, I declared The Weather Channel off limits on my TV. I decided that if I, “needed to check the radar, babe,” (referring to my wife, who has lived with my incessant channel switching for years), I would get up, walk to my computer, and call up the local National Weather Service radar image.
There are several reasons behind this important, what I consider to be earth-shattering, decision. First, many years ago, TWC removed weather from its mainstream evening hours programming and added weather movies, special series, and other features. Yet, it was during this time period that many significant weather events were occurring. Getting real-time weather information, the primary purpose behind TWC’s existence, was compromised.
Next, The Weather Channel decided that every weather event had to have a “dark side.” I can still recall weathercasts during which the weather was picture perfect and, yet, TWC meteorologists proudly announced, “(paraphrased)...but, you could die from high UV readings.”
Then, TWC jumped into the climate change cauldron. Instead of reporting weather news and giving a balanced approach to the evolving issue, TWC opted for the NBC mantra of pushing the “green agenda.” Although I don’t buy into a human-driven climate catastrophe (because, as my wife noted, “how can we be so presumptuous as to believe that we can control such major planetary forces?"), I do subscribe to being a better planetary steward. I do this with a critical mindset (asking these and other questions):
• is the approach reasonable?
• is it cost effective?
• does it attack the real problem?
• is the solution deliverable?
• what are the downside risks?
It also quickly became apparent that The Weather Channel only reported on events that supported the human-caused climate change hypothesis. They never or rarely reported when events didn’t support it. When heat waves ensued, heat was the focus. When the polar vortex struck last winter, record cold was not the watchword, just the “unusual weather pattern.” When the summer of 2014 was chilly across the northeast and Great Lakes, TWC keyed on the heat and drought in California. I won’t even go into TWC’s biased ice cap reporting!
Further, every weather event, no matter how insignificant, is almost always tied to climate change.
Big weather events (such as the Halloween Storm of 1991) are often characterized as the only time such an event has ever happened or that the event is unprecedented. EVER? In the geologic history of the Earth? Or only in the past 50 years?
It is pretty obvious to me that TWC has swallowed the whole box of Kool-Aid as it pushes the human-caused climate change agenda at every turn. The other day, Al Roker and Stephanie Abrams went over the edge. They were reporting on the 300,000 protestors who wanted immediate governmental action to confront climate change. Ms. Abrams commented, “(paraphrased) with this type of support, we should finally be able to do something about the problem” WE?
Abrams trespassed beyond reporting and jumped well past editorial boundaries on this one. And, the result was the proverbial, “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
I wanted to watch TWC for weather - real data, real storm reports, information and more, all in one place. Instead, I was subjected to politically-based rhetoric and hidden editorials (in the guise of science), movies and series that replayed incessantly (many not even really about weather and which crowded out weather reporting), and ongoing lists of weather safety rules (ad nauseum).
Hence, I have finally decided that if TWC doesn’t want me, I don’t want it.
The Weather Channel has now been in the dark for 61 hours at the Mogil-Levine household. I think I am past missing the network, although I do regret not catching Jim Cantore, the maven of reliable weather information, as he weaves his incredible and mostly honest weather reporting.
And while TWC sinks, at least two other “weather channels” are rising (Fig. 1). One, WeatherNation, remains a poor upstart to even the olden TWC. However, the other, AccuWeather’s weather channel, set to debut sometime in the next month or so, promises, “All Weather, All The Time.” That message is a direct assault on the TWC approach or non-approach to TV weather!
It is very likely that TWC will not only be losing the likes of me as storm clouds gather on all horizons. Based on discussions with others, the loss of viewership may be far more than TWC may realize.
But, stay tuned for more information. As they say in TV land, “details at 6, 10 and 11...”
H. Michael Mogil, 2014
H. Michael Mogil is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, who lives in Naples, FL.
See the NIPCC very detailed assessment of the data that falsifies the data predictions made by Hansen, Gore, IPCC and the continued nonsense we get from the world’s governments on the national and local level here.
See also RISING SEA LEVEL FORECASTS: FACT OR FICTION? by Professor Cliff Ollier here.
Summary of Sea Level Predictions by N.J. Ford
Actual sea level rises to date, may be somewhere between 1.4mm per year (Skeptic scientists) and 1.7mm per year (IPCC position). In calculating the prediction errors, the IPCC figure has been used. The errors would be larger if the skeptical scientists’ figure was used. These figures assume that the natural sea rises are included in their predictions.
IPCC First Report (1990-1992), Summary for Policy Makers, p.52. Sea levels will rise by one meter by the year 2100 (110 years-times). This is 9.1mm per year. Error to date is 535%
IPCC Second Report (1995), Summary for Policy Makers, p.23. Sea levels will rise by 95cm by the year 2100 (105 years-times). This is 9.0mm per year. Error to date is 532%
IPCC Third Report (2001), Summary for Policy Makers, p.32. Sea levels will rise by 88cm by the year 2100 (99 years-times). This is 8.9mm per year. Error to date is 523%
IPCC Fourth Report (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p.7-8. Sea levels will rise by 59cm by the year 2100 (93 years-times). This is 6.3mm per year. Error to date is 373%
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1988 predicted sea levels would rise two meters by the year 2100 (112 years-time). This is 17.9mm per year. Error to date is 1,050%
Al Gore and his NASA scientific advisor James Hansen predicted sea levels would rise six meters by 2050 in 1988, a meter each decade (62 years-time), with the Florida Keys being one meter under water by the year 2000.. This is 96.8mm per year. Error to date is 5,693%
NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 1995 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2015 (20 years-time) sea levels would rise by 6 metres. This is 300mm per year. Error to date is 17,647%
NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 2011 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2100 (89 years-time) sea levels would rise by 90cm. This is 10.1mm per year. Error to date is 595%%
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1995 predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010. No climate refugees by that year. Very large Error
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 2011 re-predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2020. This is likely to be another very large Error
For the last twenty years the Greens and their scientists have been telling us the islands of the Tuvalu and Maldives were sinking into the ocean. In 2011 aerial photographs taken 60 years apart show the land area of all Tuvalu islands have grown by 5-30%. No discernible change in the Maldives. Very large Error
In 2005, Professor Flannery, a climate advisor to the Australian Government, predicted Sydney would be covered by 20 meters of water by the year 2050 (45 years-times). This is 444mm per year. Error to date is 26,144%
8 min. video also makes all kinds of renewable energy claims.
DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary featuring Joe Romm & Sen. Bernie Sanders
Leonardo DiCaprio: ‘We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry.’
‘DiCaprio and climate scientists argue that coal, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are a “monster” that has created catastrophic surges in the earth’s surface temperature. In response, some lawmakers around the world are tinkering with ways to make carbon more expensive, and sustainable forms of energy - such as wind power - cheap.’
The first film in the series, titled “Carbon,” calls for more federal action to control carbon dioxide pollution. We cannot sit idly by and watch the fossil fuel industry make billions at our collective expense. We must put a price on carbon - now,” DiCaprio said in a statement. The eight-minute long film argues that a tax should be placed on carbon in order to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.
DiCaprio produced an AGW movie 11th Hour that bombed in the box office. Here he shows how little science and how few people saw his film.
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.
Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)