Precision Forecasts
Jun 24, 2017
Wind Power: High Environmental Costs, Limited Energy Delivered

H. Sterling Burnett

Even when environmentalists admit wind power is more expensive than conventional fuel sources - and they often lie and claim it isn’t - wind advocates argue its environmental benefits are worth the added costs.

image

A recent column by noted British science writer Matt Ridley in The Spectator puts lie to this myth. To the extent one supplants electricity generated by fossil fuels with wind-generated electricity, it does relatively little to protect the environment.

For all the bragging the wind industry does about the growth of wind power worldwide - and to be fair, due to huge subsidies, it has been growing at an impressive pace for a decade now - it still doesn’t amount to much as a share of power overall.

According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2016 Key Renewables Trends, wind provided 0.46 percent of global energy consumption in 2014. This is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than one-fifth of all energy used. Even limiting the question to electricity, all renewable-energy sources combined provided approximately 22 percent of electric power worldwide in 2012, a share the Energy Information Agency expects to grow to about 30 percent by 2040.

The problem for wind proponents is despite all the subsidies and mandates and the use of its punier but even more expensive cousin, solar power, wind and solar together only make up less than 5 percent of all global electric-power use, an amount EIA estimates will grow to 14 percent by 2040. Since electric power is just 20 percent of total energy use, even in 2040, electric and solar power will provide a mere fraction of the world’s total energy supply. Hydropower and old fashioned biomass - which, for most of us, means burning wood for heat and cooking - dominate the renewable energy supply.

The land, wildlife, and climate impacts of this push for wind are horrendous. Ridley points out IEA estimates world energy demand has been growing at about 2 percent each year for nearly 40 years, an amount of annual growth that is expected to continue for decades to come.

If wind turbines were to supply just the expected growth in energy demand for the next 50 years, wind turbines would need to cover an amount of land equal to Russia, the largest country on Earth, in terms of land mass - and that’s just to meet new demand not displace the huge amounts of fossil fuels we currently use.

But even that doesn’t tell the whole story. Because wind turbines must be placed where the wind blows fairly constantly and without obstruction, wind farms often gobble up particularly scenic land areas, such as the tops of mountains and other remote areas. These places are typically hundreds of miles from the growing urban areas that need the power, necessitating the construction of tens of thousands of miles of new power lines to transport the electricity from where the turbines are spinning to where the power is needed. Power lines, of course, also take up land.

Other power plants, by comparison, can be constructed next to existing power-line corridors or near the areas where the power is needed. In addition, because electric power is lost during transmission over great distances, not all the power generated by turbines reaches its intended destination, which means more turbines and land is needed to meet electric power growth.

To put this in perspective, two of the biggest wind farms in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thousands of acres, but together, they take a year to produce less than four days’ worth of output from a single 2,000 MW conventional power station that takes up 100 times fewer acres. A wind farm occupying 192,000 acres, approximately 300 square miles, would produce the same amount of energy as a single 1,000 MW nuclear plant that requires less than 1,700 acres, or 2.65 square miles.

Wind turbines have been rightly called the Cuisinarts of the air for their propensity to chew up thousands of migratory birds and bats every year. In the 1960s, Rachel Carson warned of a ‘silent spring,’ when children would no longer hear whistles of song birds because they had been killed by modern pesticides. Carson was wrong about the cause of death, but if wind farms are built around the world in the numbers demanded by climate alarmists, she could well be right about the results. Millions more birds and bats will be killed in the future by spinning turbines built in the corridors through which birds and bats migrate.

And what do we get for all this death and destruction? Certainly not cleaner air or lower carbon-dioxide emissions.

Wind farms generate power only when the wind is blowing within a certain range of speed. When there is too little wind, wind towers don’t generate power, but when the wind is too strong, they must be shut down for fear of being blown down. Even when they function properly, wind farms’ average output is less than 30 percent of their theoretical capacity, compared to 85 - 95 percent for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Additionally, the power wind farms produce is highly variable, ramping up and down quickly alongside gusts and lulls. This is problematic because the power grid needs a regulated flow of power to function properly.

Because of these two endemic facts about wind power, wind farms require conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. By building a 1,000 MW wind farm, you are essentially also requiring the presence of a 700 MW natural-gas power plant.

It should also be noted the production of steel and concrete needed to build massive wind farms require energy-intensive processes, emitting greater amounts of carbon dioxide than most other industries. In fact, wind turbines require more steel and concrete per unit of energy produced than any other source of electricity.

As Ridley recounts for The Spectator, wind turbines need about 200 times more material per unit of power generated than a modern combined-cycle gas turbine. That means a single two-megawatt wind turbine uses 150 tons of coal. Building and installing the 350,000 wind turbines every year needed to keep up with increasing energy demand would require using 50 million additional tons of coal per year.

By any measure, governments’ big push for wind power delivers very little in terms of energy or environmental protection. Wind power advocates are blowhards, and it’s time for governments to stop listening to them.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hburnett@heartland.org) is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

----------

See this video, one segment of a multi-part series on climate theory, reality and the environmental and economic factors.

Jun 11, 2017
Media even TWC and Democratic Senators are advancing a dangerous misinformation campaign

By Joe D’Aleo

Sadly The Weather Channel long ago forgot what they were all about and began under then Uber leftist CEO Decker Anstrom and climate evangelist Heidi Cullen to play up environmental advocacy instead providing ‘weather when you need it’. The ratings began a decline because of that (most meteorologists were smarter than to buy the scare) and the fact other technologies have increasingly replaced television and cable as the source of information, especially with the young.

John Coleman, the original idea man for TWC and I as his assistant at GMA and then First Director of Meteorology when it launched are appalled at Weather.com stories that attack groups and states that resist the indoctrination of our young people (see here and here).

Also repellent to anyone with a brain is the democratic assault on the administration for backing out of the Paris, a redistribution of wealth scheme that was part of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 195 countries agreed to this agreement non-binding on them and amounts to a transfer of wealth from the industrialized west (especially the US) as part of the ‘UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Environment’.

According to a study by NERA Consulting, the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades. By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs, including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs. 195 countries agreed to this agreement non-binding on them and amounts to a transfer of wealth from US (part of UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Environment). It despite great pain on hard working people in the west, it would even with their own failing greenhouse models have no measurable affect on climate by 2100.
In a new Rasmussen poll, 41% of Americans don’t want to pay anything out of pocket or in taxes for climate change control, 22% would be willing to pay a small amount ($2/week). It is the latest sure to fail progressive idea like the ACA which promised only benefits and savings and cost American families an average of $3000/month for health care with higher deductibles and could not in many cases keep their doctor or their health plan). But like with the ACA, most media including the Weather Channel and all democrats (national, many state and local) and most universities are pushing the Paris Accord. They are in a sense ‘Grubering’ the public (MIT’s Gruber, an ACA planner and message coordinator said they had to make those promises to get public approval and they knew it would work because the public was ‘stupid’wink.

None other than Hitler’s master propagandist Joseph Goebbels provided the blueprint for the democratic and deep state, progressives in the NGOS and Universities and the media (including TWC and even ESPN) policy on so many issues:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

This past week, four democratic senators attacked the Heartland for attempting to provide information dearly needed by teachers in the classroom to provide a balanced curriculum on weather and climate. Heartland which has been attacked for their work had enough and replied. This was reported in Weather.com which attacked Heartland. Ironically, the left including the media often accuse Trump and the republicans of being modern day Nazis, a classic example of projection.

-----------

Four Liberal U.S. Senators Attack Heartland, and We Reply
By Joseph Bast

It is almost unbelievable how low our opponents stoop in their effort to demonize us and stop President Trump from repealing the worst parts of Barack Obama’s legacy.

As you may have heard, I was in the Rose Garden a week ago when President Trump announced the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty. I was honored to be invited, and view it as a sign that our efforts for the past 20 years on the climate change issue have not gone unnoticed. But the left noticed my attendance as well, and so this week they tried to hurt President Trump by attacking me.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and other left-wing groups shivered and cried about my presence in the Rose Garden. Forget about them. More interesting was this letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos signed by four U.S. Senators, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Edward Markey (D-MA) - demanding to know if her department “had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute on climate, science, or science education issues,” and demanding as well copies of said correspondence, any information regarding discussions between Heartland and other White House staff members, and more.

The letter goes on to accuse The Heartland Institute of being a “notorious industry front group,” and worse.

Below is my reply to the four senators, going out in the mail today. I hope you don’t think it’s too timid.

We are not letting up on our efforts to spread the truth about climate change and other important public policy issues. Stay tuned for more news on that front.

START OF LETTER

June 8, 2017

To: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Edward Markey (D-MA)
From: Joseph L. Bast, president The Heartland Institute

Re: Your recent shameful conduct with regard to our communications with the Trump administration

I was disappointed but not surprised by your letter dated June 7 sent to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in which you demand to know if her department “had contact with individuals associated with the Heartland Institute on climate, science, or science education issues,” and demanding as well copies of said correspondence, any information regarding discussions between Heartland and other White House staff members, and more.

For the record, The Heartland Institute has contacted nearly all members of the Trump cabinet. We have sent extensive information to more than 100 members of the administration explaining who we are, enclosing multiple publications (including books, policy studies, and videos) of most relevance to their positions, and offering to make our extensive network of some 370 policy experts available to provide further assistance. Some have gotten back to us.

We have published scores, possibly more than one hundred, commentaries and news releases and news stories calling attention to the new administration’s policy decisions, congratulating it when it has done what we believe to be the right things, and criticizing it when they have come up short.

Can any of you explain to me how this differs from the relationship the previous administration had with liberal advocacy groups? Can any of you explain why these contacts are illegitimate or against the public interest?

Your letter to Secretary DeVos describes The Heartland Institute as a “notorious industry front group.” This is false and defamatory. Heartland is a 33-year-old national nonprofit research and education organization with a broad funding base, a long history of taking positions at odds with “industry,” and has policies in place that protect its staff from undue influence from donors. All this is explained on our website in a section titled “Reply to Our Critics.” Google it.

Your letter cites PBS Frontline as reporting “that the Heartland Institute is distributing factually inaccurate and scientifically illegitimate materials on climate change to upwards of 200,000 public school science teachers.” PBS Frontline is not qualified to make that judgment. And the number of public school science teachers is considerably less than 200,000. Didn’t anyone on your staffs fact-check this letter before it was circulated?

Our work on climate change is produced by a network of more than 200 highly qualified scientists, economists, and policy experts. It has been cited in more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it, it translated two volumes of our work into Mandarin Chinese and published it as a condensed volume in 2013. Surveys and literature reviews show our views are supported by a majority of scientists in the United States.

Your letter goes on to claim that Heartland has “disseminated ‘alternative facts’ and fake science at the behest of its industry funders for decades.” You go on to comment on our funding from Phillip Morris, the Koch family foundations, and ExxonMobil, implying that our work may be “fraudulent.”

It is simply despicable that you would knowingly repeat such lies in an open letter like this. Shame, shame, shame.

The Heartland Institute’s research has been praised by scores of policymakers and our peers in the public policy research community. (See the document titled “Endorsements” linked in the “About” feature on our Website.) We are ranked one of the top ten conservative think tanks in the world. The Koch family has made exactly one gift to us in the past 20 years, of only $25,000 earmarked for a health care policy project. ExxonMobil stopped giving in 2007, before Heartland ramped up its work on climate change. Your claims are false, obviously intended to defame us.

But of course you know all this, because I’ve told you this before in response to previous libelous letters you’ve sent. Frankly, your letter is a monumental misuse of your offices and a betrayal of the trust of your constituents. You should all be ashamed.

Happily, it now appears our work is informing the decisions of the Trump administration, conscientious members of the U.S. House and Senate, and governors and state elected officials from coast to coast. I understand this is bad for you, but it is good for the nation, for the environment, and for us.

I eagerly await your retractions and apologies.

------

Good letter Joe. Keep up the fine work. By the way, I will post a series of 5 one hour shows I did on local cable in upcoming days. Here is an unedited example of one show.


Jun 02, 2017
Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea party

Paul Driessen

Trump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from Paris

I can guess why a raven is like a writing -desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” “It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hatter.

Can you imagine stumbling upon the Mad Hatter’s tea party, watching as the discussions become increasingly absurd - and yet wanting a permanent seat at the table? Could Lewis Carroll have been having nightmares about the Paris climate treaty when he wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland?

President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week [ and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.

From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” - the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.

There is no convincing real-world evidence that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven Earth’s climate from time immemorial. Moreover, even if the United States totally eliminated its fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to climb. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany. And China is financing or building dozens of additional coal-burning electricity generators in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

Plus, even if alarmists are right about CO2, and every nation met its commitments under Paris, average planetary temperatures in 2100 would be just 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 F) lower than if we did nothing.

But “our closest allies” wanted Trump to abide by Obama’s commitment. Some did, because they want America to shackle its economy and drive energy prices into the stratosphere the same way they have. Others dearly want to follow a real leader, and walk away from the mad Paris tea party themselves.

But even poor countries signed the Paris treaty. Yes, they did - because they are under no obligation to reduce their coal, oil or natural gas use or their CO2 emissions. And because they were promised $100 billion a year in cash, plus free state-of-the-art energy technologies, from developed nations that would have become FMCs (formerly rich countries) as they slashed their energy use and de-industrialized.

But the Paris climate treaty was voluntary; the United States wouldn’t have to do all this. Right. Just like it’s voluntary for you to pay your taxes. China, India and poor developing countries don’t have to do anything. But the USA would have been obligated to slash its oil, gas and coal use and carbon dioxide emissions. It could impose tougher restrictions, but it could not weaken them. And make no mistake: our laws, Constitution, legal system, the Treaty on Treaties and endless lawsuits by environmentalist pressure groups before friendly judges would have ensured compliance and ever more punishing restrictions.

But hundreds of companies say we should have remained in Paris. Of course they do. Follow the money.

If we are to avoid a climate cataclysm, “leading experts” say, the world must impose a $4-trillion-per-year global carbon tax, and spend $6.5 trillion a year until 2030 to switch every nation on Earth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That’s a lot of loot for bankers, bureaucrats and crony corporatists.

But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation and prosperity. If you believe that, you’d feel right at home in Alice’s Wonderland and Looking Glass world.

Who do you suppose would pay those princely sums? Whose jobs would be secure, and whose would be expendable: sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism? Here’s the Planet Earth reality.

Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA - reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% - mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.

Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.

EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!

The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.

The Heritage Foundation says Paris restrictions would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. How much of their rent, mortgage, medical, food, clothing, college and retirement budgets would they cut? Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs - and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027. Other analysts put the costs of remaining in Paris much higher than this - again for no climate or environmental benefits.

Big hospitals like Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC and Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia pay about $1.5 million per year at 9 cents/kWh - but $3 million annually at 18 cents… $5 million at 30 cents ... and nearly $7 million at 40 cents. How many jobs and medical services would those rate hikes wipe out?

Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit.

Americans are largely prohibited from mining iron, gold, copper, rare earth and other metals in the USA. Paris treaty energy prices and disruptions would have ensured that American workers could not turn metals from anywhere into anything - not even wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol distillation plants.

Most of the “bountiful” renewable energy utopia jobs would have been transporting, installing and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Even growing corn and converting it to ethanol would have been made cost-prohibitive. But there would have been jobs for bureaucrats who write and enforce the anti-energy rules - and process millions of new unemployment and welfare checks.

Simply put, the Paris climate treaty was a terrible deal for the United States: all pain, no gain, no jobs, no future for the vast majority of Americans - with benefits flowing only to politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists. President Trump refused to ignore the realities of this economic suicide pact, this attempted global government control of lives, livelihoods and living standards of people everywhere.

That is why he formally declared that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty. He could now submit it for advice, consent - and rejection - by the Senate. He could also withdraw the United States from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or negotiate that reflects empirical science and is fair to America and its families and workers. But what is really important now is this:

We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.

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.

Jun 23, 2017
Heat in the southwest presages the southwest monsoon rains

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, WeatherBELL Analytics.com

Each year in May and June you can count on the media to try and alarm you about high heat in places like India and the southwest. High temperatures in these areas can approach 120F. That is very hot but is typical as approach peak sun and in fact an aid in drawing in moisture to feed the seasonal monsoon rains.

It has been hot the last week in the southwest from the Central Valley in California to Nevada and Arizona.

image
Enlarged

106F is the normal high this day in Phoenix. It is most likely going to be near 111-113F today with temperatures several degrees higher the next few days. 

image
Enlarged

See the actual daily highs this June so far.

image
Enlarged

Though above the normal, high heat in June near the solstice is normal and like we find in other areas where monsoonal rains occur, the heat helps draw in moisture and bring seasonal showers. See the big jump from June to July in the climatology. Notice the winter rains that occur mostly in El Nino winters.

image
Enlarged

A similar monsoon burst occurs in India but with winds blowing offshore in winter, rains are sparse.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Like the monsoon in India, the moisture that is drawn in is aided by the heat induced pressure changes (similar to the sea breeze circulation. Moisture comes from the Pacific and often the long way from the Gulf of Mexico.

image
Enlarged

See the rains coming the next two weeks and the temperatures cool.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Jun 03, 2017
President Donald Trump announced he would fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris ag

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

image

President Donald Trump announced he would fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change, eviscerating a signature achievement of the Obama administration.

Trump’s decision came after weeks of intense lobbying from both sides of the Paris accord debate. Corporations, environmentalists and Democrats urged Trump to stick with the deal, while Republicans and conservative groups pushed for withdrawal.

More intense was the debate within the White House itself. Key staffers were lined on both sides of the issue, making Trump’s decision to withdraw a lengthier process than many anticipated.

While the decision was ultimately Trump’s to make, there were many people working behind the scenes and in public to make sure the president kept his campaign promise to “cancel” the climate accord.

Conservative groups, White House officials and Republican lawmakers worked behind the scenes and in the media as part of the “resistance” movement to the Paris accord, which the Obama administration joined in 2016.

They worked to nudge Trump in the direction of withdrawing from Paris, constantly reminding him of the legal risks to not fulfilling his promise to supporters.

A letter from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and 21 other top Republican lawmakers in late May “reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw” from the Paris agreement, Axios reported, but key administration personnel and conservative heavy-hitters also played a role.

When Trump officially announced his withdrawal from the Paris accord Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt walked up to the podium in the Rose Garden to speak. Many in the media saw this as his victory.

Politico reports Pruitt “used his new post as EPA administrator to orchestrate an aggressive campaign to marshal conservative opposition to the Paris agreement.” That campaign included having EPA staffers urge conservative groups to go public with their concerns about the Paris agreement.

Pruitt was the only Trump administration official to publicly bash the accord. In TV appearances in April and May, Pruitt called Paris a “bad deal” that put America “last.”
“Paris is something that we need to really look at closely. It’s something we need to exit in my opinion,” Pruitt told Fox News in April.

Pruitt’s public criticisms of the Paris agreement bolstered conservative groups and Republican officials who opposed sticking with an international deal that never got Senate approval.

But it wasn’t Pruitt’s victory alone.

Trump’s domestic energy policy adviser Mike Cantanzaro worked to nudge the president to withdraw from Paris, according to a source familiar with the efforts. But General counsel Donald McGahn was “probably the most pivotal voice” in the White House advocating for a withdrawal from the Paris agreement, according to the source.

“We were having trouble getting traction on the argument that the agreement poses some legal risk,” the source said. “Until he joined the conversation.”

During two closed-door meetings in late April and early May, McGahn raised concerns with Trump about the legal risks of staying party to the Paris agreement, Politico reported. McGahn warned the U.S. may not be able to adjust its pledge to cut emissions and that environmentalists could use the Paris agreement to undermine Trump’s deregulatory agenda.

McGahn’s interjection “shocked” Department of State lawyers who largely made the case for staying in the Paris agreement, according to Politico. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly came out in favor of the Paris agreement during his confirmation hearing in January.

Cantanzaro, McGahn and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon led the administration faction opposed to the Paris agreement. They ended up butting heads with pro-Paris advisers Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Gary Cohn. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favored staying in the Paris accord.

In early May, the heads of 44 free market groups sent a letter to Trump, urging him to withdraw from the agreement. The coalition was led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

CEI was “the energy” and “enabled the issue to stay high profile in the White House for months,” an administration source told Axios.

In May, CEI launched an online petition and ad campaign to remind Trump of his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris accord, and AEA circulated another petition calling for Trump to withdraw from the agreement.

CEI senior fellows Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis published a report detailing the legal risks of remaining in the accord. CEI’s Myron Ebell, who headed Trump’s EPA transition team, was also public about his opposition to the Paris agreement.

The source told Axios that CEI also “helped generate” the letter from Senate Republicans that reportedly gave Trump the final nudge he needed to announce a withdrawal from Paris. The letter reminded Trump why he opposed Paris in the first place - it didn’t put America first.

About a week before Trump made his decision, McConnell led a group of 22 GOP Senators urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris agreement. McConnell’s letter to Trump reportedly “reinforced” the president’s pre-existing inclination to leave Paris.

“I think there’s a lot of credit due to a lot of people. It’s been a tough fight, and both sides have done about all that can be done,” a source in the conservative movement told The DCNF.

-----------

See this book:

“>image

May 08, 2017
Defund Climate Change Research to Pay for Pre-Existing Conditions

image
Enlarged

FOX NEWS WASHINGTON:

NOAA REPORTS: That whole April showers thing went a bit overboard last month in the United States. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday it was the second wettest April on record, averaging 3.43 inches for the nation, nearly an inch above the 20th century average. Only 1957 had more April rain. Records go back to 1895.

Only 5 percent of the U.S. is in drought, the lowest drought footprint the 17-year-old U.S. Drought Monitor has recorded. NOAA calculates that 0.75 percent of the Lower 48 states are considered “very dry.”

NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch said many storms kept chugging over the U.S. in April from the Pacific. Crouch said April fits global warming patterns of increasing heavy downpours interspersed with drought.

End

------

ICECAP NOTE: It also fits a cooling planet as was underway from 1940 to the 1970s.... NOAA has to add the BS statement in every summary, especially after it hyped drought first in Texas and then California, some opining it was the start of ‘permadrought’. This is already the wettest/snowiest Water Year (October 1 to September 30) in the northern Sierra, beating out 1982/83.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

That CO2 is amazing stuff. it freaking does it all!!!

Here is a Patriot Post story from my compadre Joe Bastardi:

Defund Climate Change Research to Pay for Pre-Existing Conditions
Joe Bastardi, Patriot Post

Here’s a novel idea.

Take the billions of dollars that’s going toward what supposedly is a settled science issue - climate change - and use it to create a pool for pre-existing conditions. It is our duty to help those less fortunate and for the government to provide a safety net. So let’s form that safety net, dealing with a known problem today, not a ghost that may or may not be there tomorrow - especially since in the age of fossil fuels human progress has skyrocketed. Do you think medicine would be where it is now without the fossil fuel era?

The rest of the nation would be in the free market for insurance, and combined with tort reform and portability, we may be able to bring the price down.

What has been the cost of fighting climate change? Check out this article in Forbes.

All that money for what? A few molecules of CO2 when the established temperature-CO2 record shows no linkage?

image
Enlarged

We can’t run from the problems of today, nor can you run from the record of the past. People are much more valuable than a few molecules of CO2.

I doubt the American people approve of billions of dollars being spent on researching whether or not the earth is flat (no offense to Kyrie Irving) or other forms of “settled science.” So for the sake of those suffering from pre-existing conditions, why don’t we take the grant money for climate change research and give it to those who really need it? If it’s “settled science,” then give up the money. You can’t have it both ways! What about investing in our inner cities, another need now? Do climate change researchers need the money more than our sick, poor and needy? I think not. I know not.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm, and contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues.

------------

Note this next story is fitting in that regard. You see the same issues that are being reported on now in medicine and health have been running rampant in meteorology and climatology research. The universities and the NGOs have been milking the flowing dollars supporting the fake climate news which gets carried without question in the sympathetic fake news media.

Has Science Lost its Way?

By Michael Guillen Ph.D

Science’s reproducibility crisis.

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny - and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris.

The single greatest threat to science right now comes from within its own ranks. Last year Nature, the prestigious international science journal, published a study revealing that “More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.”

The inability to confirm research that was published in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals suggests something is very wrong with how science is being done.

The crisis afflicts even science’s most revered ‘facts,’ as cancer researchers C. G. Begley and Lee Ellis discovered. Over an entire decade they put fifty-three published “landmark” studies to the test; they succeeded in replicating only six - that’s an 11% success rate.

A major culprit, they discovered, is that many researchers cherry-picked the results of their experiments - subconsciously or intentionally - to give the appearance of success, thereby increasing their chances of being published.

“They presented specific experiments that supported their underlying hypothesis, but that were not reflective of the entire data set,” report Begley and Ellis, adding this shocking truth: “There are no guidelines that require all data sets to be reported in a paper; often, original data are removed during the peer review and publication process.”

Another apparent culprit is that - and it’s going to surprise most of you - too many scientists are actually never taught the scientific method. As graduate students, they take oodles of courses in their chosen specialty; but their thesis advisors never sit them down and indoctrinate them on best practices. Consequently, remarks University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Judith Kimble: “They will go off and make it worse.”

This observation seems borne out by the Nature study, whose respondents said the three top weaknesses behind science’s reproducibility crisis are: 1) selective reporting, 2) pressure to publish, and 3) low statistical power or poor analysis. In other words, scientists need to improve on practicing what they preach, which is: 1) a respect for facts - all of them, not just the ones they like, 2) integrity, and 3) a sound scientific method.

The attendees of the so-called March for Science made a lot of noise about wanting more money and respect from the public and government - what group wouldn’t want that? But nary a whisper was heard from them or the media about science’s urgent reproducibility crisis. Leaving unspoken this elephant-sized question: If we aren’t able to trust the published results of science, then what right does it have to demand more money and respect, before making noticeable strides toward better reproducibility?

Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Science Editor for ABC News, taught physics at Harvard. His novel, “The Null Prophecy,” debuts July 10.

See how Greens in Vermont discuss how a wind project destroyed the environment.

Jun 22, 2017
The American Meteorological Society @ametsoc falls into the consensus trap in a letter to Rick Perry

By Anthony Watts

Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) published a letter yesterday to U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, admonishing him for having the temerity to doubt that carbon dioxide is the “primary driver” of global warming.

Here is the letter.

Here are a few of my thoughts.

The AMS, in their letter, say skepticism is welcome:

In the interview you also mentioned that it should be quite acceptable to be a skeptic about aspects of the science. We agree, and would add that skepticism and debate are always welcome and are critically important to the advancement of science.

Yet, the very letter they sent contradicts this, suggesting that there is no debate nor room for skepticism about carbon dioxide being the primary driver of temperature change.

The fundamental problem of our knowledge boils down to the sample size. We only have about 100 or so years of temperature records that are worth anything and even the most recent records on all that good because they’re terribly polluted by the infrastructure of human existence itself. And further our understanding of atmospheric and oceanic cycles is even more limited in time than the case of global temperature data.

If you were to line up our period of first-hand scientific knowledge of Earth’s processes, against the period of humanity’s intelligence, it would just be a small speck on the timeline. To assume we have certainty in knowledge about Earth’s processes, when new processes are still be discovered, is pure folly.

Even today, we are discovering more about our atmosphere than we knew 30 years ago in June 1988 when Dr. James Hansen first declared it a problem, and there are studies that show that recent record breaking warmth, such as a paper just published in Nature, Yao et al. Distinct global warming rates tied to multiple ocean surface temperature changes. covered here on WUWT.

For the AMS to admonish Perry that there’s no room for debate on Carbon Dioxide as being the primary driver, is essentially to deny the process of science itself. Science is often right, and also often wrong, but just as often, it is self-correcting. If global warming hadn’t become such an entangled and messy social and political issue, it’s likely that science would have done some levels of self-correction on the issue already.

For example, it was once believed that the Earth’s plates did not move, until plate tectonics came along. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912, but it took until the 1960’s for it to become generally accepted, when a drastic expansion of geophysical research, driven by the cold war, produced evidence that reopened and eventually settled the debate.1 Science self-corrected, but it took decades because scientists are often reluctant to embrace change which threatens the validity of their own work. It was also generally believed that stress caused stomach ulcers, until a clinician, exasperated by lack of attention to his pointing out that the real cause was the bacterium Heliobacter Pylorii infecting the stomach lining 2, had to prove it against the consensus, and drank a bacterial cocktail and developed an ulcer himself. He won the Nobel prize for defying that consensus 3.

Science that fails to account for the possibility of being wrong is of no virtue.

The AMS should lead in science by setting an example, by showing that even in the face of overwhelming consensus on an issue, there must be room for doubt, and thus room for self-correcting science. It only takes one finding in science to refute consensus, no matter whether it’s 97%, 99%, or 100%. Science is not infallible.

Anthony Watts

1. Link
2. Link
3. Link

-------
Nicely done, Anthony.

Shortly after the post, Ryan Maue, a fellow WeatherBELLian wrote:

Rick Perry said the following:

Asked whether CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry told CNBC’s “Squawk Box”: “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”

“The fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?” he said.

The AMS statement says this is indisputable: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases ...”

Now, an eagle eyed reader with some nuanced knowledge of climate science could interpret Secretary Perry’s statement as rather profound.  He posits that the oceans are acting as the “primary control knob” responsible for (recent) climate change.  With the now voluminous literature on the hiatus and consensus view that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) phase changes result in “pauses”, one could look back to the 1976-77 Great Pacific Climate Shift as the beginning of recent global warming as we know it.  It’s not exactly clear to me how CO2 concentration changes causes these rather dramatic, decadal scale Pacific Ocean heat distribution changes. 

See also Ryan Maue and Michael Bastasch story on the Daily Caller on The New Consensus On Global Warming here.

Nicely done, Ryan. My compadre at WeatherBELL, Joe Bastardi agrees:

Spot on right Ryan.  I have argued and do so in the patriot posts in 2 main blogs, the Grand Slam of Climate and a short summation of my climate position, the same thing, There is nothing irrational or radical about simple observational data of the past, which by the way has support from Greenland Ice cores and tree ring study.  I have the sun, the oceans, stochastic events and the VERY DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM (land and ocean configuration, wobbles on its axis in an elliptical orbit around a somewhat inconsistent start dwarfs the affect of CO2 given the entire planetary history of CO2/temp.

I have coauthored a series of reports covered here that the natural factors are the real drivers that has the deep state climate world throwing the big guys to try to discredit, but they simply use a call to authority.  I have done a series of 5 videos called the Winds of Change : CO2- the Demon gas?, Taking the Earth’s Temperatures, Weather Extremes, The Man-made and Natural Factors (not including CO2) that really drive the climate changes and Renewable Energy and the Paris Accord. I will post links to them all here after they air on local cable. Here is the relevant part IV.

-------

ICECAP COMMENT:

For a lifelong member of the AMS, a Fellow of the AMS, a CCM, former Chair of the Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting and the only private meteorologist to be elected by my peer to be a councilor, it is a sad day to see a former Texas Governor to know more about the scientific method and the science of climate than the AMS Director. I dearly miss Ken Spengler more every day.

Jun 11, 2017
Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

Michael Bastasch

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.

In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.

Christy has testified on the value of red teams” for climate science many times in the past decade. This time, however, environmentalists and “consensus” scientists are worried Congress will take him seriously.

Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.

The military commonly using this method to challenge strategies and improve their overall effectiveness. Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. After all, 97 percent of climate scientists supposedly believe humans are the main cause of global warming.

“Science already has a red team: peer review,” David Titley, a climate scientist and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, told The Washington Post.

ICECAP NOTE: Peer review is a failure - even Nature magazine is recognizing this according to the BBC which has reported 71% of the results reported is peer accepted papers in the medical journals proved not to be reproducible, the litmus test for a theory or product and 50% of the papers not even reproducible by the original authors. It is no better in climate science

“This just feels to me… like another way to skirt the tried and true scientific process that has worked for years in our field and many others,” said Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Georgia who called the idea a “gimmick.”

ICECAP NOTE: to folks like Shepherd whose career have benefited greatly from this scam, applying the ‘scientific method’ is a gimmick?

Consensus scientists say the red team setup could manipulate public understanding of the science, giving a false impression of uncertainty and delay action on global warming. Skeptics, like Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.

“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be - the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”

:In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”

Consensus scientists say peer review works just fine, but skeptics point out the problems with climate models and many of their predictions. In fact, many articles have been written about the problems with scientific journals and peer review.

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal.

Pruitt can only do so much to change how the EPA conducts research, and it’s uncertain how much traction this idea will gain in Congress, especially with other major issues, like the Russia investigation and Obamacare repeal, sucking up political capital.

“I can understand why political organizations would object - because their deeply held beliefs may be shown to be in error and thus set a foundation to undo their attempts to set rules for the ‘hoi polloi,’” Christy said.

“Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding ‘climate change,’ and thus red teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.

Jun 03, 2017
A Climate Scientist Is Smeared for Blowing the Whistle on ‘Corrected’ Data

By Julie Kelly

The scandal is growing, as Congress investigates and NOAA brings in outside experts to review a key study. Less than 72 hours after a federal whistleblower exposed shocking misconduct at a key U.S. climate agency, the CEO of the nation’s top scientific group was already dismissing the matter as no biggie.

On February 7, Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), told a congressional committee that allegations made by a high-level climate scientist were simply an “internal dispute between two factions” and insisted that the matter was “not the making of a big scandal.” (This was moments after Holt lectured the committee that science is “a set of principles dedicated to discovery,” and that it requires “humility in the face of evidence.” Who knew?) Three days earlier, on February 4, John Bates, a former official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - he was in charge of that agency’s climate-data archive - posted a lengthy account detailing how a 2015 report on global warming was mishandled.

In the blog Climate Etc., Bates wrote a specific and carefully sourced 4,100-word expose that accuses Tom Karl, his ex-colleague at NOAA, of influencing the results and release of a crucial paper that purports to refute the pause in global warming. Karl’s study was published in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders would meet in Paris to agree on a costly climate change pact; the international media and climate activists cheered Karl’s report as the final word disproving the global-warming pause. But Bates, an acclaimed expert in atmospheric sciences who left NOAA last year, says there’s a lot more to the story. He reveals that “in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets,… we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming.’ Karl’s report was “an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

image

Agency protocol to properly archive data was not followed, and the computer that processed the data had suffered a “complete failure,” according to Bates. In a lengthy interview published in the Daily Mail the next day, Bates said: They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. Instead of taking these claims with the level of scrutiny and seriousness they deserve, most in the scientific establishment quickly moved to damage-control mode. In more testimony to the House Science Committee last week, Holt pulled one sentence from an article published in an environmental journal that morning, quoting Bates as saying, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with the data but rather really of timing a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” (I guess that alone isn’t enough to raise any red flags in climate science.) Holt went on to tell the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which has been investigating the Karl study since 2015, that “all [Bates] is doing is calling out a former colleague for not following agency standards.” This man of science intentionally overlooked the damning charges in Bates’s own post to search out a tiny nugget in a biased article. Apparently, discovery and humility in the face of evidence are valid only when they result in politically desirable outcomes.

I asked the AAAS (which publishes Science, where the Karl study first appeared) why the head of their organization selected that one quote and failed to address the other issues Bates had raised: not vetting experimental data, failing to meet agency standards, and rushing to publish the report. Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg told me that Holt’s statement to Congress “was consistent with impressions from other private communications that had been conveyed to Holt” (emphasis added). Apparently, discovery and humility in the face of evidence are valid only when they result in politically desirable outcomes; impressions and feelings carry more weight otherwise. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the AAAS and Science are trying to downplay the conflict.

Bates says that Science violated its own policy for archiving and making data available when it published the Karl study. The policy states that “climate data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.” Bates maintains that there is an urgent need for a “systematic change ... to scientific publishing.” The science media also went into overdrive to twist Bates’s words and allegations. Science ran its own article on February 8, with the headline “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study.”

The magazine suggests that Bates’s actions are due to a personal grudge. In a post on his website RealClimate, climatologist Gavin Schmidt downplayed the scandal as a “NOAA-thing burger” and accused Bates of adding “obviously wrong claims to his litany” and of “let[ting] his imagination run beyond what he could actually show.” And in a completely misleading article, a climate blogger for The Guardian claimed that Bates feared that climate “deniers” would misuse his information (although Bates did not say that). The Guardian blogger also lamented that “consumers of biased right-wing news outlets that employ faux science journalists were grossly misinformed by alternative facts and fake news.” Don’t expect this to stop any time soon.

Climate alarmists and profiteers will only intensify their smear campaign as this unravels. Congress is now expanding its investigation of NOAA, Bates has indicated that more information and documents are forthcoming, and NOAA is now saying it will bring in outside experts to analyze the Karl report. As Holt told the House Science Committee, “when one’s cherished beliefs and partisan ideologies and wishful thinking have turned out to be wanting, scientific evidence is most likely all that remains.” No doubt he completely missed the irony of his own statement.

Jun 05, 2017
Did Trump cause the end of the world?

By Bob Livingston

Man-caused global cooling / global warming / climate change is not science. It’s a faith-based quasi-religion/money laundering scheme of hokum, balderdash and outright lies.

Look no further for evidence of this than the hyperbolic overreaction to Donald Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would not abide by the Paris accords.  Only those whose messiah had been slain or who had had their money bags ripped from their hands would overreact to such extremes.

In the wake of Trump’s announcement, headlines screamed that by pulling out of the accord Trump was ushering in the end of the world. But even James Hansen, the so-called father of global awareness of climate change and former NASA scientist, called the Paris accord “a fraud, a fake… absolute bulls**t” in the wake of its signing in 2012.

Of course, the proponents of the theory of man-caused climate change have been predicting this doom and gloom for dozens of years, led, of course, by the globalist anti-American United Nations. In 1989, a U.N. environmental official posited that governments had a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. At that point global temperatures would rise 1 to 7 degrees and polar ice cap melts would raise sea levels three feet, displacing millions of people and flooding arable land, he claimed.

This was just one of dozens of dire predictions made by climate alarmists and their collectivist central planning advocates over the last several decades.

It’s now 28 years later - and four days since President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. was pulling out of the Paris Climate accord - and, despite the caterwauling of the climatephobes, the streets have not become rivers, tornadoes and hurricanes are not obliterating large swaths of the country, the south is not blanketed in feet of snow, nor is a blazing sun turning the U.S. into another Sahara. Just like none of the predictions of catastrophe have happened since scientists in search of largess from the public trough began in the early 1900s promoting their theories of climactic eschatology.

Climate alarmism is home to the Marxists of old who lost their cause when the Soviet Union fell and they needed a new vehicle to promote their utopian central planning ideology. But it’s also a cause embraced by the banisters, Wall Street types and multi-national corporations that stand to profit immensely off the money-laundering schemes involved in it.

The Paris accord in and of itself was based on false science: that CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise - the temperatures are not, and there is no evidence that the emissions do so - that there is some magical ideal global temperature that needs to be maintained and we know what that temperature is, and that by reducing said CO2 emissions the atmospheric levels of CO2 will drop and temperatures will stabilize.

And the Paris accord was not a treaty. President Barack Obama admitted as much by refusing to bring it to the Senate for ratification. So the U.S. was not bound to it. Nor, apparently are other signatories. Germany, for instance, saw its total energy production rise by 1.6 percent in 2016 over 2015 and was likely to miss its Paris accord pledge of cutting CO2 emissions 40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

The accord is a feckless central planning scheme that sought to expropriate the wealth of Americans and redistribute it around the globe for the banksters and crony green energy companies. The plan would have destroyed American sovereignty, rendering it subservient to Third World backwaters looking for handouts. It would have cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs, put a further damper on American manufacturing and, according to The Heritage Foundation, destroyed $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by 2035. And it would have empowered American alphabet soup federal agencies to impose ever tighter restrictions on energy use by Americans as it met the ever changing reduction guidelines, escalating American energy costs.

It has already cost America $1 billion, which Obama contributed to a green energy slush fund called the Green Climate Fund without congressional authorization.

The Paris accord was not a “lawful” agreement, much less a treaty, despite the word changers’ and propagnadist’s use of the that word. Outside of Obama’s inner circle, the Green mafia, the banksters and cronies, and ignorant leftists, no widespread American support was evident - certainly there was no support for ratification by the Senate.

The new French President Emmanuel Macron snooted that the “treaty” was non-negotiable. That’s good news. There won’t be a temptation for some subsequent collectivist-minded U.S. president to sell America down the river again, as Obama did.

Macron also invited Americans to come to France to help “make our planet great again. Evidently, Macron thinks that France, by virtue of its participation in the treaty, will be immune from the hyped effects of America’s pullout. Either that or he’s admitting it’s all just a hoax.

No, Trump did not cause the end of world with his decision to remove America from the Paris hoax. He saved America, her jobs and her energy sector. But he did destroy one of the biggest anti-liberty scams in world history.

May 24, 2017
Mulvaney: Trump budget pulls back from ‘crazy’ climate stuff

by John Siciliano

President Trump’s budget gets away from the “crazy stuff” former President Barack Obama prioritized to fight climate change, such as climate change musicals, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday.

image

“We are simply trying to get things back in order to where we can look at the folks that pay taxes and say look, we want to do some climate science but we aren’t going to do some of the crazy stuff that the previous administration did,” he said at a briefing to release Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal 2018.

The Environmental Protection Agency budget zeroes out a program for reporting on greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists blame for causing the Earth’s climate to warm. The EPA budget also slashes the air and radiation office, responsible under the Obama administration for climate regulations, by nearly 70 percent.

Mulvaney said the budget doesn’t “get rid of it [climate funding],” entirely. “Do we target it? Sure. Are a lot of the EPA reductions aimed at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean we are anti-science? Absolutely not.”

When asked by a reporter if the budget targets climate change programs as wasteful spending, Mulvaney replied: “You tell me. I think the National Science Foundation used your taxpayer money last year to fund a climate change musical.”

He asked the reporter, “Do you think that is a waste of your money?” The reporter didn’t respond immediately. “I’ll take that as a yes.”

The reporter then responded, asking what about the climate science funding?

“What I think you saw happen during the previous administration is the pendulum swing too far to one side, where we were spending too much of your money on climate change. And not very efficiently,” Mulvaney said.

Apr 27, 2017
Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula - it is now cooling

Anthony Watts

Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making trends out of noisy data himself? Well, that just went south, literally.

image

And it just isn’t because the Steig et al. paper was wrong, as proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal, no, it’s because mother nature herself reversed the trend in actual temperature data in the Antarctic peninsula, and that one place where it was warming, was smeared over the entire continent by Mannian math to make it appear the whole of the Antarctic was warming.

The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists.  They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool.  The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed.

Highlights

We examine climate variability since the 1950s in the Antarctic Peninsula region.

This region is often cited among those with the fastest warming rates on Earth.

A re-assessment of climate data shows a cooling trend initiated around 1998/1999.

This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP.

Observed changes on glacial mass balances, snow cover and permafrost state

Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere

M. Oliva et al.

Abstract

The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54C/decade during 1951-2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 C/decade during 1979-1997 to a cooling trend of -0.47 C/decade during 1999-2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979-2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.

image
Fig. 4. Temporal evolution of the difference between the MAATs and the 1966-2015 average temperature for each station (3-year moving averages).

image
Fig. 1. Location of the AP within the Antarctic continent. b. Detail of the South Shetland Islands and its stations. c. Distribution of the stations on the Peninsula and neighbouring islands, with inter-decadal MAAT variations since 1956 across the AP region.

Full paper:

Science of The Total Environment. Volume 580, 15 February 2017, Pages 210-223

h/t to “Greenie Watch”

Jun 04, 2017
U.S. States Defy Trumps Climate Pact Withdrawal - promise compliance - will suffer

By Alejandro Lazo

U.S. States Defy Trump’s Climate Pact Withdrawal

After President Trump announces withdrawal from Paris accord, three states say they will form a coalition to uphold treaty

Updated June 2, 2017 10:35 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO - A day after President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord, states and cities around the country are vowing to adhere to their own aggressive climate policies, independent of the federal government.

Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have adopted their own greenhouse gas emission targets, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and some press beyond the U.S. commitment under the accord, which sought to bring greenhouse emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

None, however, have gone further than California, which has emerged as a national ‘leader’ (Icecap Note: biggest loser with deficits in tens of billions) on climate policy and a potentially powerful counterweight to the Trump administration’s efforts to rollback U.S. commitments.

California Gov. Jerry Brown is encouraging states to pursue their own climate standards - developing his own international climate agenda, recruiting other states for climate pacts and pushing tougher standards than the federal government had under the Obama administration.

Following the Thursday announcement, Mr. Brown, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said they would form a coalition of states committed to upholding the American side of the Paris treaty deal.

The governors called the coalition the United States Climate Alliance, which they said will “act as a forum to sustain and strengthen existing climate programs, promote the sharing of information and best practices, and implement new programs to reduce carbon emissions from all sectors of the economy.”

“California is on the field, ready for battle,” Mr. Brown said after Mr. Trump announced the U.S. would leave the deal.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the United Nations Secretary-General’s special envoy for cities and climate change, said through an adviser on Friday that those three states, along with a coalition of at least 100 businesses and 30 cities would on Monday submit a letter of intent to the U.N. indicating the coalition would meet the U.S. goals through their own commitments.

In a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo on Friday, Mr. Bloomberg said the U.S. will not need Washington to make good on its commitments.

“In the U.S., emission levels are determined far more by cities, states, and businesses than they are by our federal government,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “The fact of the matter is: Americans don’t need Washington to meet our Paris commitment, and Americans are not going to let Washington stand in the way of fulfilling it.”

On Friday, Mr. Brown leaves for climate talks in China. The California governor will also attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, “to represent subnational jurisdictions that remain committed to climate action.”

Mr. Brown, who has been a sharp critic of Mr. Trump’s environmental policies, said in an interview this week that “the president is not going to get very far denying science and denying reality” and says local governments must take the matter into their own hands.

“Obviously states can’t do what the federal government can do,” Mr. Brown said. “But I will tell you the president’s action - his action in undermining the Paris agreement - is going to ignite a prairie fire of activism to take even bolder steps to reduce greenhouse gases than even are being imagined today.”

California had a gross domestic product of $2.5 trillion in 2015 and the world’s sixth-largest economy - bigger than most of the 190 nations that signed the Paris accord. It is responsible for about 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, according to the California Air Resources Board.

Because of the sheer size of its market, and because it has a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency allowing it to set its own tailpipe-emission standards that nine other states follow, California-emission policies can set the standard for the auto industry nationwide.

The state has the most ambitious greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets in the U.S. with the goal of achieving a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, in part by adding 4.2 million zero-emissions vehicles on this car-centric state’s streets and highways.

By 2050, the state’s goal is to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels.

On Wednesday, the California senate passed a bill that would mandate the state gets all of its energy from renewable sources by 2045, which drew praise from environmentalists but criticism from Republicans here who fear the state will lose more business as costs rise in California.

“If new technology can’t reach the goals this bill requires, it’s going to raise the price of electricity on businesses, which already pay a high cost for utilities and cite that as the number one reason they’re leaving California,” said Republican State Sen. Jeff Stone, of Riverside, Calif.

Still, Mr. Brown has pushed to extend California’s climate influence beyond state lines. Since 2015, Mr. Brown has formed a coalition of entities around the world - cities, states, countries and other jurisdictions - to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius, a key long-term goal of the Paris talks.

Ten states and eight cities have joined Mr. Brown’s Under2 Coalition, encompassing about 89 million people, or about 28% of the U.S. population. In April, Canada and Mexico endorsed the measure; with that the coalition grew to include 170 jurisdictions on six continents, Mr. Brown’s office said.

Not all states were upset. In West Virginia, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito applauded the withdrawal, saying it would benefit the state’s ailing coal industry. “West Virginians have suffered tremendous economic calamity as a result of the Obama administration’s anti-coal agenda...,” the Republican senator said in a statement. “President Trump is standing with our West Virginia workers and businesses to keep jobs in our state.”

California has provided technical advice to Mexico and China to help those countries adopt climate policies. The governor has also forged an agreement with Oregon, Washington state and the Canadian province of British Columbia, formally aligning their climate and clean-energy policies.

“The California model is helping to catalyze global action,” said Nathaniel Keohane, vice president for global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.

California has led on a key goal of climate change activists and scientists for years: developing a functioning cap and trade market, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions by imposing a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released by industry, and then selling a finite number of permits every quarter for businesses to meet those allowances.

China is now looking to California as a model for how to integrate regional cap and trade-pilot programs it already has launched, said Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, at Berkeley Haas School of Business.

This summer the cap-and-trade program faces a major test with the state legislature poised to debate whether to enact policies protecting and expanding the program from legal challenges after the California Chamber of Commerce sued the state, calling it an unconstitutional tax.

“California’s decisions about how to run a cap-and-trade program, or how to set up other greenhouse-gas regulations, have very large impacts on the rest of the country and the world,” Mr. Borenstein said.

California’s role as the nation’s climate leader isn’t new: A decade ago it carved out international deals and set policies on global warming without help from the Bush administration.

Since then, California has been joined by other states, including New York and Illinois, as well as cities including Chicago and New York City, in developing shared climate goals.

The state and local efforts will continue despite what the federal government does, but they won’t be as effective, said Karen Weigert, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

“It is a very different world when you have a White House leading the fight on the environment, or not leading the fight,” said Ms. Weigert, who served as Chicago’s first chief sustainability officer.

Mr. Cuomo last year signed legislation requiring 50% of New York’s electricity come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2030. The state has a goal of reducing emission 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

In May, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, signed an executive order taking an initial step in setting state-level standards on cutting carbon emissions. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, in December signed a measure that requires the state’s utilities to lift the amount of electricity they generate from renewable sources to 15% by 2021 from 10% in 2015.

Twenty-nine states have adopted renewable portfolio standards, which require utilities to sell a certain amount, or percentage, of renewable electricity, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“States have been doing this for a long time and long before there has been consideration at the federal level,” said Glen Andersen, energy program director at the NCSL. “They are able to act a little more quickly.”

Other states are ramping up their renewable-energy generation because prices are competitive and such projects add jobs, said Rachel Cleetus, the lead economist and climate policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit (Icecap: a non-scientific environmental advocacy group sitting on $44M responsible for destroying higher education).

Texas, for instance, has become a leader in renewable-energy production, even without a legislative mandate. The state, which has a quarter of all the wind power in America, is getting 12.6% of its electricity from wind, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

U.S. cities also are adopting their own policies.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel this week said his city would “work with cities around the country to reduce our emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti this week said the city introduced a motion to adopt the principles of the Paris agreement “as the policy of the City of Los Angeles.” Mr. Garcetti is part of a coalition of 61 mayors that has vowed to uphold the agreement.

“We will intensify efforts to meet each of our cities’ current climate goals,” the coalition said.

----------

Democrats hope to use this issue in 2018 and 2020. A trillion dollars has been spent on this faux issue - (CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer, soot is a pollutant but something we have already dealt with with technology in our power plants, factories and automobiles). Advocacy groups like the UCS, globalists and the UN under their control have forced the indoctrination of young and impressionable older people into believing CO2 is a pollutant and the cause of everything natural that is bad.

The democrats use the ‘GRUBER’ method of keep repeating a lie and “since Americans are stupid people, they will believe it”. The regions where they have taken this idea forward are paying the highest prices for electricity in the country (lower 48). In Europe where the green agenda has first been implemented, electricity prices are two to three times higher. You hear the democrats yelling bowing out of Paris will hurt the poor when in fact abiding with the Paris agreement would cause electricity and energy prices to rise significantly which hurts the poor and middle class.

300,000 German households had their electricity turned off for inability to pay and over 25% of UK residents are in energy poverty, many of them pensioners.  That is coming here to the cities and states which are going to commit regardless of Trump. It will cost them jobs as industry exits. They will increase already high taxes or cry to DC for help as their deficits skyrocket.

Califronia and the green northeast which established the regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) pay the highest electricity prices in the lower 48 states already.

image
Enlarged

WAKE UP AMERICA.

Jun 03, 2017
Under promise and over deliver

James Delingpole

Under promise and over deliver.

As a businessman, Trump knows that those are the rules. And as president that’s just what he did today in his inspirational speech about pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.

It was inspirational because it articulated better than any world leader has ever done before why environmentalism is in fact such a harmful creed.

Rather than get bogged down in the “science” of climate change - an elephant trap so arranged by climate alarmists to make anyone who disagrees with them look ignorant or “anti-science” - he cut to the chase and talked about the important stuff that hardly ever gets mentioned by all the other politicians, for some reason: the fact that the climate change industry is killing jobs.

He talked about “lost jobs; lower wages, shuttered factories.”

He listed what the effects of implementing the Paris Agreement would be, by 2040, on key sectors of the US economy:

Paper down 12 percent

Cement down 23 percent

Iron and steel down 38 per cent

Coal down 86 percent

It was simple and it was brilliant. Here was Trump talking to his voter base, feeling American workers’ pain and telling them [he didn’t actually say this but this was the message]: “I won’t abandon you. I won’t sell you down the river, whatever the global elite may want and however much they try to bully me. You people come before all this green crap.”

And it also has the virtue of being true. Sure the actual figures may be guesstimates, but there’s no question that the tenor of his argument is quite accurate: climate regulation like the Paris agreement makes energy more expensive, slows economic growth and kills jobs, especially in the heavy industrial and fossil fuel sectors.

This argument ought to be low hanging fruit to any half way intelligent politician: it’s such an obvious way of connecting with the workers. Yet Trump is the only one who has ever said it. And hearing him say it was a reminder of why it was that he won the presidential election. He connects with his people in a way that so many politicians just don’t.

Compare and contrast with the other world leaders: Merkel, May, Macron, Trudeau, Turnbull - not one of those charlatans dares tell the truth about the global climate change industry, that it’s a racket which achieves nothing but simply transfers wealth from Western nations to countries like India and China.

The other clever thing about that speech, of course, is that he’d kept us guessing to the last. Me included.

I thought he was going to fudge it much more than he did; that he’d end up compromising to please Ivanka.

But with this speech on Paris, President Trump has delivered.

Just when even some of his fans were starting to doubt him, he has made his presidency great again.

Jun 01, 2017
Paris Accord : Cornwall Alliance Celebrates Withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement!

Paris Climate Cup
Final / OT

Swamp 0
Deplorables 1

In response to numerous requests, please see below.  Thanks again for all you can do to flood the zone with public support for this pullout today…

Paul Teller
Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
The White House

THE WHITE HOUSE

President Trump’s announcement today that he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement is a milestone, and we hope you won/t mind if we at the Cornwall Alliance say we’re proud to have helped bring it about by educating the American people and policymakers on the science, economics, ethics, and theology of climate change and climate and energy policy. Our press release is below, and we invite you to celebrate with us and, especially, to render thanksgiving to God in prayer!

For Immediate Release

Burke, VA, June 1, 2017 - President Donald Trump today announced his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement.

“Not only Americans but people all over the world should celebrate,” said Cornwall Alliance Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner.

President Trump’s decision took courage in the face of pressure from many world leaders to remain in the agreement.

“But it’s the right decision,” Dr. Beisner said. “It’s right because, as former NASA scientist and leading climate alarmist Dr. James Hansen put it, “the Paris agreement is a fraud, really, a fake ...just worthless words.”

Why would someone like Hansen say that?

Because even assuming climate alarmists are right and human emissions of carbon dioxide are driving dangerous global warming, full implementation of the Paris agreement throughout this century would be no help to the environment or to people. Instead, it would be harmful to both.

And as President Trump said today, the Paris agreement is predicted by its proponents to “reduce global temperature by no more than 2 tenths of a degree Celsius.” That reduction would cost $23 to $46 trillion per tenth of a degree Fahrenheit - an amount that will have no effect on the environment or human wellbeing.

“It would trap billions in poverty for decades to come,” said Beisner. “Since a clean, healthful, beautiful environment is a costly good, this means prolonging environmental damage and delaying environmental improvement.”

And that’s assuming the alarmist predictions are accurate. Real life observations have proven the models, the only basis for those alarmist predictions, to be completely false. So not only is it all pain and no gain, it’s all pain and no gain for no reason.

We are grateful to President Donald J. Trump for his thoughtful exploration of the issues, his courageous leadership against great pressure, and his willingness to stand up for the American people.

But it is important to note that withdrawing from the Paris agreement, and opposing other environmental alarmist policies, is not just good for Americans, it is good for the citizens of all countries - especially the poor.

-------

Media contact: Megan Toombs, Director of Communications, Megan@CornwallAlliance.org, 703-569-4653

We are celebrating this victory, but there is still so much more to be done. Climate alarmists will only turn up the heat now, and we’ll need to continue to fight them tooth and nail. If you would like to make a donation to support the work of the Cornwall Alliance in opposing radical environmental policies.

------

Pre-Press Conference talking points:

Topline: The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.

UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs

* According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades.

* By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs - including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs

- It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power

- The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters

* The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come.

- Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030

The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

* America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically.

- Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to decline.

- According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas production.

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund - which is about 30 percent of the initial funding - without authorization from Congress

- With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy needs.

- The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible.  The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius in 2100. 

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfil your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

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.

NOTE:

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 left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“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.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

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.

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

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)