The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
The Blogosphere
Friday, November 20, 2015
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ - ‘Based On Nonsense’

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ - ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’

By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot

Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet world premiere in Paris.

From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore

AUSTIN, Texas - A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is - when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  - is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.” Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind. “People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity - meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted. “When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ - ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ - The ‘Pause’ continues)

“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW.

Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the ‘language of science.’

“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote. “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.

Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science. “John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added. Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.

Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and feel free to say ‘So what?’”

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.” “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued. “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained. Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added. Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.” “If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said. “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.

Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.


“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued. “The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.

“CO2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.


Se also Nils Axel Morner’s sea Level analysis which will be also distributed at Paris showing the hype about AGW induced sea level rise is unwarranted.


Still the best debunking movie - The Great Global Warming Swindle


The New ‘Consensus’: 97 Percent Of Americans Arenít Worried About Global Warming


While 97 percent of scientists may agree mankind is driving global warming, 97 percent of Americans don’t seem to care about the issue when stacked up against other concerns such as terrorism or the economy, according to a recent Fox News poll.

A November Fox News poll of more than 1,000 registered voters found that only 3 percent listed “climate change” as the most important issue facing the country today, down from 5 percent in August. Americans were much more worried about terrorism, the economy and immigration than global warming.

Even among Democrats concern for global warming was low. The Fox poll found only 6 percent of Democrats listed global warming as their top concern, compared to 1 percent of Republicans. Men were slightly more likely than women to list global warming as their top concern, and whites were more likely than blacks to worry about warming.

Fox released its poll as President Barack Obama prepares to meet other world leaders in Paris next week for a United Nations climate summit. Obama desperately wants countries to sign onto a global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and make up for his foreign policy failure at Copenhagen in 2009.

But Obama’s climate agenda doesn’t seem to be gaining traction with Americans despite increased efforts to tie global warming to extreme weather, public health concerns and national security.

Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer spent $73 million during the 2014 election cycle backing liberal candidates and trying to make global warming a top tier issue in campaigns but with little success it would seem.

Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire, has vowed to dump money into getting candidates to talk more about global warming. Steyer held a fundraiser earlier this year for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who later released a plan to build half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term.

Republican donor Jay Faison, a North Carolina businessman, has also pledged to spend big making global warming a top-tier political issue. Faison’s money may have already convinced New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to support federal regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Faison donated $5,400 to Ayotte’s campaign in June. He also gave $500,000 to a super PAC called Granite State Solutions, according to the Center or Responsive Politics. That PAC could be used to defend Ayotte and other New Hampshire Republican candidates during the 2016 election cycle.

“After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment,” Ayotte said in a statement last month.

Posted on 11/20 at 12:14 PM
(12) TrackbacksPermalink

Saturday, November 07, 2015
Is ‘climate change’ really the world’s most pressing problem? (OPINION)

By Gordon Fulks

Famed Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once described science as “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The very first scientific society, The Royal Society, adopted the motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.” Questioning is the stock-in-trade of scientists; it is the way we discover new things and the way we keep science honest. Without the ability to question conclusions, science degenerates into politics and pseudo-religion.

Yet fanatical proponents of the prevailing climate paradigm, like historian Naomi Oreskes, argue that such questioning is equivalent to the tobacco companies questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. That is pure political nonsense, because the arbiter in science is always robust data, not opinion. And we scientists relish the opportunity to point out again the very sturdy statistical links between smoking and lung cancer.

The problem with climate science is that the robust data that should backup the alarming conclusions of the establishment are not there. In fact the robust data show no link between man-made CO2 and global temperature. To be sure, propagandists are forever promoting natural climate variations as “proof.” But these are merely proof that our climate continues to cycle in response to natural forces, as it always has. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period and had nothing to do with our ancestors pulling their chariots with Hummers. This simple logic puts those scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria on the defensive.


Knowing that the robust data is running solidly against them, they are looking elsewhere for a way to win the argument. Climate modelers who have been predicting far more warming than has been observed are particularly on the defensive, because their failures are well documented. To try to salvage something, they have asked President Barack Obama to invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to prosecute as mobsters their fellow scientists who dare to disagree with them. When 20 scientists, led by Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University (and GMI Climate Propogandist, Ed Maibach, demanded such action, hurricane expert Peter Webster told atmospheric sciences Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech that these scientists had “signed the death warrant for science.” And Lamar Smith, R-Texas, began a congressional inquiry to question such a brazen attack on science and those who practice it. No one imagined how this drama would unfold. It soon became apparent that Shukla had diverted a portion of his $63 million in government contract funds to his family. It seems he was not content with just a lucrative salary.

This scandal is unfolding as the United Nations is about to convene another climate conference in Paris later this month. To make matters worse, well-known French TV meteorologist Philippe Verdier was abruptly removed from French government television for writing a book charging that we “:are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change - a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

Will these latest scandals overshadow the Paris conference, as the “Climategate” scandal hung heavily over the Copenhagen conference? My sense is that the participants are now very well-practiced at weathering the perpetual setbacks swirling around them. Total denial has worked for them in the past. Why not now?

What will slow them down is the enormity of what they demand: enormous payments to developing nations and enormous curtailment of industrial activity in the developed world, further shifting it to those developing nations. None of this legitimately addresses any concerns about carbon dioxide, however misguided. It only shifts carbon emissions from one location to another, giving corrupt politicians and bureaucrats a chance to claim success before people realize that they have been duped again by the pervasive propaganda.

One can only hope that Paris will finally mark the unraveling of the vast and greedy climate cartel. The world must move on to far more pressing - and real - problems.

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

Posted on 11/07 at 06:38 PM
(37) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, October 13, 2015
More lies and chicanery. Buying university and corporate support for leftist ideology


Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming? The real truth. Politicians, government agencies under their thumb, the greens, corporations and universities all benefiting from the fraud are misleading the public with the help of the all too compliant media. See here how a climate ignorant and incompetent politician continues to make stupid statements that make the news.

See more here.

See first how Corporations are whores for the government like the universities accepting huge funding if they support the warming fraud.

The White House business climate

Firms that take the president’s global warming pledge stand to profit
By Meteorologist Anthony Sadar, Washington Times

The American Business Act on Climate Pledge continues to attract new customers. Last week the White House announced new commitments to its mantra that may become just another solemn affirmation required of businesses before they are handed lucrative federal government contracts at the expense of “we the people.”

The voluntary pledge, accessible at the White House’s press office website, is mercifully short. A company must support the upcoming November-December climate change agreement in Paris for a low-carbon, sustainable future. From there the business must submit to the conclusion that “multiple benefits [will result] with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.” Apparently, there is no downside to joining the fight against inexpensive, poverty-alleviating fossil fuels that have yet to be shown to be the true enemy of the global ecosphere.

Predictably, companies formed to usurp fossil fuel’s place in the energy market, have signed on (Abengoa Bioenergy and Pacific Ethanol, for example). In addition, corporate giants like American Express, Apple, AT&T, General Mills, General Motors, IBM, Pepsi, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s have pledged their support.

Each business provides details on their substantial commitments to operate more efficiently and cause less harm to the environment. There is no doubt about the benefits to the biosphere that these common-sense actions will yield, so the question is this: Why not do the right thing for the right reason? Increased recycling, energy efficiency activities, raw material substitutions, reduced water consumption and the like are what all businesses should be doing anyway to be better stewards of the environment and more conscientious business entities. But simply doing the right thing in this case seems to have a more sinister side when politics steps in.

The White House has apparently generated a list of companies and organizations that will eventually be deemed friendly to the environment and worthy of the government’s largesse and praise, while those not so listed will be shamed into signing, or be called enemies of the earth or simply greedy corporations.

It seems that by signing the pledge, American businesses are tacitly supporting the White House’s leftist ideology that relies on a supposed connection between low-cost fuels and catastrophic global warming to impose new burdens on the American people.

The White House puts its faith in climate prophesies that corroborate its own foregone, convenient conclusions and uses its bully pulpit to force others to convert or die - that is, be smeared and shunned.

The failure of computer models to predict climate change accurately over nearly two decades now shows that sufficient knowledge is definitely lacking to require a reworking of the world economy based on wind mills, solar collectors and biomass, rather than oil, natural gas and coal.

Americans seem to know the relative unimportance of man-made climate change as concerns about such change languish at the bottom of lists of issues that really trouble the citizenry - lists with the economy and terrorism at the top.

Yet, the White House will put the full faith and credit of its citizens on the line at the Paris climate confab to promote drastic economic changes that will do little, if anything, to combat the profound dominance of natural climate change. What is more likely to happen is that large global enterprises and governments interested in wealth redistribution will profit immensely, while the poor will be left, once again, to freeze (or swelter) in the dark.

Meanwhile, big businesses will benefit by pledging their allegiance to the White House, but will the republic, for which it should stand, benefit?

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust” (Telescope Books, 2012).



By Dr. Charles Battig (MD)

Now I can finally relax, take a deep breath, and breathe easier.  The Environmental Protection Agency, an aggressive arm of the nanny government, has just issued new air quality standards that mandate that the new ‘safe” level of ozone in the air we breathe shall be lowered from the current 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.  I feel better already, perhaps.

I also feel better for all the theoretical lives that will be saved, according to EPA sponsored studies such as this one.  However, my joy is tempered by the realization that those are not real lives saved, rather, they are “estimated deaths saved,” as in “We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature.”

Thus, the fewer ozone deaths will be taking place in a computer-generated fantasy world, where epidemiological data-torturing takes place by bits and bytes, not in the hospital admission records for real-life patients.  The referenced paper concludes: “We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75 ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC - recommended range of standards (70 to 60 ppb) had been met.”

Such papers are used to justify the EPA’s claims that “[s]tudies indicate that exposure to ozone at levels below 75 ppb—the level of the current standard - can pose serious threats to public health, harm the respiratory system, cause or aggravate asthma and other lung diseases, and is linked to premature death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes.” Lowering of atmospheric ozone concentration is presented as a win for health and associated increased energy costs: “EPA estimates that the benefits of meeting the proposed standards will significantly outweigh the costs. If the standards are finalized, every dollar we invest to meet them will return up to three dollars in health benefits. These large health benefits will be gained from avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths, among other health effects valued at $6.4 to $13 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $19 to $38 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 65 ppb. Annual costs are estimated at $3.9 billion in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $15 billion for a standard at 65 ppb.”

As a physician, I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.” How am I to know that that unfortunate patient, who has just died, died prematurely?  If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause.  All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively.  The answer lies within the all-knowing, EPA-sponsored computers, as in “health assessment methodology” that claim the ability to define who died before their time.

When independent epidemiological researchers examine real-world patients, real-world hospital admissions, and real-world medical records, the EPA health claims are not validated.  In smoggy central California, such a study reported:  “Average ground-level ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) measurements were not correlated with 19,327 patient admissions for asthma at the University of California-Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) during 2010-2012.” Another study concluded: “Overwhelming epidemiologic evidence now indicates that there is no relationship in California between PM and total mortality [also known as ‘premature deaths.’]” Yet another study: “[T]he empirical evidence is that current levels of air quality, ozone and PM2.5, are not causally related to acute deaths for California. An empirical and logical case can be made air quality is not causally related to acute deaths for the rest of the United States.”

Surely smoggy air must be unhealthy.  It must be, because it looks so bad.  The poster child for such smoggy air is Shanghai, China, where newspaper pictures depict a yellow haze obscuring the visibility of buildings.  However, the average lifespan there is 82.5 years, bettering the reported lifespan in any major U.S. city.

Surely pristine nature would be the place to avoid smoggy air.  Millions visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in spite of the off-putting name.  When it is nature, it is smoky; when man-made, it is smog.  Yet the basic chemical process is the same.  Native conifers emit organic compounds known as terpenes, which interact with sunlight to produce...smog.  Few park visitors are reported being victims of “premature death” secondary to breathing polluted air.

One final reason not to expect the EPA’s claims of ozone reduction and resultant saving of premature deaths of asthma victims to materialize is that the root cause of asthma is not completely known.  It may be hereditary, and it may be secondary to environmental factors, or some combination thereof.  A variety of factors can trigger an asthma attack in a susceptible individual.  It maybe exercise, cold air, or indoor antigens.  The Wall Street Journal October 1, 2015 article “Asthma Linked to Missing Bacteria” reported an association with the type of intestinal bacterial flora.  A puzzling observation is that even as the EPA air quality standards have achieved a 63-percent reduction in major air pollutants between 1980 and 2014, asthma rates have continued to rise in the U.S.  Between 1980 and 2010, asthma incidence in the population is reported to have gone from 3.1 percent to 8.4 percent.

The EPA computers have spoken, and theoretical “premature deaths” will be averted.  In the real world, energy prices will likely increase and impact the least advantaged the hardest as they struggle to pay for the air-conditioning and heating by which modern technology protects us from the reality of nature’s health impacts.

Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE).  His website is ICECAP was pleased to sponsor Dr Battig’s attendeance at the early ICCC conferences that we co-sponsored. Dr. Battig has presented at recent conferences and writes frequently on the topic.

Posted on 10/13 at 09:30 AM
(53) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, September 20, 2015
“Climate Change Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science”

The Evil, Lethal Underside of Human Population Control

This statement was written by Paul Driessen as a message to EIR’s September 22, 2015 press conference in Manhattan, announcing the release of the special report, “‘Global Warming’ Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science.” The report features a lengthy interview with Driessen.

One of the dark undersides of the extreme environmental movement is its long obsession with population control. Once linked to alleged resource depletion and global famine, human population control is now tied to the assertion that our Earth cannot possibly meet everyone’s aspirations for modern housing, transportation, energy and living standards ... without causing irreversible climate change and sustainability disasters.

It is also driven by claims that human populations must be reduced and then limited to some arbitrary “carrying capacity.” President Obama’s Science Adviser John Holdren and Pope Francis’ senior climate change adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber both say our planet’s maximum carrying capacity is a mere one billion people. (See the special report on the unholy alliance that has been advising Pope Francis on the environment and climate change here. )

Naturally, they are carefully and deliberately vague about exactly HOW we are supposed to “progress” from 7.2 billion men, women and children on our planet today - or a projected 9.6 billion people in 2050 - to just one billion some years from now.

They prefer not to discuss how six to 8.5 billion people are to be removed from the human gene pool...which billions must perish...and who gets to decide. It’s all cloaked in pious, ecological, euphemistic language. However, statements by prominent environmentalists offer solid clues.

Mr. Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich have written: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We must then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added - from their Human Ecology book]

Ehrlich also said: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Even more outrageous, he claimed that the “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries. Since those people were not practicing birth control, certainly not at the level he deems necessary, they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.

And so radical environmentalists have waged campaigns against using DDT as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water, and even during floods or droughts.

They are also viscerally against all forms of carbon-based and nuclear energy, which yield far more reliable and affordable energy, and far more energy per acre than wind, solar and biofuel alternatives.

These statements and policies make several things abundantly clear.

In the view of population control advocates - mostly less educated, darker skinned people in mostly poor, underdeveloped countries are less desirable, and less worth saving, than people in richer, mostly Caucasian countries. People in the political, ruling classes must be exempt from decisions about population control, resource allocation, housing, travel and living standards.

And someone must decide how many people, having which skills, will be needed to feed and clothe - and provide energy, raw materials and technologies for whatever portion of that remaining one billion people are not in those ruling classes.

From my perspective, it is a crime against humanity to impose policies that pretend to protect the world’s most energy-deprived masses from hypothetical, computer-generated climate, resource depletion and other catastrophes decades from now - by perpetuating energy deprivation, poverty, malnutrition and disease that now kill millions of people every year.

These are all fascinating issues. One has to wonder how the vast majority of the world’s people feel about them - and who will ask President Obama, Pope Francis, Ban Ki Moon and UN climate director Christiana Figueres some of these very troubling and inconvenient questions.

Paul Driessen
Senior policy analyst, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality

Access the full reoport and get copies to distribute here.

UPDATE: Top scientist resigns from post, admits Global Warming is a scam

There is no Global Warming

Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don’t like this stuff getting out).

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence - it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.


Climate Alarmists demand Obama use the RICO act to Silence Critics

Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

Leader of 20 scientist effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO revealed as ‘Climate Profiteer’! ‘From 2012-2014, the Leader of RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.

George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla ( a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.

Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed.

“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,"Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Sep 17, 2015
[SEPP Comment: The appalling low being reached by those who do not tolerate intellectual questioning and disagreement.]

Climate Scientists give up on science, talk tobacco, want to jail skeptics
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 18, 2015

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Sep 17, 2015

Scientists ask Obama for RICO investigation to end climate debate
By Thomas Richard, Examiner, Sep 17, 2015

Suppressing Scientific Inquiry - The Witch Hunt - Push-Back

Failed Climate Scientists Call For RICO Investigation To Stop Criticisms, And Non-Scientist Claims Scientists Will Cause Next Genocide
By William Briggs, His Blog, Sep 18, 2015

RICO: IPCC and comrades may be prosecuted for racketeering
By Lubos Motl, The Reference Frame, Sep 18, 2015

Silencing Dissent Via the Police (No Climate Free Speech, Part 3)
By Donna Laframboise, NFC, Sep 18, 2015


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova and James Delingpole - A group of climate scientists, including Professor Kevin Trenberth, have demanded President Obama abuse the RICO act, to silence criticism of their theories.

The letter;

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change. Indeed, the worlds response to climate change is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity and potential strategies for addressing them are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

From the thread at William M. Briggs’ post on this:

patrick michaels

September 19, 2015 at 12:16 am

The letter was written by Jagadish Shukla, a climate modeler at George Mason University. His GMU CV lists ~16 million in federal funds in five years, If we back those years (2004-08) out and go forward, he’s probably good for about 100m (that’s1/10 of a billion) in 2006 dollars over his career. But wait, there’s more!

The letter did not come from GMU. It came from his consulting company, the Institute of Global Environment and Society [sic]. There, you will see that his wife and (apparently) his daughter are the administrators, no doubt for a princessly sum, because most CV’s don’t list your outside consulting contracts. But wait, you can get eight for one!

That’s because the largest number of people who signed this miscarriage work for him, at the same company, or at GMU, where probably a load of his consulting stuff is funneled through.;

Talk about RICO! I can’t make this up, it’s too good. They had better hope a vindictive Republican never gets elected while they are still kicking. If that person had control of only one house of Congress, the government would probably run amok against them, to the detriment of all of science, as governments don’t know when or where to stop.

Posted on 09/20 at 07:07 AM
(96) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, September 11, 2015
Are the recent hot days a sign of global warming or just weather?

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

As expected the AGW minded media made a big deal about the heat early this week and month in the northeast. New York City’s record 97F Tuesday was used as an example of increasing heat records. Was it really AGW or just weather. Well, we at Weatherbell have been forecasting some late heat into September especially in the northeast because our statistical models suggested that we would see late heat after a cool central summer and before the El Nino winter.

There was no attention paid to the cool US July.


But let’s look at the recent data which sparked coverage.

Look at the Central Park September records. The 97F record came a day after a 101F record set in 1881. All of the heat and cold records are from the distant past. 2015 was an exception.


The 1930s to 1950s had 28 100F days in Central Park.


The EPA posts the annual heat wave index (Kunkel). It shows the 1930s was the warmest decade.


The number of the 90F degree days at all US stations has been trending down not up.


Steve Goddard showed an example of a real heat wave in 1925.


Most of warming even in the warm corrupted station data set is at night (a signature of the Urban Heat Island) with daytime maxima (Menne, NCDC) showing the 60 year cycle but not long term trend. In fact the warming 1910-1935 was greater than 1980 to 2005.



NOAA shows the areal coverage of unusually hot temperatures (high max and high min). It shows only a cyclical change in high maxima but with increasing high minima (which relates to Urban Heat Island).


Posted on 09/11 at 09:33 AM
(5) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, September 07, 2015
Obama’s deceitful, unsustainable energy decrees


President Obama is trying hard to ignore and obfuscate serious inconvenient realities about his multi-billion-dollar renewable energy schemes, how little energy they provide, and the enormous human and environmental impacts they inflict. Mr. Obama’s real goal, of course, is to “fundamentally transform” and downsize the US and global economies. He is determined to impose this agenda, despite its already limited support and how much lower that support would be if more people understood the costs and consequences.

Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues - to help make more people aware of what is happening ...and what it means for jobs, human welfare and environmental quality.

Best regards,



Obama’s deceitful, unsustainable energy decrees

Wind and solar reap taxpayer loot, while hydrocarbon energy, industries and jobs get pummeled

Paul Driessen

“That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent-seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business, and standing in the way of the future.”

That wasn’t the Wall Street Journal lambasting the mandate - and subsidy-dependent renewable energy consortium. It was President Obama demonizing critics of his plans to replace carbon-based energy with wind, solar and biofuels, stymie the hydraulic fracturing revolution that’s given the United States another century of oil and gas - and “fundamentally transform” and downsize the US and global economies.

The president thinks this legacy will offset the Iran, Iraq, Islamic State and other policy debacles he will bequeath to his successors. His presidential library exhibits won’t likely mention those foreign policy fiascoes or the ways his energy policies mostly benefit the richest 1% of Americans, especially political cronies and campaign contributors while crippling the economy and pummeling millions of families and businesses that depend on reliable, affordable oil, gas and coal energy for their income and welfare.

Mr. Obama and his regulators have already imposed enormous financial, labor, ozone, water, climate, power generation and other burdens on our economy - mostly with trifling benefits that exist only in computer models, White House press releases, and rosy reports from advocacy groups that receive billions of dollars from his Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other agencies. On August 24, he announced another billion-dollar program to force America to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030: mostly wind and solar, plus a little more geothermal and biomass.

Those sources now provide less than 8% of all electricity, so this is a monumental increase. If the president wants to take credit for any alleged benefits, he must also accept blame for the abysmal failures.

One of the biggest is Solyndra, the solar company that got $535 million in taxpayer-guaranteed loans just before it went belly-up. A four-year investigation found that Solyndra falsified its financials, sales outlook and other business dealings and omitted material facts. However, the Department of Energy failed in its due diligence obligations and apparently buckled under White House pressure to approve the financing.

Par for the course, though, the Justice Department will not seek criminal indictments of any Solyndra officials, nor penalize any DOE apparatchiks for their willing incompetence. After all, a principal investor in the company (George Kaiser) was a major donor to Obama campaigns.

Of course, dozens of other companies also dined at the federal trough, before going under and costing us taxpayers many billions of dollars. But the administration wants more money and mandates - and more rules that destroy conventional energy competitors - to drive his climate and “transformation” agendas.

Meanwhile, he ignores the one truly and steadily innovative business that has generated real energy, jobs, wealth and tax revenues during his presidency - and largely kept the tepid Obama economy afloat: fracking. In fact, his bureaucrats are working to ban the technology on federal lands and regulate it into a marginal role elsewhere, even as the industry reduces its water use, keeps gasoline prices low, finds ways to produce oil at $45 per barrel, and proves its practices do not contaminate drinking water.

The president also ignores inconvenient facts about his “clean, eco-friendly” renewable energy utopia. For example, wind and solar facilities require vast land acreage and are increasingly moving into sensitive wildlife habitats, threatening protected and endangered birds, bats and other species.

The proposed 550-mile Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline from West Virginia shale gas fields across Virginia to southern North Carolina would impact about 4,600 acres (12% of the District of Columbia), and nearly all that land would be restored to croplands or grassy habitats as soon as the pipe is laid. The fuel is destined mostly for existing gas-fired electrical generating units on a few hundred total acres. If all that gas were used to generate electricity, it would produce 190,500 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.

In stark contrast, generating the same electricity with wind would require 46,000 400-foot turbines on some 475,000 acres of land plus thousands of acres of towering transmission lines to urban centers hundreds of miles away. They would be permanent and highly visible eyesores and wildlife killers, crossing deforested mountain ridges and scenic areas, and generating electricity maybe 20% of the time. Building them would require millions of tons of concrete, iron, copper, rare earth metals from China’s ruined Baotou region, and petroleum for the monstrous bird and bat chopping turbine blades.

Energy analyst Robert Bryce says meeting the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan emission goals would require blanketing 34 million acres (an area larger than New York State) with wind turbines.

A 2013 study estimates that US wind turbines already kill some 573,000 birds a year - 83,000 of them bald and golden eagles and other raptors. Far better data from Europe, however, suggests that the annual US death toll is closer to 13 million birds and bats. And our wildlife agencies exempt wind companies from endangered species and other environmental laws. More turbines will multiply the carnage.

Moreover, we would still need the gas-fired units, operating inefficiently on standby spinning reserve status and going to full power dozens of times daily, whenever the wind stops blowing. Ditto for solar.

Using solar panels to generate 190,500 MWH per day would require 1.7 million acres of land - akin to blanketing Delaware and Rhode Island with habitat-destroying panels - plus long transmission lines and gas-fired units.  Los Angeles recently refused to buy power from a much smaller 2,557-acre solar project proposed for the Mojave Desert, because of impacts on desert tortoises and bighorn sheep.

President Obama never mentions any of this - or the fact that greater natural gas use is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which he claims have replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces in driving climate change. This April, US CO2 emissions fell to their lowest level for any month in 27 years. But now that he’s sent coal marching toward history’s ash heap, natural gas is next on his target list.

To top it off, all the billions of dollars, crony corporatism, campaign cash for helpful politicians, feed-in tariffs and Renewable Fuel Standards (mandates and diktats) - and all the habitat and wildlife impacts - will raise the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass share of the nation’s energy mix from 8% today to only 10% in 2040, to supply our growing population, Energy Information Administration analysts project.

Since 2006, US households received over $18 billion just in federal income tax credits for weatherizing homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. But the bottom 60% of families received only 10% of this loot; the top 10% got 60% of the total and 90% of the subsidies and tax credits for ultra-expensive electric vehicles, like the $132,000 Tesla Model S. Worse, that $18 billion could have drilled wells to provide safe drinking water for five billion people!

The United States depends on energy-rich fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric power - not pie-in-the-sky ideas or smoke-and-mirrors solutions to imaginary climate catastrophes. So does the rest of the world. We cannot afford pseudo-environmental ideologies, climate fabrications and dictatorial decrees.

Germany’s Energiewende (mandated energy transformation) program also seeks to replace coal and nuclear energy with wind, solar and biofuels. It has made German electricity prices (including $31.5 billion in hidden annual subsidies) nearly ten times higher than in US states that still rely on coal for power generation. The program has already killed countless jobs and threatens to send still more energy-intensive companies overseas - to countries that justifiably refuse to slash their hydrocarbon use, CO2 emissions or economic growth in the name of controlling Earth’s eternally changing climate.

Every winter, German, British and other European policies literally kill thousands of poor and elderly people who can no longer afford to heat their homes properly. Where is that vaunted liberal compassion?

Why would the United States want to proceed lemming-like down a similarly delusional energy pathway to economic ruin and the needless deaths of birds, bats and our most vulnerable citizens? Other than reelecting Mr. Obama, what did we do to deserve this? And how can we undo the damage?

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Posted on 09/07 at 11:18 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, August 31, 2015
Is July of 2015 the warmest ever?  Not even close!

Redneck Engineer

NOAA RELEASE: The July 2015 average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46F (0.861C) above the 20th century average. As July is climatologically the warmest month for the year, this was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880 to 2015 record, at 61.86F (16.61C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.14F (0.08C).


“It just reaffirms what we already know: that the Earth is warming,”said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch. “The warming is accelerating and we’re really seeing it this year.”


NASA reported a global anomaly of 0.72C (1.29F), also the highest in their entire record (base period for comparison 1951-1990).



Sure looks conclusive.  But global data bases are seriously flawed and easily manipulated and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends.

Numerous versions of the global data have been issued in the past 25 years. Each one produced more and more of an apparent warming, accomplished by cooling the past and allowing urban heat island to run rampant in recent decades.  See this NASA change graph DIFFERENCE from the latest version in 2015 from the version in 2008.  You can see it has increased the apparent warming from the 1930s to the present by about 0.3C (0.5F).


The net effects of the adjustments made since May 2008 are to generate a more smoothly increasing global temperature since 1880.  In fact most all of the claimed warming is in the adjustments to the data.

This is before NCDC adds the adjustments to get the results demanded for. Predictably, NOAA and NASA adjusted their July temperatures as they did in June and May and in 2014 just enough to be able to make the claims warmest ever, all leading up to the UN treaty in Paris later this year.

Meteorologists and in fact NOAA itself in their models ignores this ‘adjusted data’. NOAA uses many raw data inputs to construct a high-resolution global analysis four times a day that is used to initialize the all the models (including their climate models) used by forecasters in government and industry. Weatherbell’s Dr. Ryan Maue compiled the four times a day data going back to 1981 and computes in real-time our own monthly global picture. You will notice with a base period of 1981-2010, the anomaly globally is not even close to NOAA’s 0.81C nor NASA’s 0.72C but just 0.155C. Some of the difference has to do with the base period used for the averages to compute anomalies but most of it is in the adjustments and blending techniques and how they infill for large data gaps or widespread missing surface station data.


Notice the very cold Southern Hemisphere high latitude oceans/ Antarctic, ignored by NOAA though included by NASA.

The temperatures in this reanalysis data shows no warming for over 10 years and the +0.155C anomaly is in the middle of the pack of Julys for the last decade, not the warmest ever.  It ranked 10th warmest in the last 20 years.




Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments, which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the atmospheric temperatures.

The advantage of the satellites is they provide complete global coverage, and are not biased by local heat sources like most weather instruments in cities or airports.

There are two satellite remote sensing groups the NASA UAH site in Huntsville, Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems, a scientific research company located in California, specializing in satellite microwave remote sensing of the Earth.

Both satellite sources showed there has been no warming trend for over 18.5 years. Both showed July and recent months were not even close to being warmest even in just the last 20 years.

Dr. John Christy, Alabama Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the UAH said “According to microwave data from satellites going back to 1978, which are precise to within .08 of a degree, “very little warming is taking place.”


UAH assessed lower troposphere temperatures have not warmed for over 18 years. The data showed global temperatures for July 2015 were the 9th warmest in the last 20 years.



July 2015 in the RSS data set just edged out 2003 for 8th place, but it was 0.32 C (0.58F) colder than 1998.

So three much more reliable sources suggest that July 2015 was not remarkable or special from a temperature standpoint

That is not to say that given the strong El Nino underway, we won’t see a spike up as we did in the satellite data in 1998 and 2010, but with a long strong La Nina likely to follow (like we saw in 1998-2000 and 2010/11), global temperatures will dive again and the pause is likely to give way to a slide starting in late 2016. How long NOAA or NASA waits before they let you see it in their data is the question.

The problem is that the same staff at NOAA and NASA responsible for running some of the greenhouse models and writing the reports that project the scary scenarios are also responsible for the data bases that validate the forecasts. The actual data should be constructed independently of the forecasts with people who do not have a financial and personal interest in seeing their forecasts verify. 

Indeed we see in the independent data sets like the satellite and balloon based ones, widespread model failures.  The failure of temperatures to warm invalidates all the other scary scenarios they claim we will or are already experiencing.


There is a lot of flexibility available for modelers to predict a desired result and data source inconsistencies to allow NOAA to be creative with a hybrid of data and models to show whatever the puppet masters in government require. It may be that some really believe in their science and work hard to mine the data, achieving a form of bias confirmation. In other cases it is ideologically or politically driven or simply a matter of job security

A look at all the data suggests that man made global warming is real but the men are in Asheville (NOAA NCDC) and New York CIty (NASA GISS).

Posted on 08/31 at 01:16 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, August 30, 2015
The nonsense of catastrophic warming

We see below, the NASA plot that the politicians, greens, the media and the trolls on the internet love to use to claim the earth is burning and man is responsible.


However, as Lindzen has shown many times, put it on a reasonable scale, it looks very different. What scale would be reasonable?

Well the temperature range during the day at 45N averages 9 to 15C (16 to 27F) depending on the season. The difference from coldest month to warmest month is 30C (54F).


If we choose just the smallest number 9C for the average daily range, even the bogus exaggerated change clearly does not look worrisome.


The average temperature in a room from the sunny end to the darker corner can vary 10F (over 5C). There used to be so much temperature variance in the workplace I spent 25+ years, we had a perceptible breeze blow. Most of the so called warming was shown by NCDC to be at night and not surprisingly in urban areas. This is UHI not AGW.


See NCDC’s Menne graph of USHCN temperature maxima that show the cyclical ocean/solar driven 60 year cycle but no AGW.


Even if NOAA/NASA’s contaminated temperatures were right, they would be undetectable and not mandate we give up the our reliable energy sources for not ready for prime time renewables. This unwise policy would drive up energy prices as we saw destroy economies in Europe. Certainly we should scream aloud to Washington and to our states and cities and towns they don’t need to spend trillions of dollars to address a phoney issue.

Posted on 08/30 at 07:27 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, August 26, 2015
UN IPCC has NO Credibility

UN IPCC also has NO Credibility
by Allan MacRae

In 2002 the PEGG, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) solicited the following debate on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord (Kyoto Protocol), between Dr. Matthew Bramley and Matt McCullough, P.Eng. of the Pembina Institute, who supported the Kyoto Accord and relied upon the IPCC’s position, and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist, Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton Paleoclimatologist, and Allan MacRae, P.Eng., who opposed Kyoto based on scientific statements in their PEGG article and rebuttal. Link

Now, after 13 years, it is instructive to look back at the two positions and determine how they have fared.

One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility, actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically; based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections. 

All the IPCC’s scary projections of catastrophic humanmade global warming, wilder weather, and climate change have failed to materialize, despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2, the purported driver of this falsely-predicted “weather weirding”. According to the best data from satellites, global temperatures measured in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have not increased significantly in about 18 years. Hurricane frequency and intensity are at record low levels. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.

The IPCC’s sycophants responded by falsifying the Surface Temperature (ST) record to overstate global warming:

In 2008 I calculated the “Warming Bias Rate{ [for 1979 to end-2007] = (Hadcrut3 ST - UAH LT anomalies) / time = 0.2C/2.8 decades or about 0.07C/decade. That was the apparent Warming Bias Rate in the ST versus the LT.

In 2015 the Warming Bias Rate [for 1979 to mid-2015] = (Hadcrut4 ST - UAH LT anomalies) / time = [0.685 -0.204]/3.5 decades = about 0.14/decade.


It is extremely improbable that the total (since 1979) difference in the (ST minus LT) temperature anomalies diverged this much in just 6 years. It is much more probable that the ST data was falsified to overstate global warming.

Pembina in its 2002 Rebuttal quoted the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers as follows:

“In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations…

The globally averaged surface temperature is projected [in business-as-usual scenarios] to increase by 1.4 to 5.8C over the period 1990 to 2100.”

In reality, the only quality data - from satellites - shows NO significant global warming for the past 18 years!

Pembina further stated:

“The IPCC, however, finds good agreement between model simulations and observed temperature over the past 140 years, including the temperature increase up to 1940, if the simulations include solar variation and volcanic activity along with emissions of GHGs and particulates.”

In reality, the models quoted by the IPCC have grossly over-predicted the amount of future global warming. These models were utterly corrupted by fabricated aerosol data that was used to justify an incredibly high climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS). The fabricated aerosol data was used to force the models to hindcast the global cooling that occurred circa 1940 to 1975. This false aerosol data was literally created “out of thin air” and is contradicted by actual data. See Dr. Douglas V. Hoyt’s comments here

The IPCC and its sycophants have fabricated a false scenario of catastrophic humanmade global warming and wilder weather that has NO credibility and is contradicted by two decades of data. There is evidence of the falsification of climate model inputs and surface temperature data to overstate claims of global warming. . 

In comparison, let us review the eight predictions we made on our 2002 Rebuttal [my comments in brackets]:

Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.

Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming - the alleged warming crisis does not exist. [NO net global warming has occurred for about 18 years.}

Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil. [Note pollution in China and former Soviet Union.]

Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity. [Since the start of global warming hysteria, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water.]

Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy - the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt. [Canada adopted Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it - the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government drank the Kool-Aid.]

Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment - it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution. {Note the air in China.]

Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.

[We shamed our government into not paying the FSU, but other governments did so, to bribe them to sign Kyoto.]

Kyoto will be ineffective - even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming. [IF one believed the utterly false climate models, one would probably conclude that we must cease fossil fuel consumption.].

The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply - the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels. [Those governments who adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and those governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as they try to save face.]

In summary, all our predictions have proven correct in those venues that fully embraced the now-defunct Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the IPCC’s scary projections have materialized.

So what happens next? Will we see catastrophic humanmade global warming? No, our planet will cool.[excerpts]

I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published in the Calgary Herald in 2002. That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity [in current SC24] has crashed… It is still early in the prediction game, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25… IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm. They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes. I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe [and the world] will get colder, possibly much colder. I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses. I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

Timing is difficult to estimate, but I now expect global cooling to be evident by 2020 or sooner.


Posted on 08/26 at 01:22 PM
(2) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, August 16, 2015
EPA’s gross negligence at Gold King

Fear-mongering, pollution standards and negligence rules don’t apply when EPA is at fault

Paul Driessen

On August 5, an Environmental Restoration company crew, supervised by US Environmental Protection Agency officials, used an excavator to dig away tons of rock and debris that were blocking the entrance portal of Colorado’s Gold King Mine, which had been largely abandoned since 1923. Water had been seeping into the mine and out of its portal for decades, and the officials knew (or could and should have known) the water was acidic (pH 4.0-4.5), backed up far into the mine, and laced with heavy metals.

But they kept digging until the greatly weakened dam burst open, unleashing a 3-million-gallon (or more) toxic flood that soon contaminated the Animas and San Juan Rivers, all the way to Lake Powell in Utah. To compound the disaster, EPA then waited an entire day before notifying downstream mayors, health officials, families, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and kayakers that the water they were drinking, using for crops and livestock, or paddling in was contaminated by lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

Three million gallons of turmeric-orange poisonous water and sludge is enough to fill a pool the size of a football field (360x160 feet) seven feet deep. Backed up hundreds of feet above the portal into mine adits, stopes, rooms and other passageways that begin at 11,458 feet above sea level, the flash-flooding water had enough power to rip out a road and propel its toxic muck hundreds of miles downstream. (You can review EPA’s incompetence and gross negligence in these project photos* and post-disaster images.)

Anyone who follows mining, oil spill and power plant accidents knows the EPA, Obama White House and Big Green environmentalist rhetoric: There is no safe threshold for chemicals. They are toxic and carcinogenic at parts per billion. The water will be unsafe for years or even decades. Wildlife will die. Corporate polluters are criminals and must pay huge fines. We will keep our boots on their necks.

This time the White House was silent, and Democrats and eco-activists rushed to defend EPA and shift the blame to mining and mining companies. EPA officials made statements they would never use if a private company had caused the blowout: EPA had simply “miscalculated” how much water had backed up. It was just trying to stick a pipe into the top of the mine to safely pump liquid out for treatment. We were “very careful.” Contaminants “are flowing too fast to be an immediate health threat.” The river is already “restoring itself” back to pre-spill levels, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insisted.

The evidence strongly suggests that EPA never studied or calculated anything, had no operations plan vetted and approved by state officials or mining experts, was not trying to install a pipe and was grossly careless and negligent. Toxic sludge was carried and deposited along hundreds of miles, contaminating water and riverbeds, where it will be stirred up for years during every heavy rainfall and snowmelt.

Mining engineers told me the prudent approach would have been to push or drill a 4-inch pipe through the rubble into the mine, to determine the water pressure, toxicity and extent of water backup in the mine and then build a strong cofferdam below the portal before proceeding. Simply removing the debris was stupid, dangerous and negligent, they said. It will take years now to correct the damage and assess costs.

A week after the great flood, EPA finally built a series of retention ponds to contain and filter out heavy metals and chemicals. But the August 5 surge and sludge are still contaminating Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico rivers, in arid regions where water is scarce and precious. The Navajo Tribal Unity Authority says meeting EPA standards for clean drinking water could double the tribe’s costs for building a new treatment plant and cost millions more in testing and operating expenses.

EPA says it will pay for testing, property damage, human injuries and hauling safe drinking water. But will it pay to truck in safe water for livestock and irrigation, and pay for crops and livestock lost because there is no water in the meantime, and cover millions in lost incomes for outfitters and hotel operators during what would have been their peak tourist seasons? Exxon paid such costs after the Valdez spill in Alaska; BP did likewise after its Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico; so have coal companies.

Shouldn’t EPA do likewise, instead of asserting “sovereign immunity” despite its gross negligence? Shouldn’t it cover these costs out of the millions of dollars it uses for employee bonuses and to pay environmental activists and public relations firms to promote its image and agenda instead of sticking taxpayers with the tab via special appropriations? Will EPA reimburse state and local governments and private charities for assistance they have already rendered? Will it fire the irresponsible officials, or at least demote and discipline them? Will Environmental Restoration pay its fair share?

Under standards that EPA and environmentalists apply to the private sector, Gold King was a disaster. However, the accident could also be an impetus for reflection and responsible regulatory reform.

Anti-mining pressure groups and factions within EPA will use this accident to press for new layers of mining rules, bonds, payments and liabilities. They are unnecessary and will only restrict the jobs, expertise and revenues needed to ensure that exploration, mining, reclamation and repair of abandoned (orphan) mines are done properly. Modern mining, processing and pollution prevention methods are vastly superior to those employed even 50 years ago, and do not cause the exaggerated impacts alleged by Earthwatch and others. Moreover, the metals and minerals are essential for the wondrous technologies and living standards, the health, housing, transportation and recreational pursuits, that we enjoy today.

The Gold King blowout was predictable and preventable. The mine was leaking slightly polluted water, but the problem was not serious and was being addressed, and the former mining town of Silverton, CO had repeatedly asked EPA not to intervene or make Gold King a Superfund site. Mining engineers and other experts were available, and some had offered their insights and expertise. EPA ignored them.

EPA - and all government agencies - should end their We-know-best and We-know-what-we’re-doing attitudes… and seek outside advice from real experts in the trenches. They should also develop careful operating plans, assess worst-case scenarios, and take steps to ensure that the worst doesn’t happen. Sometimes they just need to do nothing, get out of the way, and let the private sector handle problems.

But they should support Clean Water Act and other revisions to make it easier, less costly and less fraught with potential liability for companies or coalitions of dedicated parties to fix pollution discharge problems at the relatively few abandoned mines that are leaking contaminated water at worrisome levels.

EPA’s new view that these pollutants are not as toxic as previously claimed and that nature can and does clean things up is refreshing, even if self-serving. (My use of “toxic” in this article mostly reflects currently prevailing agency, activist and public health industry attitudes and safety standards.)

Standards for maximum contaminant levels and maximum safe exposures are often absurdly low, and the concept of “linear no threshold"(that there is no safe exposure or blood or tissue level for lead, cadmium, arsenic and other metals) is outdated and wrong, Dr. Edward Calabrese and other experts argue.

Pollution, exposure and blood levels are often safe at significantly higher levels than regulations currently allow. Moreover, low levels of exposure to radiation and many chemicals can actually provide protection from cancer, disease and pollutants. While this concept of hormesis is generally ignored by current regulations, we know that a little alcohol improves heart functions, whereas a lot causes multiple problems; an 80 mg aspirin can prevent strokes, but a bottleful can kill; and many vaccinations inject disease strains that cause a person’s immune system to produce antibodies and prevent the disease.

The Obama EPA is already using WOTUS rules on water and a Clean Power Plan on electricity generation and climate change to control virtually everything we make, grow and do. Congressional committees, presidential candidates, businesses and citizens need to get involved, debate these issues, ask tough questions, and work to implement appropriate reforms. Our courts and Congress must not allow another collusive sue-and-settle lawsuit - or a new regime of government controls and mine closures that would drive yet another nail into the coffin of western state and local economies ... and cleanup efforts.

Gold King presents a teachable moment. Let’s make sure we learn the correct lessons.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

* It appears that EPA deleted its entire photo album, so that people can no longer view them. We are trying to find a citizen archive of the images and will link to it, if possible. Again we have “the most transparent administration in history” (quoting President Obama) at your service.

Posted on 08/16 at 06:08 PM
(6) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, August 09, 2015
EPA’s punitive, fraudulent Clean Power Plan

Update: See also Lary Bell’s “Dirty Facts Behind Obama’s Clean Power Plan”, August 10, 2015:


By Paul Driessen

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency just issued its deceptively named “Clean Power Plan.” Mangling and twisting 280 words in the Clean Air Act, EPA devised 1,560 pages of regulations (plus appendices and technical materials), demanding that states slash their electric utility sector carbon dioxide emissions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. That means returning CO2 emissions almost to 1975 levels, while our population increases by 40 million.

For 30 states that currently get nearly all their electricity from coal or natural gas, these rules spell disaster. They will bankrupt families, businesses, industries, and even entire communities and states.

My article this week examines these rules, the Intolerant Left’s attacks on anyone who criticizes EPA or any part of the “progressive” agenda, and actions we must take to reverse this destructive environmentalist totalitarianism.

Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,



EPA’s punitive, fraudulent Clean Power Plan

Congress, states and our next president must end EPA harm to human health and welfare

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Power Plan (CPP) requires that states reduce their electric utility sector carbon dioxide emissions an average of 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. EPA twisted 80 words in the Clean Air Act into 1,560 pages of regulations (plus appendices) demanding that utilities return CO2 emissions almost to 1975 levels, while our population grows by 40 million.

Some 30 states will have to slash their power plant CO2 emissions by more than 32% and at least 12 will have to implement 40-48% reductions. That is a tall order, since all those states now get 50-96% of their electricity from coal, and all of them depend on coal plus natural gas for nearly all their electric power. Imposing that transition and a conversion to 20% or more expensive and unreliable wind and solar energy by 2030 will be disastrous. It will bankrupt families, businesses, industries, communities and even states.

Electricity rates will rise not merely to the 15-17 cents/kWh in “green energy” states like California, from the 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour currently paid in coal-reliant states. They could skyrocket to the 36-40 cents/kWh now paid in Denmark and Germany (70-80 cents when taxpayer subsidies are included).

That will hammer everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do. It will impair our livelihoods, living standards, liberties and life spans. And these destructive rules are being imposed by callous, imperious, unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats who are circumventing our laws and Constitution; disregarding the clear will of Congress, which has rejected nearly 700 climate bills; and colluding regularly with radical Big Green pressure groups on sue-and-settle lawsuits and new regulatory edicts.

Under the CPP, everything business owners, workers, families and communities strived for their entire lives will be at risk. Millions of workers will lose their jobs, leaving more families destitute and welfare dependent, their sense of self-worth destroyed. Many will have to choose between buying food and gasoline, paying the rent or mortgage, going to the doctor, giving to their church, or saving for retirement.

Families will face severe sleep deprivation, greater stress and depression, and more drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, theft and robbery. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die prematurely or commit suicide. More elderly people will perish from hypothermia, because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly.

Instead of acknowledging any of this, EPA employs a “social cost of carbon” scheme that places arbitrary inflated costs on damages it claims result from alleged climate risks from using carbon-based fuels. It includes every imaginable and imaginary cost of using fossil fuels - even absurd claims that its anti-energy plan will reduce asthma rates, which have been increasing while pollution rates are going down.

Meanwhile, the EPA and White House ignore even the most obvious benefits of using fossil fuels.

The Obama EPA keeps its questionable data and analyses secret, refusing to share them even with Congress or governors. It ignores the fact that global temperatures haven’t budged in 18 years, and no category 3-5 hurricane has hit the USA in a record 9 3/4 years - contrary to all climate alarm predictions. About the only thing EPA does admit is that slashing America’s CO2 emissions, and causing all this economic havoc, will prevent less than less than 0.03 degrees F of global warming 85 years from now.

These green dictators refuse to debate any of this. Indeed, they do not want anyone to talk about it.

The intolerant Left is “killing free speech,” says liberal commentator Kirsten Powers. It is committed to tolerance, pluralism and reasoned debate only for itself, and only to advance its agenda. Otherwise, it applies “authoritarian demands for intellectual conformity,” and relentlessly vilifies and tries to silence anyone who speaks up, asks inconvenient questions or challenges the “progressive” worldview.

“Free speech”, says George Will, “has never been… more comprehensively, aggressively and dangerously threatened than it is now. Today they are attacking the theory of free speech… the desirability of free speech ...and indeed the very possibility of free speech...”

As if on cue, the IRS targeted numerous conservative groups and the Milwaukee prosecutor and police monitored emails, invaded homes, seized computers and records, and threatened jail for anyone who disclosed these abuses, to intimidate and silence Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s supporters.

Their actions destroy our fundamental First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly, association and debate. Worse, they severely impair the unalienable rights of people to enjoy affordable, reliable energy and the quality jobs, living standards, health and welfare it brings.

“The ruling class demonizes any questioning of its demands,” says Boston University professor emeritus Angelo Codevilla. “The pretexts differ” from issue to issue,” he notes. “But the reality is the same: Bow or be persecuted… Consequently, if we wish to remain who we are in the face of threats and declamations meant to force us to honor intellectual and moral falsehoods, we have no alternative but clearly and loudly to distinguish between true and false, and fully make the case for what we believe to be right.”

We must not mince words regarding the evils that energy and climate totalitarianism inflict on families, industries, communities and nations. We must confront the deceit and deceivers, abuses and abusers - and present the hard, ugly realities of what life would be under conditions imposed by eco-extremists.

Right now, we have too many taxes and regulations, too much secrecy and fraud, too many extremists, and far too little accountability in EPA. There is too much eco-religious fervor, too little science and humanity. Poor and minority families are hurt most of all. Our governors, state and federal legislators, attorneys general, courts, next president, and citizen, industry and scientific groups need to take action.

* Refuse to comply with the CPP. Curb the excessive power and representation of environmentalists and bureaucrats in our government. End the constant collusion and the sue-and-settle lawsuits between government agencies and radical environmentalist pressure groups. Cut agency budgets, especially the billions of dollars that EPA and other agencies give to anti-energy advocacy organizations and biased advisory panels.

* Gain access to thus-far secret EPA, NOAA, IPCC and other data, computer codes, models and studies - and subject them to full review by independent experts, to determine which assertions, policies and regulations are valid, and which are based on serious error, deceptive claims or outright fraud.

* During the review process, suspend and defund implementation of regulations and programs that raise serious questions about their honesty and validity. Terminate rules and programs found to be based on fraud, junk science, doctored data, collusion or concocted evidence - and penalize or terminate agency personnel who have engaged in deceptive or fraudulent practices.

* Ensure that regulatory agencies and their advisory councils are honest and transparent; that they represent a broader spectrum of expertise, viewpoints and interests than they do now; and that they fully assess evidence for and against proposed regulations, and their true benefits and costs.

* Restore federalism and the separation of powers for Congress and state governments, and end the deference that courts too often give to agency discretion and authority for even outrageous actions and power grabs by federal agencies.

* Present true stories of workers and families whose jobs and businesses have been threatened or destroyed by EPA and other government policies, programs and diktats; how these citizens have fought back; and their victories over energy, environmental and economic totalitarianism.

These vital actions will almost certainly be opposed by President Obama, Democrats, environmentalist pressure groups, and other members of the Climate Crisis and Renewable Energy Complex. But they are absolutely essential if the United States is going to have an economic and employment revival, and poor, minority and blue-collar families are to be protected from fraud, regulatory excess and ruling elites.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Posted on 08/09 at 08:58 AM
(12) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, July 28, 2015
The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming

UPDATE: On Patriot Post and Drudge today.

All This for .01 Degrees Celsius?
By Joe Bastardi, Patriot Post

As the president reveals his plan to reduce greenhouse gases to save us from an apocalyptic atmosphere, I wish to remind people of three things:

1.) The true hockey stick of the fossil fuel era: Global progress in total population, personal wealth and life expectancy.


This is truly amazing. To show how fossil fuels played a roll in expanding the global pie, there are many more people alive today living longer and enjoying a higher GDP. One has to wonder if someone against fossil fuels is simply anti-progress. Ironic since many in the camp of anthropogenic global warming like to label themselves “progressive.” They’re certainly anti-statistic given something like this staring them in the face.

2.) The geological time scale of temperatures versus CO2.


As much as I struggle, I can’t see the linkage. Maybe it’s like one of those books where you have to stare at it and cross your eyes to see the picture.

3.) EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted that the steps being taken would only prevent .01 degrees Celsius of warming, but it was the example that counted for the rest of the world.

This article sums that up pretty nicely.

This in addition to the fact that, in 2011, she admitted she did not know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. And its lines of evidence for this are provably false!

Given the facts, I can’t help but wonder: Did policymakers ever take Economics 101, or a course in how to read a chart?

When I see simple questions that can raise doubts, if not outright debunk all this, it’s like watching the opening from the old Twilight Zone Series: “You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!”

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.


UPDATE: Letter from Dr. Gordon Fulks to Yahoo and President Obama:

Hello Everyone,

Obama is about to ramp up his ‘War on Coal next week (link)

Opinion on Yahoo is running heavily against him.  I added this:

Mr President:

You need to listen to independent scientists who have been telling you for a long time that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory you promote is a scam. Fifteen of us again proved to you last year that the “Three Lines of Evidence” in your National Climate Assessment purporting to prove the government’s scientific case against carbon dioxide are FATALLY FLAWED. Just search for our ‘NCA Rebuttal’.”

There has been no unusual warming since WW2 when human CO2 emissions began slowly increasing. In fact the only (very modest) warming trend we have seen was from 1977 to 1997, twenty years out of seventy. And over the most recent two decades, there has been no trend at all, according to NASA’s satellite data. Furthermore, the Climate Models that your paid scientists use to predict catastrophe have been UNABLE to accurately forecast the global temperature over the satellite era (since 1979). Even these captive scientists admit that they are wrong by a factor of two globally and a factor of 3.5 in the tropical mid-troposphere. They know that there is no ‘Hot Spot’ as their theory predicts.

Isn’t it time to admit that you have lost the scientific battle and will eventually lose the political one? Once people realize that your ‘War on Coal’ is a war on their pocketbooks, they will demand an end to the nonsense. No one wants to pay trillions of dollars for fraud.

You cannot ignore the truth forever.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)

P.S. I have NO conflicts of interest in this matter.

Here is the link to our ‘NCA Rebuttal’.  Yahoo does not allow commenters to include actual links.


The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming
Climate-change ‘deniers’ are accused of heresy by true believers. That doesn’t sound like science to me.

By John Steele Gordon, Wall Street Journal

Are there any phrases in today’s political lexicon more obnoxious than “the science is settled” and “climate-change deniers”?

The first is an oxymoron. By definition, science is never settled. It is always subject to change in the light of new evidence. The second phrase is nothing but an ad hominem attack, meant to evoke “Holocaust deniers,” those people who maintain that the Nazi Holocaust is a fiction, ignoring the overwhelming, incontestable evidence that it is a historical fact. Hillary Clinton’s speech about climate change on Monday in Des Moines, Iowa, included an attack on “deniers.”

The phrases are in no way applicable to the science of Earth’s climate. The climate is an enormously complex system, with a very large number of inputs and outputs, many of which we don’t fully understand - and some we may well not even know about yet. To note this, and to observe that there is much contradictory evidence for assertions of a coming global -warming catastrophe, isn’t to “deny” anything; it is to state a fact. In other words, the science is unsettled - to say that we have it all wrapped up is itself a form of denial. The essence of scientific inquiry is the assumption that there is always more to learn.


Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Why did the warming trend between 1978 and 1998 cease, although computer climate models predict steady warming? How sensitive is the climate to increased carbon-dioxide levels? What feedback mechanisms are there that would increase or decrease that sensitivity? Why did episodes of high carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere earlier in Earth’s history have temperature levels both above and below the average?

With so many questions still unanswered, why are many climate scientists, politicians - and the left generally - so anxious to lock down the science of climatology and engage in protracted name-calling? Well, one powerful explanation for the politicians is obvious: self-interest.

If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.

Moreover, the release of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in 2009 showed climate scientists concerned with the lack of recent warming and how to “hide the decline.” The communications showed that whatever the emailers were engaged in, it was not the disinterested pursuit of science.

Another batch of 5,000 emails written by top climate scientists came out in 2011, discussing, among other public-relations matters, how to deal with skeptical editors and how to suppress unfavorable data. It is a measure of the intellectual corruption of the mainstream media that this wasn’t the scandal of the century. But then again I forget, “the science is settled.”


Consumers Will Pay Big for Obama’s Alternative Energy Push

By Dr. Larry Bell, University of Houston

President Obama’s war on coal brings new meaning to his lead from behind strategy. It involves replacing reliable fossil energy sources with pixie dust-powered alternatives.

Only one day following the Supreme Court’s ruling to block EPA’s planned power plant mercury emission regulations, he committed the U.S. to a goal of generating 20 percent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

That means at least three times more subsidies than we currently blow on windmills and burn with sunbeams...and that’s a lot.

Wind and solar each already receive more than 50 times more subsidy support per megawatt hour than conventional coal, and more than 20 times more in terms of average electricity generated by coal and natural gas.

According to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures, annual “Federal interventions and subsidies” for wind (4.4 percent of American electricity) costs for taxpayers ranged from $5.5 billion and $5.9 billion between 2010 and 2013, and from $1.1 billion rocketing up to $4.5 billion for solar (0.4 percent of our electricity) during that period. For comparison, those allocated to fossil fuels (about 60 percent of total electricity) dropped from $4 billion to $3.4 billion.

Although lemming powers of observation aren’t highly regarded, wouldn’t you think witnessing fellow critters plunge en masse over cliff edges would offer cause for some among them to reconsider the perilous path ahead?

Painful EU experiences offer teachable lessons. Consider Denmark for example. On Earth Day, 2010, President Obama praised the country as a great green power model. And yes, while the country theoretically produces about 20 percent of its electricity from wind and solar, CEPOS, a Danish think tank reported that this only supplied between 5 percent and 9.7 percent of average annual demand over the previous 5-year period.

Danish consumers pay the highest electricity rates in Europe, more than three times more than we do.

Existing German energy policies, where 7.8 percent of electricity comes from wind and 4.5 percent derives from solar, force households to fork out for the second highest power costs in Europe often as much as 30 percent above the levels seen in other European countries. (900,000 German households had their electricity shut off for inability to pay during a recent cold winter period.)

Such circumstances are only likely to worsen with Angela Merkel’s plans to wean the country off fossil fuels and nuclear power. Subsidies for wind power which deliver only about one-fifth of the theoretical installed capacity are three times higher than those paid for conventional electricity.

President Obama also lauded Spain as a fine example of renewable energy progress. Yet a study released by researchers at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos a few months later presented a far less enviable picture.

Over the previous eight years the Spanish government had spent $791,597 in subsidies to create each green energy job, and exceeded $1.38 million per wind energy job.

Each of those green jobs cost 2.2 jobs in lost opportunities elsewhere in the workforce, and each MW of installed wind energy capacity destroyed 4.27 other jobs.

Italy’s wind and solar experience record is even worse. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Bruno Leoni Institute, the amount of capital required to generate one job in the renewable sector would create between 4.8 and 6.9 in the industrial sector or elsewhere just based upon subsidies alone.

Of the 50,000 to 120, 000 renewable jobs they propose to create by 2020, 60 percent will be temporary.

Experiences in the United Kingdom are reportedly similar to those in other EU countries. A study by Verso Economics determined that each renewable job “created” by subsidies displaced 3.7 others in their general economy. “Renewable Obligations” which increase market prices for electricity from renewable sources cost U.K. consumers an additional $1.75 billion during 2009/2010.

In 2011 British wind turbines produced a meager 21 percent of installed capacity (not demand capacity) during good conditions.

As in Germany this has necessitated importation of nuclear power from France. Also similar to Germany, the government is closing some of its older coal-fired plants - any one of which can produce nearly twice the electricity of Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines combined.

Yeah, and then there’s our own uber-green California, which mandates that renewables provide 33 percent of the state’s electricity by 2020 and proposes to increase to 50 percent by 2030.

Over just the past three years their electricity rates have already risen by 2.18 cents per kilowatt hour - about four times the national rate - as more and more wind and solar came on line.

Meanwhile, so long as natural gas drilling is restricted, climate crisis hoax-premised EPA regulations strangle fossil power generation, and nuclear energy expansion is delayed, we are racing hell-bent along the same road to perdition. Let’s consider the peril before joining the EU and California lemming pack in a final, fatal jump.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom” (2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012).

Read more here.

Posted on 07/28 at 01:17 PM
(7) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, July 26, 2015
Commentary: An errant environmental encyclical

Pope Francis’s Laudato Si encyclical is often eloquent, always passionate, but too often encumbered by platitudes and simply erroneous thinking. The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. That’s why, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor. 

On all of this he certainly has a lot of new friends in the United Nations, Big Green and Climate Crisis, Inc. It is tremendously disappointing that he seems unable to think these issues through, open his mind to and ideas, speak with scholars outside his closed circle, and promote policies that will actually help the poor instead of condemning them to continued poverty, disease, despair and early death.

My article this week shows where I believe Pope Francis went wrong and why free market capitalism and hydrocarbon energy remain the best way forward.

Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to friends and colleagues.

Best regards,



An errant environmental encyclical

Pope Francis’ prescriptions will perpetuate poverty, disease, premature death in Third World

Paul Driessen

The Laudato Si encyclical on climate, sustainability and the environment prepared by and for Pope Francis is often eloquent, always passionate but often encumbered by platitudes, many of them erroneous.

“Man has slapped nature in the face,” and “nature never forgives,” the pontiff declares. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as in the last 200 years.” It isn’t possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society. “Each year thousands of species are being lost,” and “if we destroy creation, it will destroy us.”

The pope believes climate change is largely manmade and driven by a capitalist economic system that exploits the poor. Therefore, he says, we must radically reform the global economy, promote sustainable development and wealth redistribution, and ensure “intergenerational solidarity” with the poor, who must be given their “sacred rights” to labor, lodging and land (the Three L’s).

All of this suggests that, for the most part, Pope Francis probably welcomes statements by his new friends in the United Nations and its climate and sustainability alliance.

One top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official bluntly says climate policy is no longer about environmental protection; instead, the next climate summit will negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources.” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres goes even further. UN bureaucrats, she says, are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the global economic development model."[emphasis added]

However, statements by other prominent prophets of planetary demise hopefully give the pope pause.

Obama science advisor John Holdren and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, in their Human Ecology book: “We need to de-develop the United States” and other developed countries, “to bring our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” We will then address the “ecologically feasible development of the underdeveloped countries.” [emphasis added]

Ehrlich again: “Giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” And most outrageous: The “instant death control” provided by DDT was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in poor countries; so they need to have a “death rate solution” imposed on them.

Radical environmentalism’s death campaigns do not stop with opposing DDT even as a powerful insect repellant to prevent malaria. They view humans (other than themselves) as consumers, polluters and “a plague upon the Earth” never as creators, innovators or protectors. They oppose modern fertilizers and biotech foods that feed more people from less land, using less water. And of course they are viscerally against all forms and uses of hydrocarbon energy, which yields far more energy per acre than alternatives.

Reflect on all of this a moment. Unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats have given themselves the authority to upend the world economic order and redistribute its wealth and resources with no evidence that any alternative they might have in mind will bring anything but worse poverty, inequality and death.

Moreover, beyond the dishonest, arrogant and callous attitudes reflected in these outrageous statements, there are countless basic realities that the encyclical and alarmist allies sweep under the rug.

We are trying today to feed, clothe, and provide electricity, jobs, homes, and better health and living standards to six billion more people than lived on our planet 200 years ago. Back then, reliance on human and animal muscle, wood and dung fires, windmills and water wheels, and primitive, backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk farming methods made life nasty, brutish and short for the vast majority of humans.

As a fascinating short video by Swedish physician and statistician Hans Rosling illustrates, human life expectancy and societal wealth has surged dramatically over these past 200 years. None of this would have been possible without the capitalism, scientific method and hydrocarbon energy that radical, shortsighted activists in the UN, EPA, Big Green, Inc. and Vatican now want to put in history’s dustbin.

Over the past three decades, fossil fuels - mostly coal - helped 1.3 billion people get electricity and escape debilitating, often lethal energy and economic poverty. However, 1.3 billion still do not have electricity. In India alone, more people than live in the USA still lack electricity; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 730 million (equal to Europe) still cook and heat with wood, charcoal and animal dung.

Hundreds of millions get horribly sick and 4-6 million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having clean water, refrigeration and unspoiled food.

Providing energy, food, homes and the Three L’s to middle class and impoverished families cannot happen without nuclear and hydrocarbon energy and numerous raw materials. Thankfully, we still have these resources in abundance, because “our ultimate resource” (our creative intellect) has enabled us to use “fracking” and other technologies to put Earth’s resources to productive use serving humanity.

Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?

We are all obligated to help protect our planet and its people - from real problems, not imaginary ones. Outside the computer modelers’ windows, in The Real World, we are not running out of energy and raw materials. (We’re just not allowed to develop and use them.) The only species going extinct have been birds on islands where humans introduced new predators and raptors that have been wiped out by giant wind turbines across habitats in California and other locations. Nor are we encountering climate chaos.

No category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record 9-3/4 years. (Is that blessing due to CO2 and capitalism?) There has been no warming in 19 years, because the sun has gone quiet again. We have not been battered by droughts more frequent or extreme than what humanity experienced many times over the millennia, including those that afflicted biblical Egypt, the Mayas and Anasazi, and Dust Bowl America.

The scientific method brought centuries of planetary and human progress. It requires that we propose and test hypotheses that explain how nature works. If experimental evidence supports a hypothesis, we have a new rule that can guide further health and scientific advances. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, we must devise a new premise - or give up on further progress.

But with climate change, a politicized method has gained supremacy. Based on ideology, it ignores real-world evidence and fiercely defends its assumptions and proclamations. Laudato Si places the Catholic Church at risk of surrendering its role as a champion of science and human progress, and returning to the ignominious persecution of Galileo.

Nor does resort to sustainable development provide guidance. Sustainability is largely interchangeable with “dangerous manmade climate change” as a rallying cry for anti-hydrocarbon, wealth redistribution and economic transformation policies. It means whatever particular interests want it to mean and has become yet one more intolerant ideology in college and government circles.

Climate change and sustainability are critical moral issues. Denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy is not just wrong. It is immoral and lethal.

It is an unconscionable crime against humanity to implement policies that pretend to protect the world’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate and other dangers decades from now by perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and disease that kill millions of them tomorrow.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Posted on 07/26 at 02:07 PM
(4) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, July 17, 2015
Global cooling will follow El Nino warming - more risk on the downside

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

El Ninos always produce a global pop in temperatures. So expect that this next 6 months or so even in the only accurate data, from satellites. Strong El Ninos usually are followed by a pendulum like strong La Nina with a cooling. Major volcanoes can override or diminish any warming as El Chicon and Mt. St. Helens did in the early to mid 1980s and Pinatubo/Cerro Hudson did in the early to mid 1990s.


As we have written after the coldest January to March for the northeastern United States (10 states plus DC), and a cooling of 3F for the last 20 years in winters, you may not want to hear what solar scientists are telling us.


The month, UK astrophysicists in a release ( reported that:

“Our planet is just 15 years from a new ‘mini ice age’ that could cause extremely cold winters characterized by the freezing of normally ice-free rivers as well as by year-round snow fields in areas that have never witnessed such climate conditions before, a group of astrophysicists claim.

The scientists drew this conclusion based on a new model of the sun’s activity that reportedly enables the researchers to make “extremely accurate predictions” of changes in solar activity.”

The study findings were presented at the National Astronomy Meeting on July 9 and published in the Royal Astronomical Society papers.

Their new model based suggests we will see the conditions last experienced during what was called the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.


The Maunder minimum is a name of a period between 1645 and 1715 characterized by prolonged low solar activity as well as by extremely cold winters in Europe and North America at the heart of the climatic period between 1550 and 1850 called the ‘Little Ice Age.’

This finding is not unique nor new. “My opinion is that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum,” said Mark Giampapa, a solar physicist at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. “I’m seeing a continuation in the decline of the sunspots mean magnetic field strengths and a weakening of the polar magnetic fields and subsurface flows.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov who heads Russia’s prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg warned in a 2013 paper that: “after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age.”


Australian Scientist, Dr. David Evans remarked “As we head to the UN meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicians are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities...of ‘bureaucratized science’ were”.

Do I believe it?  Yes!  When I taught in college in the cold late 1970s, I had a panel in the second Northeast Storm Conference (now in its 41st year) on factors in climate. The panel included MIT’s Hurd ‘Doc’ Willett, who showed how the sun’s cycles (22 years, 180-200 years and others) affected the climate. He predicted then a cool down starting in the 1990s.  I have published peer reviewed papers that showed how though the sun’s detectable brightness (called irradiance) only changed 0.1% over most 11 year cycles, there were amplifying factors that greatly increased the sun’s affect on climate on decadal and century scales (everyone recognizes earth sun orbital parameters affect our days, seasons and the longer term cycles of glaciation it is all the other time frames that try to ignore).

These amplifiers include ultraviolet radiation that varies 6 to 8% in the 11 year cycle and produces heat from ozone chemistry in the high atmosphere in low and middle latitudes, geomagnetic activity that causes the ionization heating and displays called the ‘aurora’ and also the solar wind modulated galactic cosmic rays that affect the amount of cloudiness (and through that, solar heating) we experience. All of these have been shown from empirical evidence to produce more warming when the sun is active and less when it is quiet.


So what remedy should we pursue? I turn again to Dr. Abdussamatov who I met over a year ago in a Las Vegas climate convention. There was the language barrier, but he spoke enough English and I did have some Russian coursework in high school and college so we did understand each other.

Dr. Abdussamatov points out that Earth has experienced such major cooling occurrences five times over the last 1,000 years, and that: “A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.”

“The most reasonable way to fight against the coming Little Ice Age is a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production in order to adapt mankind to forthcoming period of deep cooling which will last approximately until the beginning of the 22nd century. Early understanding of reality of the forthcoming global cooling and physical mechanisms responsible for it directly determines a choice of adequate and reliable measures which will allow the mankind, in particular, population of countries situated far from the equator, to adapt to the future global cooling.”

Given that cooling produces more mortality and suffering than warming, we should take this seriously and push back at efforts to drastically disrupt our energy solutions to combat a failing prophecy that politicians, our universities and the compliant media have been indoctrinating our children and the masses on for two decades.

Posted on 07/17 at 10:33 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, July 13, 2015
The Subversion of Science by Green-Left Politics

By John Reid

The Enlightenment

The development of modern science in the late 18th century went hand in hand with the rise of modern industrial capitalism. Its potteries, mines, steam engines, mechanization, and science itself, were all done by private enterprise. The role of government was to enforce patents and maintain a healthy legal and commercial environment.

Nowadays most scientists are paid by the government. What passes for science has largely become taxpayer-funded Environmentalism. Environmentalism has taken over much of science.

Scientists discover, understand and inform.  Environmentalists preach.


“All of us ... are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear.  Marcia McNutt - Chief Editor, Science Magazine.”

This is preaching. There is no scientific justification for this statement, which was made by the editor of one of the world’s most prestigious science journals.  It is a statement of militant Environmentalism, pure and simple. To say that she should have known better is to misunderstand the situation. It would be like saying that the Communists, who controlled big chunks of the Australian trade union movement in the 1950s, “should have known better”.  Environmentalists are way ahead of those old Communists; their “Long March through the Institutions” is now a fait accompli.

It works like this: activists use science to push for international action on a science-related issue in an area such as health or environment. Then, an international agreement is established, and the science on which it is has been based becomes institutionalized and funded by government. Time and again, when this happens, “the science” stops being science. This is because the scientists working on the relevant topic start being advocates and stop being researchers. After all, they are now being paid by the bureaucracy to support a particular doctrine, not to discover new stuff.

Real science, which requires a sceptical and innovative frame of mind, then withers on the vine.

Here are some examples:

Radiation Health

In 2012 I received 7000 milli-Sieverts of radiation as treatment for prostate cancer. I found out from the Web that this is twice the fatal dose! I became curious about how I came to survive this assault and I discovered that radiation administered in moderate doses is not cumulative and is not especially harmful. In my case it was definitely beneficial.

But the International Committee for Radiological Protection says otherwise . They say radiation effects are always cumulative and that there is no safe dose: see here about Wade Allison’s book, Radiation and Reason.

But you can’t be too careful, I hear you say. Well, yes you certainly can be too careful.  The Japanese government was too careful when it forcibly relocated 100,000 people following the Fukushima meltdown.

The facts:

Number of deaths:  about 1600 people.
Cause of deaths:  Suicide mainly.
Number of cases of radiation sickness:  3 people.
Number of deaths caused by radiation:  none!

The suicides arose from the social dislocation which occurred when people were compelled to leave their homes and their farms and their jobs and their schools to be relocated to the other side of Japan for reasons of political correctness.

The 1968 London Convention on Ocean Dumping

This forbids the disposal of poisons such as heavy metals in the deep ocean. Hydrothermal vents were discovered in 1977, 9 years after the convention took place.  Also known as “black smokers”, they lie on mid-ocean ridges and above volcanic hotspots, 2 to 3 kilometres below the surface of the ocean. Every year they pump into the ocean:

500 tonnes of Arsenic, 1500 tonnes of Lead, 50,000 tonnes of Copper, 140,000 tonnes of Zinc and many other metals including Uranium and its radioactive daughters. This has been going on for, perhaps, a billion years or so.

Nature is the biggest polluter of the ocean and the London Convention is a joke. In fact it is worse than a joke because it precludes sensible, practical solutions to important environmental problems. For example, without it we could dispose of radioactive waste in deep ocean trenches where it would be out of harm’s way until it is ultimately subducted under the earth’s crust by geological processes.

Climate Change

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the most egregious example of this science-destroying institutionalization. It is all the more virulent because it feeds into the pre-existing mindset of Left and Green ideologies about “Corporate Greed” and “Mankind wrecking the planet”.

Billions of dollars are being pumped into this. Tens of thousands of climate modellers, their technicians and their computer jocks are the self-righteous recipients. They are not going to give up their funding easily - for them this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and, what is worse, most of them sincerely believe that they are saving the planet.

Over the last 30 years, Climate Science, once a forgotten little wallflower, has become a rock star.

There is really no solid evidence that human activities affect global climate. It is only a theory. Computer models based on this theory have no predictive power; they are complicated curve-fitting exercises and, like all such curve-fitting exercise, they fail catastrophically outside the range of the fit.

On the other hand there is ample evidence that so-called “greenhouse gases” do not affect global temperature to any observable degree (see my UNFCCC Submission to the Federal Government for more detail), viz.:

The observation that the amount of industrial CO2 added to the ocean-atmosphere system since the beginning of the industrial revolution, about 400 Gigatons, is only a tiny fraction of the total amount in the system, 32,000 Gigatons.

The observed rate of decrease in temperature with height, the adiabatic lapse rate, is measured many times a day throughout the world by weather balloons and it fits a simple convective heat transport model of the lower atmosphere. It does not fit a simple radiative heat transport model; there is no blanket of CO2 “holding the heat in”.

Careful comparisons of small changes in global average temperature with variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration indicate that the latter lags the former by about ten months indicating that temperature increases cause CO2 increases and not the other way around.

The global distribution of atmospheric CO2 concentration recently observed by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory does not support the view that increases in this gas are largely due to Western industrial activity. Rather, the gas appears to emanate from the rice paddies and rain-forests of the Third World (see here and here).

The observation that global average temperature has a variance spectrum which is “red” at every time scale from one year to 100,000 years (i.e. the longer the time scale the bigger the variation). The small variations (~0.8C) which occurred during the 20th Century are only to be expected. They are random walk excursions. There is nothing to explain. Climate science is like picking patterns in TattsLotto numbers.  Meteorologists can predict the weather up to about a week ahead. That’s as good as it gets.

But if you are a scientist who is part of the climate change institution this evidence is all irrelevant. The “Science of Climate Change” was frozen sometime back in the 1990s when the IPCC was first set up. Nowadays it is just a matter of running ever more complex computer simulations and making more “projections” of future climate and its alarming consequences.

And, of course, re-jigging the data so that it fits the models better.

We often hear it said that “97 percent of climate scientists agree...” and so on

Well they would, wouldn’t they.

About the author: I have a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics from the University of Tasmania. I have worked for the Australian Antarctic Division and CSIRO in auroral physics, ocean waves and fluid dynamic modelling. I am a scientist - I discover things. I discovered cosmic noise absorption pulsations and I discovered the physics underlying the frequency down-shifting of surface gravity waves. I am presently working on a method for distinguishing between cyclical behaviour and random walk excursions in natural time series.

Posted on 07/13 at 05:04 PM
(3) TrackbacksPermalink

Page 1 of 85 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Raptor Education Foundation

The Heartland Institute


Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

Redneck USA

Carbon Folly

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

Carbonated Climate

Omniclimate, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Climate Debate Daily

Right Side News

Tom Nelson Blogroll

John Coleman’s Corner

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Metsul’s Meteorologia

Scientific Alliance

Climate Research News

Dr. Roy Spencer


John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

The Climate Scam

MPU Blog

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Gore Lied

Science and Public Policy Institute

Climate Audit

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Analysis Online

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

The Cornwall Alliance

Climate Skeptic

Bill Meck’s Blog

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

Global Warming Hoax

The Weather Wiz

Musings of the Chiefio

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Digging in the Clay

Ice Age Now

Tom Skilling’s Blog

The Resilient Earth

Climate Resistance

Raptor Education Foundation

CO2 Sceptics

Craig James’ Blog

Bob Carter’s Wesbite

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)


Energy Tribune

Global Warming Hoax

APPINYS Global Warming

Marshall Institute Climate Change

Earth Changes

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA

Wisconsin Energy Cooperative

Blue Crab Boulevard

Web Commentary


Watts Up with That?

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Climate Debate Daily

Science Bits

Global Warming Scare

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

Dr. Roy Spencer

TWTW Newsletters

Climate Cycle Changes

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

World Climate Report

Science and Environmental Policy Project

COAPS Climate Study US

Climate Debate Daily

Climate Depot

Hall of Record

Cornwall Alliance

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

Global Warming Skeptics

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

Warmal Globing

Accuweather Global Warming

Bald-Faced Truth

Greenie Watch

Demand Debate

AMSU Global Daily Temps

Weatherbell Analytics

Junk Science

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

CO2 Science

Climate Police

James Spann’s Blog

Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Warwick Hughes

Climate Change Fraud