See Climate Hustle story on Breibart here. See Climate Depot links to red carpet movie premier amid protest and worry that the big lie would be exposed and treaty fail.
The seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris to weaken attempts to agree a global climate deal have been named and shamed as ‘climate criminals’ in a dossier published by the global citizens movement Avaaz.
The group, which spearheaded last weekend’s climate marches which saw 785,000 people take to the streets globally, posted over a thousand ‘Wanted’ posters outside 5-star hotels in the French capital on Monday morning. The poster highlighting the seven most notorious dirty energy lobbyists unearthed from the list of more than 50,000 delegates at summit.
On Monday morning, Avaaz ‘Climate Cops’ will hand out flyers outside key Metro stations leading to the Le Bourget with photos of the lobbyists, who are expected to ramp up their efforts to derail a deal when ministers arrive this week to negotiate the deal.
Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz says: “These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action, despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy. Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants.”
Each of the seven named lobbyists is renowned for their backroom dealings to to stop the transition to clean energy and push the interests of dirty fossil fuels. Some have resorted to harassing climate scientists and even calling for them to be ‘publicly flogged’.
The lobbyists include:
Benjamin Sporton, head of the World Coal Association
Fiona Wild, representative of mining-giant BHP Billiton
Marc Morano, whose trademark activity is to publish the email addresses of climate scientists to expose them to hate mail.
Myron Ebell, director of US think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute known for receiving money from ExxonMobil
Chris Horner, funded by the coal industry and known for “harassing” climate scientists in order to access to their email
Bjorn Lomborg, previously backed by funders with links to the Koch brothers, he’s most known as the ‘delayer in chief’ when it comes to climate
James Taylor, senior fellow at climate denial lobby group Heartland Institute
Examples of lobbyists’ far-reaching influence within climate meetings include The World Coal Association setting up shop next to the COP19 summit in Warsaw in 2013 to convince negotiators to embrace coal as a solution to climate change.
This resulted in the Warsaw Communique promoting clean coal, which has been deemed as “a myth” by National Geographic. At the COP17 in Durban in 2011, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (comprised of major fossil fuel and power companies) successfully lobbied for carbon credits for new coal plants.
With global warming a clear scientific reality, the world has become increasingly intolerant of the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to undermine climate science and climate legislation. The campaign comes off the back of recent cases cracking down on “climate criminals,” including the investigation into Exxon for allegedly lying to the public about the risk of climate change.
The dossier is published as part of Avaaz’s 100% Clean campaign, which has been backed by more than 3.6 million people.
Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of new ‘Climate Hustle’ film having its red carpet debut tonight in Paris: Climate Hustle tonight at the Cinema du Pantheon at 7:30 PM.
Morano statement: “Since the ‘wanted’ posters for me are all over Paris, I have relocated to a secure undisclosed location. I hope my trip to Paris for ‘Climate Hustle’ red carpet premiere will go better than JFKs trip to Dallas.”
UPDATE: Another photo showing the wanted posters:
The ‘Wanted’-style posters went up in Paris late on Sunday. Credit Avaaz
From the New York Times:
Environmental activists pasted more than 1,000 “Wanted” posters outside luxury hotels here overnight, calling seven people who have ties to the fossil fuel industry or are skeptics of climate change “criminals.” The activists also distributed flyers with photographs of the seven.
“These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action,” said Emma Ruby-Sachs, acting executive director of Avaaz, the activist group that organized the stunt. “Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants,” she added.
Mr. Morano sent back a photograph of himself, looking mock-terrified, crouching next to one of the “Wanted” posters that had been posted in the Eighth Arrondissement.
“The posters are an exercise in silliness,” Mr. Morano said. “Climate skeptics are here promoting open debate and arguing to allow dissent. The idea that any alternative views amount to a ‘criminal’ perspective is obscene.
Mr. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, said in an email: “It is a shame that people must experience such vitriol and harassment when they make scientific arguments supported by scientific data. If such attacks must be made, however, I am glad it was my face that appeared on their posters. I will always be proud to stand up for free and open discourse and ultimate truth.”
The Heartland Institute is hosting a climate change conference of its own on Monday, at the Hotel California here. It posted on Twitter: “Eco-left activists put ‘Wanted’ posters outside our event space last night. We are not intimidated.”
---------------
Paris Climate Talks Are Doomed Because China Knows ‘Climate Change’ Is A Hoax
By James Delingpole
“The fact of the matter is that there’s a reason why you have the largest gathering of world leaders probably in world history here in Paris. Everyone else is taking climate change seriously.” Barack Obama.
Like a lot of the president’s statements on climate change this isn’t actually true. In fact there are lots and lots of people in the world who know it’s a hoax. And among them, unfortunately, happen to be the ruling elite of the most significant carbon emitting nation of them all: China.
We know this because of a devastating report, released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by one of the West’s leading experts on the Chinese environmental economy, Patricia Adams.
Adams, an economist, executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, who has been working with the Chinese environmental movement since the mid-Eighties, is under absolutely no illusions about China’s real position on “climate change.”
China sees it as a brilliant opportunity to fleece the gullible gwailo for as much money as it can, to burnish its international image by making all the right green noises, and to blackmail the West into providing it with free technology.
But it has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.
China knows this. The West either knows this or strongly suspects this. So any agreement reached next week which pretends otherwise will either be a fudge, a lie, or an outright capitulation by Western negotiators - because China knows what it wants and it isn’t budging, no sirree.
Here’s how Adams puts it:
China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is under intense international pressure to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Although China’s leaders aim to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel consumption to 80% of its energy mix by 2030, they will not forsake national economic growth for the supposed global good. This is because China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power - its highest priority - it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. China’s leaders know that GDP growth is tied to fossil fuel use.
So far so disastrous for the COP21 negotiations. But worse is to come, far worse.
Obama and other Western leaders like to pretend that China’s appalling air pollution - the “airpocalypse” afflicting major cities which kills at least half a million a year - gives it a strong incentive to reduce its CO2 levels. But in fact the opposite is true.
That’s because China understands - as the West pretends not to - that CO2 and “pollution” are very different things.
Not only do the goals of reducing carbon emissions and air pollution not reinforce each other, they conflict. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas that does not harm health. Efforts to reduce it rely on un-proven abatement technologies, and are prohibitively expensive. In contrast, abating air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide rely on proven technologies and are relatively inexpensive.
In fact many greenies in the West secretly welcome China’s pollution because it makes the Chinese population more restive and environmentally conscious. But this is a delusion: even ordinary Chinese know that CO2 is not pollution.
The West’s climate change establishment is worried that if Beijing focuses ‘narrowly’ on eliminating the air pollutants that worry the general population, China will entrench cleaner-burning fossil fuels in its economy, costing the West its leverage over China’s energy policies. Yet the Chinese public is unlikely to tolerate a ‘carbon- first’ abatement strategy while it continues to breathe noxious air.
Adams comments:
“I have never heard of a public protest in China against carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 is a major concern for Western NGOs with offices in Beijing but it’s a non-issue for Chinese citizens and environmentalists at the grassroots.”
Also, the measures China wants to take to deal with pollution - “scrubbers” on power plants, for example will actually increase CO2 because they are more energy-intensive.
The solution to this apparently insoluble conflict of interests is very simple. China will be allowed by the Western negotiators to do and say whatever it wants because China has them by the balls and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.
The apparent contradiction between what the West wants and what China’s leadership needs is easily resolved. China’s leadership knows that what China says to the West is more important than what China does, absolving it of the need to make any binding commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. China also knows that Western leaders’ have no firm expectation of concrete commitments in Paris. Rather, their paramount goal is to maintain face at the Paris talks, which would collapse without China’s presence.
Not that we couldn’t have seen this coming. We reported on this a few weeks ago in a piece entitled China shows how much it cares about climate change: with a single upraised finger.
Adams’s report is worth reading in full not just because of the fascinating light it casts on the Chinese, their economy, their corruption, their political mindset and the tensions between the populace and the Communist party but also because of the very basic fact it underlines about Paris - and about all future COP negotiations.
Where international global warming negotiations are concerned, China and developing nations like India, which is similarly reluctant to sacrifice economic growth for meaningless green targets - wears the trousers.
Even if China believed in keeping to emission targets, which it doesn’t, its officials are so corrupt, uninterested and growth-driven they would never police them.
China is leading demands from developing nations that the Western nations pay them $100 billion annually into a climate fund - and after 2020 - contribute 1 percent of their GDP to compensate them for the damage allegedly caused by their years of industrialization. This won’t happen. In return, nor will the developing nations halt or hamper their economic growth for the sake of green flag waving.
So it will be stalemate. Any agreement reached in Paris will be meaningless and toothless. And thank goodness for that.
Because the vested financial and political interests are too great for the alarmists to drop.
In regard to your Dec. 2 editorial “We’ll Always Have the Illusions of Paris”:
Concerning illusions, we will always have the illusions of global warming, too, because the vested financial and political interests are too great for the alarmists to drop. Their illusions are great: Sea level rise is going to be catastrophic despite the top sea level expert, Stockholm geologist Nils-Axel Moerner, saying that is “the greatest lie ever told”; Arctic ice is melting despite its 5% increase in the last nine years; the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica is failing despite the increased ice pack there over the past 15 years; extreme weather events will increase because of global warming despite cyclonic activity falling to a 30-year low after Rita and Katrina in 2005, despite tornado activity trending down for 50 years, and despite the U.N. IPCC concurrence that extreme events are not increasing; global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations despite the U.N.’s model signature for this to occur, a hot spot 10-12 kilometers above the tropics, has never been found, despite those concentrations being much higher though geologic history, at times during glacial periods, and despite the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 17 years not causing Earth temperatures to rise; temperatures are rising quickly despite satellite data showing no temperature increase since 1998.
These are the lies alarmists say need to be mitigated immediately or there will be catastrophe. The immediacy is needed, of course, before the misinformed populace learns the truth. Perhaps alarmists should abide by their own precautionary principle and not wreck our economy entirely before the science is settled, which it definitely is not.
Governor Maggie Hassan announced that on behalf of New Hampshire, she signed the Under 2 MOU, a global compact to limit the increase in global average temperature to below two degrees Celsius. New Hampshire joins California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington as the only American states to sign the agreement. Hassan said “The science is clear that greenhouse gas emissions and other man-made pollutants are the key contributors to climate change, which threatens our environment, our economy and our way of life.”
Signatories to the Under 2 MOU agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The reality is, the Under2MOU can be better described as an economic suicide pact ensuring signatory governments forfeit future economic growth by destroying the advantages low cost energy provides to small and large businesses.
There is NO evidence that climate change, which has been going on since the planet first had life, is now being affected by the burning of fossil fuel with the release of CO2. US weather satellites and weather balloon data show us there has been no global warming over the last 18.6 years. None. If you have child entering college, there has been no warming in their entire life even as CO2 has increased 10.5%.
And despite claims to the contrary, winters have been growing colder here in the north. In the 10 northeast states, winters have cooled at a rate of 1.5F per decade over the last 20 years. This past January to March was the coldest in the northeast U.S. in the entire record. Winter snow, which the environmental scientists at UNH have promised our state government would become so low it would endanger our ski and maple sugar industries, is running at all time highs. The 16 major impact snow storms we have had in the first half of this decade is higher than any other full decade since the 1950s (the former record was 10 in the 1960s and 2000s).
There is also no trend in drought or flood globally. The last four years have been the quietest in a quarter century in terms of strong tornadoes in the US and there is no long-term tornado trend. We have smashed the record for the time between landfalls of major hurricanes (Category 3 or greater) in the United States (now over 10 years). The Fort Point Tide Gauge in New Castle, NH shows no change in sea-Level from 2007 to 2015 and the Portland Maine Tide Gauge at the end of 2014 showed the same sea-level - to the millimeter - as it read 66 years ago in 1947!!!
That is not to say droughts or floods or major hurricanes have not occurred in some places globally, nor that with El Nino’s help some are not stronger than average this year. But it is clear that the trends and events are part of the natural cyclical variability of our weather and not the result of our energy choices.
The fears being generated by the administration, the UN and our state governments are based on failing climate models and driven by perverse ideology. But what about the economic impacts of the policy cures the alarmists demand?
Europe went though the green scare first and should provide lessons for us. Wind and solar subsidies have caused electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket and forced industries in Europe to outsource, moving jobs and businesses to other regions of the world. It has forced millions, mostly pensioners, into
fuel poverty having to choose between heating and eating.
Here in New England, as we have raced towards more renewables and forced traditional base load power out of the region, we now have some of the highest electricity costs in the country. We have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs. Our youth are moving away from New Hampshire and New England to find opportunities where there is real economic growth.
In just the winter of 2013/14, the cost of electricity in New Hampshire was more than cost over the entire year of 2012. President Obama promised in 2008 that electricity prices would skyrocket and his Energy Secretary Chu predicted gasoline prices would reach $8/gallon. Their hope was that this would spur sales of electric cars and cause an explosion in the use of solar and wind. Those plans fell apart due to fracking, which yielded a huge amount of less expensive oil and gas from private lands not controlled by the government. To overcome this, President Obama and the EPA have chosen to bypass Congress to regulate fracking and fossil fuel usage. The administration banned the Keystone Pipeline, which would have ensured low energy prices and provided our country a real competitive advantage.
Gov. Hassan’s pen committing the state of New Hampshire to the Under2MOU, Obama’s pen killing Keystone, the EPA’s regulatory assault on business and the mischief afoot at the upcoming United Nations’ COP 21 summit all threaten the tremendous potential and even the economic survival of the west, and our Live Free or Die state.
Joseph D’Aleo, a former college professor of Meteorology, was a co-founder of The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist the last 27 years for 3 weather companies. He is a CCM and Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Not only did President Obama assert the morning of the latest Paris massacre that “ISIS is contained.” Along with Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and other global warming alarmists, he continues to insist that climate change is the gravest threat facing mankind, nature and our planet. This article underscores how false those assertions are.
Fossil fuels actually contribute very little to climate change, which is driven by powerful natural forces over which we have no control. Cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather. And Middle Eastern refugees streaming into Europe could face bone-rattling, lethal cold weather, if another Siberian Express roars in from the Arctic. THAT is what Paris climate conferees should address - not how to abolish hydrocarbon use, further hogtie economies, keep 1.3 billion people forever impoverished, and redistribute the world’s wealth.
Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues. Please credit Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar for their contributions to it.
Best regards,
Paul
Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis
A brutal cold spell could kill refugees. Paris COP21 delegates need to discuss this climate issue.
Paul Driessen, Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar
Even after the latest Paris massacres - and previous radical Islamist atrocities in the USA, France, Britain, Canada, Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere - politicians absurdly say hypothetical manmade global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel contributions to climate change pose few dangers to people or planet, and winters kill 20 times more people than hot weather.
After being assured snowy winters would soon be something only read about in history books, Europe was shaken by five brutally cold winters this past decade. Thousands died, because they were homeless, lived in drafty homes with poor heating systems, or could not afford adequate fuel.
It could happen again, with even worse consequences. “Millions of desperate people are on the march,” Walter Russell Mead recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end.”
Where are they heading? Mostly not into neighboring Arab countries, most of which have yanked their welcome mats. Instead, if they’re not staying in Turkey, they’re going north to Europe - into the path the extremely cold “Siberian Express” has increasingly taken. Germany alone could face the challenge of feeding and sheltering 800,000 to 1,000,000 freezing refugees this winter.
If a blast of frigid Siberian air should hit, temperatures in parts of eastern and northern Europe and the western Former Soviet Union could become 70 degrees F (39C) colder than cold spells in much of the Middle East. During the coldest Siberian outbreaks, it gets as lethally cold as -40F (-40C).
Northern and eastern Europeans are largely acclimated to such cold. However, for refugees from regions where winters average 20 to 30 degrees warmer, makeshift houses or tents will make their sojourn a bone-chilling experience. Europe’s exorbitant energy costs, resulting from its obeisance to climate chaos credos, could make this an even worse humanitarian crisis.
However, to listen to the UN, many world leaders, environmental NGOs, scientists from the climate alarm industry, and their sycophant media - especially on the eve of their Paris 2015 global warming summit - threats from cold weather are not supposed to happen. Just 15 years ago, the German paper Spiegel proclaimed, “Good-bye winter: In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.” That same year, a British Climate Research Unit scientist said “children aren’t going to know what snow is.”
The media dutifully repeated similar claims each year, until unbelievably cold, snowy winters began hitting in 2008/09. In December 2010, England had its second-coldest December since 1659, amid the Little Ice Age. For five years, 2008-2013, snow paralyzed travel in England and northern and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same media then blamed manmade global warming for the harsh winters.
In reality, natural Atlantic Ocean cycles lasting around 60 years control winter temperatures in Europe and Eastern North America. When the North Atlantic warms, “blocking high pressure systems” largely prevent warm Atlantic air from reaching Europe.
There is also a strong correlation between the sun’s geomagnetic activity and these blocking-induced cold winters in Europe. The five brutally cold winters ending in 2012/13 had the lowest level of solar geomagnetic activity in the entire record, dating back some 90 years.
When the North Atlantic is warm and the sun’s geomagnetic patterns are weak, these blocking patterns keep warmer Atlantic air out of Europe. Frigid air from off deep snows in Siberia can then more easily invade from the east, bringing sub-zero cold and heavy snows. That’s what happened from 2008 to 2013.
The ocean and solar factors eased in 2013, and the last two years have seen more Atlantic air and milder winters. However both solar and ocean patterns are starting to return to the situation where cold invasions are more likely. That could usher in nasty surprises for the Middle Eastern refugees.
Even this year’s early winter October cold brought news stories about Syrian children becoming sick amid exposure to colder weather than they were used to. In Austria, adults and children alike were already complaining about the weather and wishing they could go home.
In fact, cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather, according to a Lancet medical journal study that analyzed 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. It should be required reading for the 40,000-plus bureaucrats, politicians, activists and promoters who will soon descend on Paris, to enjoy five-star hotels and restaurants while blathering endlessly about dire threats of global warming.
They should ponder the fact that the Lancet study reflects normal societies in peaceful countries. Even there, many more people die each year during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Indeed, there even the United States experiences some 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.
In the United Kingdom, the winter death rate is about twice as high as in the USA: excess winter deaths range up to 50,000 per year - due to the UK’s poorer home insulation and heating systems, and much higher energy costs caused by its climate and renewable energy policies.
The refugees’ excess winter death toll could well be even greater, due to the high cost of European energy and the migrants’ extreme poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate clothing and blankets, preexisting diseases, and makeshift housing: tents, trailers and other dwellings that have little or no insulation or central heat.
Systematic misinformation about the dangers of fossil fuels and hot versus cold weather has helped make this crisis much worse than needs be. Climate alarmists will thus bear the blame for thousands of avoidable deaths among refugees this winter, especially if the Siberian Express invades once again.
The Paris climate conferees need to focus on humanity’s real and immediate dangers: this rapidly growing refugee crisis, abysmal EU economies and job losses and the billions worldwide who still lack the adequate, reliable, affordable energy required to end their crushing poverty, malnutrition, disease and early death, by ensuring clean water, proper sanitation, modern hospitals, lights, refrigerators and plentiful food. The climate conferees must address the following much more pressing questions.
How is climate change more important than safeguarding refugees who are already suffering from cold weather? Should conferees be focused on hypothetical future manmade climate chaos, while EU nations squabble over who will take how many refugees and potential terrorists, amid a possible winter crisis? What contingency plans do they have for another bout of frigid weather possibly invading the continent?
When a million refugees are freezing in squalid conditions with inadequate shelter, food, heat, clothing and medical care, and 1.3 billion people still do not have electricity - why would the world commit to spending billions on alleged future global warming catastrophes? As Bjorn Lomborg puts it, why would the world also want to give up nearly $1 trillion in GDP every year for the rest of this century, to avert a total hypothetical (computer modeled) temperature rise of just 0.306 degrees C (0.558 F) by 2100?
Where will the money come from to combat growing war and terrorism, aid the millions displaced by these horrors, rebuild devastated cities, put millions of people back to work, and bring electricity and better lives to billions of others - if we continue this obsession over global warming? Do humans really play a big enough roll in climate change to justify these incomprehensible price tags? Where is the actual evidence? Not computer models or press releases - the actual evidence?
It would be an unconscionable crime against humanity, if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to protect our planet’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate disasters decades from now, by perpetuating poverty and disease that kill millions more people tomorrow.
These are the real reasons climate change is a critical moral issue. We need to we recognize that, and stop playing games with people’s lives. We must acknowledge that horrific computer model scenarios do not reflect planetary reality - and must not guide energy policy.
Joe D’Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and American Meteorological Society Fellow and co-founder of The Weather Channel. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Climate experts Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar contributed to this article.
NOTE: This is the fourth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2015 is +0.18 deg. C, down considerably from the June, 2015 value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):
ICECAP NOTE:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 Julys in ranking order shows it was the 9th warmest. NOAA’s intentionally corrupted data showed the global temperatures are the warmest ever for any month.
Strong July cooling occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics, with a weak drop in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics. The tropics continue to warm with El Nino conditions there.
The global image for July, 2015 is now available here.
Also see the composite of the global monthly data that goes into the operational dynamical models for short to medium and longer range. This is before NCDC adds the adjustments to get the results demanded for selling the global warming scam to the continue the indoctrination of the ignorati and provide the substitute communion for the members of in the church of climate scientology we see haunting the MSM and internet evangelizing on the message of man made climate change. It shows just an anomaly globally of +0.15C for the 1981-2010 base period falling in the middle of the pack the last decade. As predicted, NOAA and NASA barbecued their July temperatures? AMS continues to publish NOAA’s corrupt State of the Climate Report, which many meteorologists say goes right in the trash can when the mailman delivers it.
---------
Despite the ‘urgency; of Paris climate talks, a U.N. global poll rates climate change dead last
By Anthony Watts and Ryan Maue
Update: Climate Scientists Rip Apart EPA’s Global Warming Rule “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”
Despite the ‘urgency’ of Paris climate talks, a U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last
From the United Nations “MY World” initiative, which has recorded the opinions for All Countries & Country Groups with votes of 7,679,273 at the time of this writing. They describe it as:
MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.
The data collected so far is telling, at least about opinions surrounding global warming aka climate change. It is dead last in the list of concerns queried:
It too shows “action taken on climate change” as dead last among all age groups, gender, and education, but there are three curious columns on the right where it doesn’t come in last, but comes in low. These are the countries where people live that have medium to very high “HDI” which stands for Human Development Index.
Note that in these countries (medium to dark blue), people already have the things in place that come in lower than the climate change, so they tend to take them for granted. Countries that have a high HDI have reliable energy, Internet access, political freedoms, and social programs, so it is no wonder these sorts of things come in as lower concerns in medium to high HDI countries. These countries also tend to have a population that has people economically free enough to worry about things like climate change, whereas in some countries, you can’t get electricity or get on the Internet to read the latest doom and gloom being spewed by MSM outlets like the Guardian.
Earth is facing the prospect of a ‘mini ice age’ this century, with our sun’s activity projected to fall 60 percent in the 2030s, British astrophysicists say, based on the results of new research that they claim allows exact predictions of solar cycles.
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 could draw such a 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.
Although, the fact that the sun’s activity varies within a 10-12 year long cycles was first discovered almost two centuries ago, in 1843, all the previously existing explanatory models failed to fully explain the fluctuations with each cycle as well as between the cycles.
Until now, the astrophysicists thought that the variations of the solar activity depended on the dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep inside the sun.
The latest study conducted by a research team from Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and led by Professor Valentina Zharkova demonstrated that the variations in the Sun’s activity are caused by two dynamo processes - one deep in the convection zone of the sun and one near its surface.
The research team analyzed three solar activity cycles that cover the period from 1976 to 2008 studying magnetic field activity of the sun during this time by using a technique called principal component analysis of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California.
The scientists discovered magnetic waves in two different layers of the Solar interior that “fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun.”
“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time,” said Professor Zharkova.
Later, they also compared their findings concerning the intensity of the Sun’s activity with each year’s data on the average number of sunspots - a strong indicator of solar activity.
As a result, the team managed to create a very accurate model of predicting the solar activity fluctuations.
“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” said Zharkova.
The study findings were presented at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno on July 9 and published in the Royal Astronomical Society papers.
The model demonstrates that solar activity will fall by 60 percent by 2030 as the magnetic waves inside the Sun will become increasingly more desynchronized during the next two cycles, especially during cycle 26, which covers the decade between 2030 and 2040.
“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other,” Professor Zharkova said.
“Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago,” she added.
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 as it also correlates with a climatic period between 1550 and 1850 called the ‘Little Ice Age.’
Unnoticed by most citizens, last week the United States Senate introduced the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.” The act is aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency’s practice of refusing to disclose data from scientific studies that support new pollution regulations. The act indirectly questions the EPA assertion that Americans are dying today from small particle air pollution.
Past EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in 2011, stating, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Particulate matter refers to PM2.5, classified by the EPA as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, much smaller than the eye can see. Particle pollution is a mixture of dust, nitrates and sulfates, metals, pollen, and organic chemicals.
The EPA claims that any level of small particles can cause premature death. The agency warns that death may be short-term, occurring within a few hours of inhalation, or may be caused by long-term inhalation of PM2.5 over several years. EPA policy advisor Amanda Brown asserted that between 130,000 and 320,000 Americans died prematurely in 2005 due to small particle pollution, an incredible 6 to 15 percent of total US deaths.
EPA claims that particle pollution triggers heart failure, respiratory failure, or other causes of death. For example, suppose a senior citizen dies a few days before his 67th birth day and a coroner determines heart failure to be the cause of death. According to the EPA, the death may have been “premature” and caused by small particle air pollution.
The EPA uses “prevention” of premature deaths from small particles to justify tighter pollution regulations. The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will force closure of coal-fired power plants across the nation, is an example. The EPA claims that implementation of the CPP will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths and $93 billion in climate and public health benefits. But the monetized climate benefits are essentially zero. Almost all of the $93 billion comes from an EPA calculation on savings from avoidance of premature death from small particles.
Today, our nation’s air is remarkably clean, especially when compared to 50 years ago. Incidents of serious air pollution are rare. According to the EPA, the concentration of six major air pollutants, lead, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulates, are down more than a combined 70 percent since 1980. PM2.5 particle pollution is typically below the EPA national standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
Fifteen micrograms per cubic meter is not very much. Dr. James Enstrom, retired researcher from the UCLA School of Public Health, points out that a person breathing in 15 micrograms of small particles per cubic meter would inhale only about one teaspoon of these microscopic particles over an 80-year lifespan. The EPA’s assertion that this small amount of particles causes premature death is not credible.
How does the EPA conclude that thousands of Americans die each year from particle pollution? No coroner ever attributes a cause of death to particle pollution. Instead, the EPA relies on epidemiological observational studies that associate particle pollution with death.
Epidemiological studies analyze statistical associations between exposure to an agent and appearance of disease in a population. An example is the Doll and Hill study in the 1950s that found that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer in a population of 41,000 British medical doctors. EPA has concluded that associations found in epidemiological studies show that inhalation of small particles cause premature death.
But the association between death and particle pollution found by studies that EPA relies on is shaky at best. Relative risk (RR) is the ratio of incidence of disease in an exposed population to a control population. The size of the relative risk is a measure of the chance that an association is causal.
The Harvard Six Cities study of 1993 and the American Cancer Society study of 1995, two studies that form the basis of EPA small particle science, found an increase in relative risk of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2). An increase in death rates of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2) is almost statistically indistinguishable from zero. In contrast, the Doll and Hill study on cigarettes and lung cancer found smokers had 10 times the rate of lung cancer and non-smokers, a relative risk of RR=10. The weak association (small relative risk) between death and particle pollution that the EPA judges to be causal could be due to other factors in the measured populations or even random chance.
But what stinks to high heaven is that data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies have never been released. Other scientists are not able to replicate and verify the results of these studies. In effect, the EPA is asking all to “trust us” on the science of death from particle pollution. The Secret Science Reform Act proposes to force the EPA to disclose data from studies that support the need for EPA regulations.
Further, EPA is often the funding agency for epidemiological studies that are then used to justify new air pollution regulations. EPA supports such studies either directly or indirectly through grants to organizations such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. For example, over the last decade the EPA has provided more than $20 million in grants to the American Lung Association, a group that supports EPA efforts for more stringent air pollution regulations (payback was the ads they ran unsupported by the data).
The result is a massive, costly, and growing burden on American citizens in the name of clean air. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost US citizens some $400 billion in compliance costs over the next 15 years. But the savings from “prevention of premature deaths” from particle pollution are likely imaginary.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
_thumb.png)
_thumb.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
