The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
Apr 22, 2014
Massachusetts Ocean Wind Turbine Fiasco


April 21, 2014

There are good reasons Cape Wind has struggled to get off the ground for the past 13 years. Not only is the project outdated, but its location in the heart of Nantucket Sound has now been determined to pose significant risks to a variety of endangered and threatened species. These environmental impacts are the basis of a recent federal court decision that sent both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service back to the drawing board to conduct more scientific reviews.

But Cape Wind’s impacts extend far beyond the environment. The controversial project would also jeopardize public safety, put fishermen’s livelihoods at risk and desecrate sacred tribal lands. As a result of these impacts and the choice of a highly conflicted location, Cape Wind continues to face litigation and opposition.

Likely the single biggest reason Cape Wind is no closer to being built today than it was 13 years ago is simple economics: Its cost is exorbitantly high. Any electricity Cape Wind would produce is guaranteed to be some of the most expensive in New England and the nation.

Cape Wind’s contracted electricity prices start at roughly 20 cents per kilowatt-hour and would increase by 3.5 percent each year to reach an exorbitant 34 cents per kwh in the final contract year. To put these numbers in perspective, Cape Wind would cost $3 billion more than electricity bought at market rates. It would also be more than three times as expensive as competing land-based wind projects that sell electricity at a flat 8 cents per kwh with no annual increase. Cape Wind’s high rates would burden families, businesses and communities throughout the commonwealth.

Leading business groups in Massachusetts organizations that clearly support renewable energy have sounded the alarm about the high cost of Cape Wind. Groups such as the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership have warned that the state’s energy costs, already far higher than those in most other states, would become even less competitive. Cape Wind’s billions of dollars in added costs would make a difference on where businesses choose to locate and expand.

While Massachusetts businesses and residents would get saddled with the bills, the commonwealth wouldn’t have any new jobs to show for it. Middleboro’s Mass Tank worked tirelessly for two years meeting milestones for Cape Wind after being promised the job to manufacture its turbine foundations. The result? Cape Wind spurned Mass Tank in favor of a European competitor in Germany.

And after years of touting the economic benefits of the project for the commonwealth, Cape Wind signed a contract with a Maine-based company for an electrical service platform, breaking another promise, according to the National Electrical Contractors Association of Greater Boston, and leaving thousands of Massachusetts electricians and contractors out in the cold.

At the end of last year, in an attempt to qualify for $800 million of expiring tax credits, Cape Wind signed a contract with Siemens to manufacture its turbines in Denmark, meaning the outsourcing of even more jobs.

Cape Wind’s longtime struggle to secure financing even with overpriced power contracts in hand, is another strong indicator of just how much of a financial boondoggle the project is. For years the developer has asked the Department of Energy for help by having U.S. taxpayers guarantee its loans. In 2011, Cape Wind was denied a $2 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department, an amount nearly four times that lost on the now-bankrupt Solyndra. Today, Cape Wind continues to seek hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars from the same agency under a different loan program. And while promises of Danish employment may have helped Cape Wind attract conditional foreign investments from groups like EKF, Denmark’s export credit agency, Cape Wind has yet to receive financing from a single U.S. entity.

Massachusetts is a hub for energy innovation. With all of this talent and creativity, the commonwealth could do so much better than be saddled by an industrial relic with high costs and few benefits. After 13 years, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Cape Wind shouldn’t be built, and it won’t be.

Audra Parker is the president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

Apr 19, 2014
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

One of my stories in the local newspaper received some kudos but also a mixed review from someone who used Wikipedia to fact check which lead him astray. I thought I would comment on that. I find Wikipedia useful for finding out about people dead or alive and events that occurred. Entries about prior storms for example are generally fact filled and accurate. But not so references about climate skeptics and global warming. That part of Wikipedia can not be trusted as it is carefully controlled as this story from 2008 by Lawrence Solomon on showed. I felt it was worth repeating.

By Lawrence Solomon, National Review On-Line on CBS News

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works. As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month. In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit. I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming. Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right. I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so. Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics. Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party. And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors. “Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Read full story here.

By the way in 2010, Wikipedia stepped up self policing but it wasn’t working with Connolley.

We have pieces of this story before, but felt it was newsworthy it appeared on Also it is a reminder to you and your children not to trust Wiki as a reliable source. It was a good idea let go astray.


This was the post he was responding to.

Weather Whys and Climate Wise
By joseph D’Aleo, CCM

This was for the nation one of the coldest winters on record, a throwback to the late 1970s when the world was worried about a coming ice age. Many cities in the north central had their coldest winter ever going back into the 1800s. In Wisconsin, the October to March period was the coldest since 1895. Chicago had the coldest November to March period since records began in 1872. It was also among the snowiest - third snowiest ever in Chicago, snowiest ever in Detroit and second only to 2009/10 in Philadelphia.

What was most remarkable was how persistent the pattern has been since November. The warm interludes were brief. The snow did not come in monstrous snows like 2013 but in frequent moderate events.


Yes, you can blame it on the now infamous polar vortex. Meteorologists know it is not new but a permanent feature of the Polar Regions. It is an upper level low pressure enclosing the coldest air in the hemisphere and is there winter and summer. In winter it expands unevenly (driven by other factors). In 2009/10 it expanded into the US and brought a record cold winter to the southeast. In December 2010, it was displaced to near the UK, where it brought the second coldest December since the Little Ice age in 1659 and later in the winter the US where it brought big snows. The vortex took aim at Alaska, Europe and China the in the last two winters but this year it was North America’s turn.

This year, it was a warm ocean pool in the Gulf of Alaska that buckled the jet stream and anchored the polar vortex over central North America. This drove persistent cold from the Canadian arctic into the central and eastern US. with a steady stream of storms and frequent snows and many below zero nights.  Chicago had the third most sub-zero days, other locations like Green Bay, the most ever.  The result of all the cold was 92.2% of the Great Lakes froze solid, the greatest since 1978/79. On April 1, the Great Lakes were still 69.1% ice covered, around 700% of normal.

A mass of Siberian air, typically 10-20F colder than Canadian arctic air was captured in January and really amplified the vortex into the central states.  That’s when the media became enthralled with the term, “polar vortex”.

The media in general though has not acknowledged that global warming stopped almost 18 years ago (why it is now called climate change) and in the US winter temperatures have cooled for 20 years (2.26F). Here in the northeast region, the two decade cooling was 1.2F.  Snow, which was supposed to be rare by 2010, instead is occurring at a record pace. In the eastern states, we have had 14 high impact snowstorms this decade (just 4 years in), beating out the 1960s, which had 11 events,

But some might say “Yes it was cold and snowy but that is weather not climate and we hear 97% scientists agree our climate is warming”.


The late, great Dr. Michael Crichton wrote “Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels, it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled”. 

Surveys of the public and economists find global warming at the bottom of their priorities. Those pushing the warming theory have been trying to convince you that your gut instinct this might be hype based on your wearing out your snowblower and all the snow days eating away our children’s summer vacation and of course those fuel bills is wrong by telling you there’s a 97% consensus of the world’s climate scientists. 

The first ‘97%’ study was an email survey of 10,000 scientists that in the end tallied only the responses from just 77 climate scientists who had published on climate.  They asked (1) is it now warmer than 1800 (the Little Ice Age) and (2) does man play an important role in climate. The answer to both is yes. Surprisingly only 97% agreed. We are fortunately not now in a Little Ice Age and yes man through urbanization and land use changes, has an effect on ‘local’ climates. Another literature study survey that proclaimed 97% consensus has been debunked by follow up peer review and a rework of the first study was rejected by the journals.

That did not stop the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the administration from using 97% as rationale for the policies that Hollywood and environmentalists (both with plenty of money to fund election campaigns) are pushing for. 

The Oregon Petition ( meanwhile lists 31,487 legitimate scientists and 9,029 PhDs who agreed there is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of CO2 or other greenhouse gases will cause in the foreseeable future a catastrophic warming and disruption of the climate and moreover there are many benefits of CO2, an essential element of plant photosynthesis.


Indeed, increased CO2 is a plant fertilizer not a pollutant. Nurseries pump it into the greenhouses. It also makes plants more drought resistant, reducing water needs. Yields for rice, corn, beans and wheat have increased 3 to 5 fold worldwide since the 1960s. Corn yields have increased 6 fold in the US as CO2 rose and are expected to double again by 2030 according to Dr Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan. The economic benefit from increased crop production by CO2 enrichment may total $9.8 trillion by 2050.

The carbon pollution they now talk about is really soot. Soot has been virtually eliminated by ‘scrubbers’ here in the US where particulates are well below current EPA standards but is a problem in China without scrubbers on their coal plants.

The real threat to our physical and economic health comes not from warming and CO2 but potential continued acceleration into colder conditions while we pursue unwise and unnecessary environmental regulations and energy policies.


And he addressed also this response to a rant letter to the editor by a local recycling committee environmentalist to which I replied:

Thanks for your reply and thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.

Climate is always changing. Our current climate is remarkably benign compared to the past. This last century continued the recovery from the ice age of prior centuries. We warmed from the 1920s to 1940s, cooled to the 1970s, warmed to the 1990s then have stabilized and begun to cool again this century. This temperature pattern fits to a tee the natural multidecadal changes in the oceans and solar cycles.

The UN commissioned greenhouse theory based climate models continue to fail MISERABLY because they ignore the real climate drivers. We don’t live in the virtual world of the models but in the real world where only real data matters.

When the earth did warm from the 1970s to 1990s, it was in northern latitudes only and that warming stopped 18 years ago. There has been no warming in the tropical atmosphere and oceans for 35 years as shown by balloons, satellite and buoys that measure temperatures down to 300 meters.  This is the area where ALL the greenhouse models forecast warming would be most robust. There has been no increase in drought or flood (NOAA), or heat waves (the 1930s holds 23 of the 50 state records, 38 came before 1960 and there were more cold record than heat records since the 1940s). Hurricanes globally are at a 34 year low. Tornadoes in 2013 were 142 less than any other year on record and the number of forest fires in the US last year was the lowest in the record since 1984. These events will happen, always have and always will but man is not responsible.

You seemed most concerned about sea levels.  The sea level hype has gone on for decades with promises of global increases of 20 feet by Gore and even 264 feet by Hansen. In actual fact, the global sea level rises have slowed dramatically to an average of less than 4 inches a century. NOAA US tide gauges are rising at an average rate of 3.6 inches/century. See this story by Nils Axel Morner, the world’s foremost sea level expert.

Bangladesh is seeing sea levels rise because the land is sinking, as it is along the Mid Atlantic. There has been no rise in sea level at Tuvalu or the Maldives, the poster children of the ‘scare the world’ program of the UN. The author you mentioned to me, Church is a UN IPCC chapter co-lead author and his projections are based on ‘adjusted’ data and model projections. Don’t buy into the disinformation, they are peddling. It is driven by politics.

The real threat comes not from warming but potential continued acceleration into colder conditions. Solar scientists have warned of a major cooling from greatly diminished solar activity, down already 60% since 1990. That would be far more problematic for the world food production and energy needs than an imperceptible, gentle warming.

This is the 212 year solar cycle that caused the last mini ice age in the early 1800s and the major one in the 1600s that caused crop failures and famine and disease.  Russian (here ). German, UK, American (NASA) and many other scientists are warning of this but Washington has ignored it. While we chase a phantom warming based on a failed theory, many worry we may get slammed from a very different, far more threatening change.  Cold is far more dangerous and deadly than warmth.

But many politicians and the environmentalists are determined to destroy our fossil fuel energy industry even as we discover we are blessed with the world’s greatest supply, all to allegedly save the planet, but in reality to gain even more control over our lives.  They put us all in jeopardy of even more unaffordable or unavailable energy in an increasingly brutal climate. Europe has discovered that renewables are not yet the answer. The wind farms will be dismantled starting next year in the UK and they are slant drilling to extract coal from beneath the North Sea) and Germany is building 24 new coal fired plants. They awoke to the reality that those that can afford it the least, the poor and middle class, were hurt most by bad, idealistic, feel good policies.

Apr 08, 2014
Climategate Scientists Getting Rid Of The 1940’s Temperature Spike In The Arctic

Steve Goddard, Real Science

As of 2011, NASA showed a large spike in eastern Arctic temperatures around the year 1940


During the previous year, climategate scientists discussed their desire to get rid of the 1940s spike

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 0600
Cc: Ben Santer

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

By 2013, they had done exactly what they wanted to, removed the 1930s blip


They accomplished this by an impressive 2 degrees (3.6F) of data tampering, lowering 1940 temperatures and increasing present temperatures.


So were the Climategate scientists justified in removing the 1940s Arctic spike? Scientists in 1940 reported 6C warming and rapidly disappearing ice. The warming was real, and modern climate scientists are trying to rewrite history.


Papers Past - Auckland Star - 14 December 1940 WARMER ARCTIC


The game is Up for Climate Change Believers
Charles Moore

Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.

The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding") has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”. Proper science studies what is - which is, in principle, knowable - and is consequently very cautious about the future which isn’t. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days.

Some of the utterances of the warmists are preposterously specific. In March 2009, the Prince of Wales declared that the world had “only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. How could he possibly calculate such a thing? Similarly, in his 2006 report on the economic consequences of climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern wrote that, “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five per cent of global GDP each year, now and forever.” To the extent that this sentence means anything, it is clearly wrong (how are we losing five per cent GDP “now”, before most of the bad things have happened? How can he put a percentage on “forever”?). It is charlatanry.

Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet.

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.").

These beliefs began to take organized, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolized, the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.

The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world’s elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.

The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.

Since then, the international war against carbon totters on, because Western governments see their green policies, like zombie banks, as too big to fail. The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up.

Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see those lessons set out with painful clarity.

Apr 21, 2014
Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong to Omit Previous Natural Warm Periods Say Friends of Science

Lovejoy is from the once great McGill University in Canada.

Ironically, Canada is having one of its most brutal and long lasting winters on record much like the North Central States. Great lakes ice three weeks into April and more than half way through spring, is still covering 39.9% of the lakes, more than 2000% of the long term average.





The ice on Superior is likely to linger well into May as well as the snow in southern Canada.


Friends of Science

A recent paper published by Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University, that claims 99.9% certainty of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is flawed from the outset, according to Friends of Science due to Lovejoy’s omission of known climatic variations and reliance on the discredited “Hockey Stick” graph.

Natural warming and cooling periods of climate change appear to be cyclical based on Greenland ice cores

Greenland GISP2 Ice Core - Temperature Last 10,000 years

All three warm periods occurred before industrialization; these facts effectively put Lovejoy’s argument of ‘unprecedented global warming’ to rest from the get-go
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) April 17, 2014

Friends of Science are rejecting the recent paper by Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University of Montreal reported on April 11, 2014 in the online science news and published April 6, 2014 online in the journal Climate Dynamics. The Lovejoy paper claims to prove with 99.9% certainty that human industrial activity is the cause of recent warming (which stopped naturally 15+ years ago as reported May 26, 2013 in Forbes). However, assessment by Friends of Science member and geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch, reveals the paper lacks reference to known past historical warm periods. This means Lovejoy’s conclusions are 100% wrong, say Friends of Science.

“The Lovejoy paper is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to take account of three known prior naturally warm periods and it relies on the widely discredited “Hockey Stick” graph and replications that were dismantled by McKitrick and McIntyre years ago,” says Kalmanovitch.

Friends of Science dispute Lovejoy’s methodology saying his simplistic correlation between CO2 and proxy temperatures as causing warming, fails to address the increase of solar activity, the source of all energy on earth, in the time period. Tree-ring data used in Lovejoy’s study diverges greatly from thermometer measurements, indicating that the proxies are not reliable for estimating past temperatures.

Kalmanovitch points to the earlier warming periods, Minoan Warm of 3,000 years ago, Roman Optimum of 2,000 years ago, and Medieval Warm of 1,000 years ago.

A graph published in the Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews of January 2000: pp 213-226 shows that all three periods were all warmer than the current warm period.

“All three warm periods occurred before industrialization; these facts effectively put Lovejoy’s argument of ‘unprecedented global warming’ to rest from the get-go,” says Kalmanovitch.

Evidence from satellites and radiosondes show that climate is not very sensitive to changes in CO2 due to net negative feedbacks operating in the climate system, which counteract the direct CO2 effect. The lack of warming over the past 15+ years proves that natural factors can easily negate the small CO2 effect.

Lovejoy’s paper begins the study period in the 1500’s but he does not reference known temperature records within that time. The Central England Temperature Record from January 1663-December 1762, before the Industrial Revolution shows a warming of 0.90C during this 100 year period. Humans were not responsible for this temperature change.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 19, 2014, the global temperature rise over the last 100 years was only about 0.7 C [1.3F], which was mostly due to natural causes, with humans having a small effect.

Other concerns are evidenced in the original press release issued by McGill University wherein Shaun Lovejoy is quoted as saying: “This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers...”

“This is appalling language, sanctioned by a Nobel Laureate University like McGill, unscientific and in very poor taste,” says Kalmanovitch.

Friends of Science are asking McGill University’s Chancellor for a retraction and apology for the language used in the press release. Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.

Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O.
Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
E-mail: contact(at)

Matt Briggs adds his comments on the Lovejoy claims here.

Lovejoy Update

To show you how low climatological discourse has sunk, in the new paper in Climate Dynamics Shaun Lovejoy (a name which we are now entitled to doubt) wrote out a trivially simple model of global temperature change and after which inserted the parenthetical words “skeptics may be assured that this hypothesis will be tested and indeed quantified in the following analysis”. In published comments he also fixated on the word “deniers.” If there is anybody left who says climate science is no different than politics, raise his hand. Anybody? Anybody?

His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions? to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.

Apr 17, 2014
What a winter - media instead focuses on bogus UN IPCC model fiction and the hollywood ignorati

Joseph D’Aleo


December to March temperature anomalies

The Upper Midwest was hardest hit. It was the third coldest on record there all the way down to Chicago.


This continued the downtrend in winter (December to February and even December to March) temperatures for the nation, all the climate regions and the Upper Midwest for the last 20 YEARS!



It was the snowiest winter on record in parts of the Midwest like Detroit and third snowiest in Chicago (just 0.3 inches behind 1977/78) and second snowiest as far east as Philadelphia. It was top ten snowiest in many central and eastern cities.



March continue the cold from the Great Lakes to the northeast. Vermont deep in snow had their coldest March on record. In New Hampshire and Maine it was the second coldest, New York and Michigan 5th coldest.


Ice on the Great Lakes past mid april is still widespread, most on record so late.


It is running 1600% of normal for this time of the spring.


Just imagine if NCDC was not manipulating data where the wintr might have ranked. here is the adjustment from raw to final according to Steve Goddard.


Apr 01, 2014
The Next Great Famine…or Age of Abundance?

By Dr. Roy Spencer

One of the most annoying things about climate forecasts is the apparent need to predict catastrophe.

Of course, it makes good press, like the latest from Bryan Walsh at Time, Climate Change Could Cause the Next Great Famine.

While such theories can always find a home with some learned academics, for those who ‘do’ rather than ‘teach’, the world is a very different place.

For the last 4 years, I have spoken at a Kansas City conference of grain growing and investment interests organized by The ProExporter Network, a company which tracks and predicts both U.S. and international grain markets and growing conditions, especially for corn, soybeans, and wheat.

I was with these folks again last week, and from what I hear, there have been no negative climate-related changes which have been identified. If they do exist, they are swamped by technological improvements...and maybe even the positive effects of CO2 fertilization (which has somewhat conflicting research results for maize).

Here in the U.S, as well as globally, grain production as well as yields (in bushels per acre) have been on an upward linear trend for at least 50 years, primarily due to improvements in varieties (e.g. with greater drought tolerance) and growing practices:


Most year-to-year interruptions in normal growing weather are due to heat waves and droughts, or less frequently, floods. High corn yields are favored by a warm spring with dry planting weather, a not-too-hot summer with sufficient rain (the most important growing period), and a warm, dry fall.

If we examine observed summer (June/July/August) temperatures over the corn belt, we see no obvious warming in the USHCN data. This is in stark contrast to the average of 42 climate models available through the KNMI Climate Explorer for approximately the same region as the corn belt:


Needless to say, the average model expectation of warming has not materialized in the corn belt. The corresponding average precipitation change in the models (not shown) has a near-zero trend for the corn belt, while there has been maybe a 10% increase in observed precipitation over the last 100 years, largely due to the Dust Bowl days early in the record.

The IPCC claims there is a negative impact of global warming on corn, but the experts I have talked to say there is no way to get that out of the data. You would have to have accurate quantitative knowledge of the technological trend, which you don’t.

In other words, without an accurate removal of the factors leading to the huge increase in corn yield (which is not possible), you can’t back out of the data any kind of climate-related signal. (If anything, the face-value evidence is that warming leads to higher yields, not lower.)

And without that accurate quantitative knowledge (and no evidence of observed corn belt climate change anyway), they tell me there is little reason to depart from a forecast of slowly increasing corn yields in the coming years.

So, unless you are an academic who is trying to remain relevant to the real world by forecasting doom and asking for government grants to support your Malthusian view of the world (wherein population increases exponentially and food production remains more constant), the real world scenario is that population will level off in the next 50 years, while grain production and yields will likely continue to grow, at least for the foreseeable future.

Apr 22, 2014
NASA discovers: Greenland WAS Green 3 million years ago

Most people who have studied Climate Matters would be aware of GUS Garden Under Sandet (See Alarming News for the Alarmists) GUS proved that the Medieval Warm Period existed and hence the naming of the island “Greenland” by Eric the Red.


Now however a team of university scientists and a NASA colleague were greatly surprised to discover an ancient tundra landscape preserved under the Greenland Ice Sheet, below two miles of ice. The team reported their discovery on April 17 in the journal Science.

Just think! Greenland was really Green 3 million years ago.

The discovery indicates that even during the warmest periods since the ice sheet formed, the center of Greenland remained stable. This allowed a tundra landscape to be locked away, unmodified, under ice through millions of years of global warming and cooling.

“The traditional knowledge about glaciers is that they are very powerful agents of erosion and can effectively strip a landscape clean. Instead, we demonstrate that the Greenland Ice Sheet is not acting as an agent of erosion; in fact, at it’s center, it has performed incredibly little erosion since its inception almost three million years ago,” said co-author Lee Corbett, a graduate student at the University of Vermont. (source)

The paper, published in Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1249047 Paul R. Bierman et al

Preservation of a Preglacial Landscape Under the Center of the Greenland Ice Sheet


Continental ice sheets typically sculpt landscapes via erosion; under certain conditions, ancient landscapes can be preserved beneath ice and can survive extensive and repeated glaciation. We used concentrations of atmospherically produced cosmogenic beryllium-10, carbon, and nitrogen to show that ancient soil has been preserved in basal ice for millions of years at the center of the ice sheet at Summit, Greenland. This finding suggests ice sheet stability through the Pleistocene (i.e., the past 2.7 million years). The preservation of this soil implies that the ice has been non-erosive and frozen to the bed for much of that time, that there was no substantial exposure of central Greenland once the ice sheet became fully established, and that preglacial landscapes can remain preserved for long periods under continental ice sheets.

The findings show that the soil had been stable and exposed at the surface for somewhere between 200,000 and 1 million years before being covered by ice. To help interpret them, the scientists also measured nitrogen and carbon that could have been left by plant material in the core sample.

“The fact that measurable amounts of organic material were found in the silty ice indicates that soil must have been present under the ice,” said co-author Dr Andrea Lini from the University of Vermont.

“Greenland really was green! However, it was millions of years ago. Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth,” Dr Rood said. (bold added Source)

Apr 18, 2014
The Looking Glass World Of “Climate Injustice”

By Francis Menton

When Alice went through the looking glass, she found a world where things were completely the reverse of what they are in the real world.  Of course, Lewis Carroll’s masterpiece was intended as a parody of the mendacious politicians of the day.

Today we have something beyond parody, and that is the U.N. climate bureaucracy and its acolytes.  Because the U.N. agencies are bureaucracies, it is perhaps understandable that they should seek at all times to increase their own power and control over the world’s people.  But what is not understandable is when that quest turns into a campaign to keep the poor people of the world in poverty.  Yet that is exactly where the U.N. now finds itself with the campaign for what it calls “climate justice.” That campaign is based on completely false premises, and could not have been better designed to keep the poor poor than if that had been the principal and only purpose.  The advocates of so-called “climate justice” seem to be totally unaware of the reprehensible morality of their campaign.  Instead, they flaunt their own high levels of consumption, and look to as leaders those at the very most extreme levels of high consumption.

Poverty, in the sense of deprivation of basic goods and services, in very large part is a result of insufficient access to energy.  Access to energy means electricity for our homes, businesses and computers; it means transportation, in the form of automobiles, trains and planes; it means heating in cold weather and cooling in hot weather; it means functioning hospitals and health care facilities; it means mechanized agricultural methods that ameliorate the effects of bad weather and pests; it means access to information; and many other things equally important.  Without access to energy, people are trapped in local areas to lead a life of basic subsistence if not periodic hunger and starvation.

Current data from the World Bank with respect to access to energy show that even today over 1.2 billion people, 20% of the world’s population, lack access to electricity.  This includes about 550 million people in Africa and over 400 million in India.  Here is the World Bank’s description of what it means to lack access to electricity:

Without access to energy service, the poor will be deprived of the most basic of human rights and of economic opportunities to improve their standard of living. People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school in rainforests where lighting is required during the day. The list of deprivation goes on.

The World Bank actually projects that the number of people in Africa without access to electricity will increase, not decrease, between now and 2030!

And electricity is just one piece of the energy access puzzle.  The 1.2 billion figure who lack electricity is far exceeded by the numbers who lack access to modern transportation (automobiles, trains, airplanes), to air conditioning, to heat, to hospitals, to mechanized agricultural equipment, and to the internet.  For example, according to 2013 data from the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva, only about 2.4 billion people out of the 7.0 billion in the world (34.3%) had internet access; that leaves some 5.6 billion without access.  In Africa, only 16.3% of people had access to the internet, and only 6.7% had access to the internet at home.

Given the serious hardship faced by the world’s poor in the absence of energy access, one would think that a top priority of the U.N. would be finding ways to achieve that access as quickly, as cheaply, and as reliably as possible.  But in fact, under the banner of so-called “climate justice” the U.N. is doing exactly the opposite.  It is doing its best to hobble, hinder and obstruct development of the cheapest and most reliable sources of energy in the third world, while instead advocating for massive transfers of wealth from rich countries, not to the poor people themselves, but instead to the governing cliques and wealthy elites in the poor countries when Alice went through the looking glass, she found a world where things were completely the reverse of what they are in the real world.  Of course, Lewis Carroll’s masterpiece was intended as a parody of the mendacious politicians of the day.

Today we have something beyond parody, and that is the U.N. climate bureaucracy and its acolytes.  Because the U.N. agencies are bureaucracies, it is perhaps understandable that they should seek at all times to increase their own power and control over the world’s people.  But what is not understandable is when that quest turns into a campaign to keep the poor people of the world in poverty.  Yet that is exactly where the U.N. now finds itself with the campaign for what it calls “climate justice.” That campaign is based on completely false premises, and could not have been better designed to keep the poor poor than if that had been the principal and only purpose.  The advocates of so-called “climate justice” seem to be totally unaware of the reprehensible morality of their campaign.  Instead, they flaunt their own high levels of consumption, and look to as leaders those at the very most extreme levels of high consumption.

Poverty, in the sense of deprivation of basic goods and services, in very large part is a result of insufficient access to energy.  Access to energy means electricity for our homes, businesses and computers; it means transportation, in the form of automobiles, trains and planes; it means heating in cold weather and cooling in hot weather; it means functioning hospitals and health care facilities; it means mechanized agricultural methods that ameliorate the effects of bad weather and pests; it means access to information; and many other things equally important.  Without access to energy, people are trapped in local areas to lead a life of basic subsistence if not periodic hunger and starvation.

Current data published by the World Bank with respect to access to energy show that even today over 1.2 billion people, 20% of the world’s population, lack access to electricity.  l This includes about 550 million people in Africa and over 400 million in India.  Here is the World Bank’s description of what it means to lack access to electricity:

Without access to energy service, the poor will be deprived of the most basic of human rights and of economic opportunities to improve their standard of living. People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school in rainforests where lighting is required during the day. The list of deprivation goes on.

The World Bank actually projects that the number of people in Africa without access to electricity will increase, not decrease, between now and 2030!

And electricity is just one piece of the energy access puzzle.  The 1.2 billion figure who lack electricity is far exceeded by the numbers who lack access to modern transportation (automobiles, trains, airplanes), to air conditioning, to heat, to hospitals, to mechanized agricultural equipment, and to the internet.  For example, according to 2013 data from the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva, only about 2.4 billion people out of the 7.0 billion in the world (34.3%) had internet access; that leaves some 5.6 billion without access.  In Africa, only 16.3% of people had access to the internet, and only 6.7% had access to the internet at home.

Given the serious hardship faced by the world’s poor in the absence of energy access, one would think that a top priority of the U.N. would be finding ways to achieve that access as quickly, as cheaply, and as reliably as possible.  But in fact, under the banner of so-called “climate justice,” the U.N. is doing exactly the opposite.  It is doing its best to hobble, hinder and obstruct development of the cheapest and most reliable sources of energy in the third world, while instead advocating for massive transfers of wealth from rich countries, not to the poor people themselves, but instead to the governing cliques and wealthy elites in the poor countries.

So what is this U.N. “climate justice” campaign?  On its public face, it is a campaign to have rich countries pay money to governments of poor countries to compensate the poor countries for alleged harm resulting from “climate change.} A U.N. agency called UN-NGLS (UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service) is leading the charge.  Their home page for “Climate Justice for a Changing Planet” can be found here.  The basic idea of the campaign is that the big problem facing poor countries is not poverty or lack of energy access, but rather climate change, and that the solution to climate change is to have taxpayers in rich countries transfer money to governments of poor countries so they can supposedly spend the money to ameliorate the climate change.  Here is an excerpt from the Climate Justice home page of UN-NGLS:

There is little doubt that climate change will lead to unprecedented changes in the natural environment, which will in turn affect the way we live, with potentially dramatic consequences on our health, energy sources and food production systems.  There is also increasing recognition that these impacts are being felt disproportionately by poor people who already live under precarious conditions. Climate change, with its many facets, further exacerbates existing inequalities faced by these vulnerable groups.

Also involved is the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report (available at was issued in late March 2014.  The IPCC’s Report predicts a list of horrible natural disasters that supposedly will be associated with climate change, but have not yet occurred, including increased droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes.  With that ammunition, worldwide campaigners for “climate justice” go forth to make their case for wealth transfers to the poor country governments.  For example, the large organization known as CARE put out a release (here) promptly following the IPCC’s report.  Here are some excerpts:

From more extreme and intense weather-related disasters, to reduced food security, to rising sea-levels, climate change is fast becoming a scandal of epic proportions for the world’s poorest people - and it’s unfolding right before our eyes.  But overcoming climate poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice,

The latest IPCC report, compiled by hundreds of the world’s leading climate experts on behalf of the UN, describes how climate change constitutes an additional burden for the rural and urban poor and has the potential to push people into chronic poverty, undermining and reversing development gains made over many years.  It also shows that, as global temperatures rise, there is increasing risk of passing critical ‘tipping points’ which may lead to abrupt and irreversible large-scale changes to major ecosystems on which millions of people rely.

Describing the IPCC’s latest report as “another clarion call to action,” CARE wants to see:

1.  Governments working harder than ever to keep global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees C as possible to avert extreme climate change.

2.  Developed countries providing far greater financial support to help poor countries address climate impacts, with actions focussing on helping the most vulnerable people and communities to build their resilience to increasing climate disruption, and greater support to help people deal with the loss and damage already occurring.

Other voices for “climate justice” spoke out at a U.N. conference on climate change held in Warsaw, Poland in November 2013.  The New York Times reported on that conference in a November 18, 2013 article titled “Growing Clamor About Inequities of Climate Crisis.” (here) For example, the Times quoted John Kioli of Kenya as follows:

John Kioli, the chairman of the Kenya Climate Change Working Group, a consortium of nongovernmental organizations, called climate change his country’s “biggest enemy.” Kenya, which straddles the Equator, faces some of the biggest challenges from rising temperatures. Arable land is disappearing and diseases like malaria are appearing in highland areas where they had never been seen before.  Developed countries, Mr. Kioli said, have a moral obligation to shoulder the cost, considering the amount of pollution they have emitted since the Industrial Revolution. “If developed countries are reasonable enough, they are able to understand that they have some responsibility,” he said.

But is there any actual evidence of a connection between rich country industrial activity and natural disasters or even bad weather in poor countries?  The answer is, simply, no.  Indeed, for those willing to slog through the IPCC full Fifth Assessment Report, the admission of lack of connection is actually there, although buried deep in the multi-hundred-page Report and couched in bureaucratic gobbledegook.  A scientist named Roger Pielke, Jr. compiled many of the statements from the section of the Report known as Working Group I, Chapter 2, for purposes of testimony given before the Senate; he also posted many of them in a blog post (here):

* “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

* “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century, No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

* “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

* “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

* “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950:

* “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

Pielke goes on to call the attempt to associate things like floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes with climate change “Zombie science,” and says that “Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”

But the “climate justice” campaign continues and even accelerates, based entirely on Zombie science.  And equally because of the Zombie science, the corollary idea that use of fossil fuel energy harms poor people is seriously impeding efforts to bring them access to energy.  Thus, for example, the United States has severely restricted the ability of its international aid agencies to participate in financing of fossil fuel developments, and instead has limited them strictly to so-called “renewables” that are more expensive and less reliable.  Here is an excerpt from testimony of Todd Moss of the Center for Global Development given before the House energy and Commerce Committee on February 27, 2014:

Just as the U.S. is seeking to expand energy access, other policies are increasing restrictions on financing for natural gas and hydropower. This comes at the exact moment when many African countries are discovering natural gas and want to use part of their reserves to produce electricity at home. Indeed, all six of the Power Africa focus countries are either producing, developing, or exploring for oil and gas.

Ghana is a good example. The country is a close U.S. ally which recently discovered natural gas and would like to use this resource to expand access and grow its industry. Yet current U.S. policy restricts our ability to assist them in building any new gas plants and many advocacy groups want to prevent Ghana from generating additional power via natural gas out of concern over potential greenhouse gas emissions. As we consider the U.S. position on this, it is worth keeping in mind that we currently have more than 3,400 power plants running on fossil fuels in the United States.  Ghana has two. 

Separately on the website of the Center for Global Development, Moss calculates a small piece of the effect on the poor of restricting new power development in poor countries to only renewables in lieu of environmentally-incorrect alternatives like natural gas and hydropower.  Based on commitments from the U.S. OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) of $10 billion, Moss calculated that access to electricity could be provided to 60 million more people if investment in natural gas and hydro were allowed, as opposed to just renewables. (here)

Meanwhile, the advocates of “climate justice” look to as their leaders the likes of Al Gore, who preach abstinence for others while living in multiple massive high-carbon-footprint mansions (here here) and flying around the world on private jets.

It is time for the advocates of “climate justice” to recognize the immorality of their campaign to keep the poor poor. 

Apr 14, 2014
Obama’s secret science - EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules

Barbara Hollingsworth Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have, and cannot produce, all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.

In a March 7th letter to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), McCarthy admitted that EPA cannot produce all of the original data from the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, which is currently housed at New York University.

Both studies concluded that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less (PM2.5), 1/30th the diameter of a human hair, are killing thousands of Americans every year.

Both 2.5 and 10 microgram particulates are well below EPA current standards. But they want to lower the standards, cost the US taxpayers $90B using secret, flawed science

These epidemiological studies are cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for clean air regulations that restrict particulate emissions from vehicles, power plants and factories.

The agency has recently come under fire for exposing volunteers to concentrated levels of particulate matter without informing them of the risks, a practice Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, called “despicable.”

The full committee, which issued its first subpoena in 21 years last August after being stonewalled by the EPA for two years, wanted the raw data from the studies so that their results could be replicated by independent researchers. (See EPA subpoena.pdf)

However, despite “multiple interactions with the third party owners of the research data in an effort to obtain that data,” McCathy wrote, some of the data subpoenaed by the committee “are not (and were not) in the possession, custody or control of the EPA, nor are they within the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.”

“EPA has not withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the subpoena,” McCarthy stated. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.” (See EPA letter to Smith March 7 2014 (1).pdf) asked EPA whether the agency had turned over any data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies in response to the subpoena.

“EPA provided to the Committee all the data that was in the possession of the agency or within the agency’s authority to obtain under the Shelby Amendment,” which requires that results of federally-funded studies be made available to the public, an agency spokeswoman responded. “As such, the agency has now in good faith obtained and provided to the Committee all the requested research data subject to the Shelby Amendment and covered by the subpoena.”

A committee staff member confirmed to that “EPA gave us what they have of both studies, which is a significant amount of data, but not sufficient” to allow independent reproduction or verification of results.

“We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data,” he added.

The subpoena was issued as the EPA moves to finalize strict new regulations that could place 90 percent of the U.S. population in non-attainment areas and impose an additional $90 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy.

However, two newer studies cast doubts on the original research.

Stanley Young and Jessie Xia of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences published a paper last year questioning the EPA’s reliance on the Harvard and Cancer Society studies, both of which found that breathing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulted in increased mortality.

“There is no significant association of PM2.5 with longevity in the west of the United States,” Young and Xia noted, adding that “our findings call into question the claim made by the original researchers.” (See young080113.pdf)

Another recent study by Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy that attempted to duplicate EPA’s findings also found “no correlation between changes in ambient PM2.5 mortality” and any cause of death in California between 2007 and 2010.

“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA’s “secret science.”

“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”

Smith and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) have introduced the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which would prohibit EPA from “proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific information that is not publically available in a manner sufficient for independent scientific analysis.”

HR 4012, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, states that “the Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”

At a February 11th hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Raymond Keating, chief economist at the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, testified in favor of the bill. (HHRG-113-SY18-WState-RKeating-20140211.pdf)

“The U.S. has made enormous progress in cleaning the air over the last 40 years, so much so that we now are talking about reducing very small increments of pollution. Achieving those tiny reductions will no doubt be very costly as EPA itself admitted when it released its cost analysis for ozone in 2010. The question is: will they be worth it?” Keating asked.

“We won’t know that unless we have the scientific data in front of us, unless scientists from all over the country can attempt to replicate it and determine its validity. Without that, EPA is hiding the ball, and imposing costs without truly knowing what the benefits are.”

Congress is expected to consider the bill sometime this summer.

Apr 17, 2014
Alien sitings correlate best with temperatures

Dr. Roy Spencer

Do aliens cause global warming? The data say ‘yes!’
April 15th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It’s been over 11 years since the late novelist Michael Crichton advanced the hypothesis that aliens cause global warming.

I decided it was time to test his claim with real data.

Well, sure enough, the monthly UFO reports in recent decades are highly correlated with the increase in global ocean heat content. In fact, the relationship is so strong, if this was an epidemiological study it would be time to regulate UFOs. Between 1979 and 2011 the number of UFO reports has been increasing right along with the average temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean:

Fig. 1. Time series of monthly UFO reports and global average ocean temperature anomalies from the surface to 700 m depth. Trailing 12 month averages are also shown.

The correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is over 0.95, clearly better than the correlation between that boring old carbon dioxide and ocean warming:

Fig. 2. Lag correlations between UFO reports vs. upper ocean temperature, and CO2 versus upper ocean temperature.

In fact, note the tendency for CO2 to follow ocean temperature , suggesting a weak tendency for warming ocean water to outgas CO2 (or reduce the uptake of atmospheric CO2). In other words, warming causes a CO2 increase, versus the common view that CO2 causes warming. In contrast, the peak correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is at zero time lag. UFOs visit, the ocean warms.

(And for you alien deniers out there, here’s the spreadsheet with the data and links.)

But correlation isn’t necessarily causation. We need some sort of hypothesized mechanism for how and maybe why aliens cause global warming.

My hypothesis is that the extraterrestrials’ spaceships have some sort of powerful heat generators which are dumping energy into the ocean. Maybe an antigravity-based thermogenic flux capacitor technology (that’s just a guess...I’m only a rocket scientist, not a nuclear physicist or movie star).

But why? Why are the aliens trying to warm our oceans?

Do they come from a warm waterworld? Do they want to colonize our ocean after it is sufficiently heated up? Or are we just the proverbial frogs in a pot of water on the stove?

Clearly, aliens like warmer weather, because there is a strong annual cycle in UFO reports, with the peak number of visitations in July, which is when global average temperatures also peak:

Fig. 3. Average number of UFO reports by calendar month, illustrating aliens’ affinity for warmer weather.

This is also consistent with the fact that aliens are known to not have any fur, let alone any clothes, probably because their home planets are so warm:
Fig. 4. Famous aliens have no fur or clothes, suggesting their home planet(s) are quite warm.

Or, maybe they just like to people-watch. More people are out and about in the summer. That would make abductions easier, too. A two-fer.

On an unrelated matter, I’ve also been working on a new generalized theory of where straight lines come from. Since they are all perfectly correlated with one another, I believe they have a common origin...maybe a super line that extends to infinity and beyond, which generates all other, lesser lines. But the linear algebra is proving to be kinda messy. Stay tuned.

Finally, I’d like to conclude with a quote from Mark Twain:

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

A Closing Thought I talked with Michael Crichton before his death about his experiences getting involved in the global warming debate through his lectures, his book State of Fear (in which John Christy and I were represented by a lady scientist), and his congressional testimony on the subject of climate change. I think he believed he was doing a public service, but the politicization of the issue (and the way he was treated in congress) took him totally by surprise. That left a bad taste in his mouth, and he said he would no longer be involved in the climate issue. This is a crazy business we work in, and most sane people choose not to get involved in the public debate.

Apr 13, 2014
Is Ocean Acidification a Crisis?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-R.I.) once castigated “climate deniers” for ducking the issue of ocean acidification, claiming skeptics “ignore facts they cannot explain away.”

The term “acidification” is a bit loaded and rhetorical. Although ocean pH has declined from about 8.2 to 8.1 over the past 200 years, there’s no danger of it decreasing to below 7.0 - the pH of neutral water. “De-alkalization” might be a more accurate way of describing the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on ocean chemistry.

Be that as it may, in a rebuttal to Sen. Whitehouse, I noted that CO2Science.Org, one of the oldest and most prominent skeptic blogs, hosts an extensive (and growing) ocean acidification database, and regularly reviews new scientific research on the topic.

This week on CO2Science.Org, chief blogger Craig Idso posts a 5,700-word essay reviewing 17 field studies of changing ocean pH levels, coral calcification rates, and coral health.

Much of the alarm over ocean acidification is based on short-term laboratory exposure studies. Field studies, notes Idso, “more aptly represent conditions in the real world, many of which conditions are impossible or impractical to incorporate into a laboratory setting.” Here are results from three of the studies reviewed.

Bessat and Buigues (2001) found that, instead of the 6-14% decline in calcification rates predicted by a prominent laboratory study, calcification rates in massive Porites corals in French Polynesia increased during 1801-1990.

Meron et al. (2012) examined two coral species off the coast of Naples, Italy, where CO2 from underwater volcanic vents produces a natural decline in pH levels. The researchers found that the “corals present at the lower pH sites exhibited only minor physiological changes,” and that “no microbial pathogens were detected.”

Similarly, Noonan et al. (2013) examined six scleractinian coral species exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations from volcanic “seeps” near Papua New Guinea. Dissolved CO2 concentrations were 28%-88% higher than in adjacent control areas. Nonetheless, the six species “were all able to not only survive, but to function well throughout the full range of CO2-induced pH values to which they had been exposed throughout their entire life spans,” Idso writes.

For a more extensive review of the literature on acidification and impacts on marine plants and animals, Idso’s chapter on aquatic life in the just-released report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.


The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website,

Apr 05, 2014
This winter’s price energy spikes - brownouts and blackouts will only get worse under Obama’s EPA

Dave Solomon, Union Leader

A congressional committee has joined New England senators in demanding some answers as to why natural gas and electricity prices soared during the winter that’s finally winding down.

Ranking representatives on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to the regional manager of the New England wholesale electricity market on March 27 with a long list of questions related to affordability and reliability.

“This year’s brutally cold winter stressed the electric grid, causing electricity prices to spike across the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, and highlighted our nation’s reliability vulnerabilities,” they wrote. “Members are concerned these problems will only worsen as more coal plants are scheduled to shut down due to environmental regulations.”

Included in the letter is a link to a staff report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that reveals just how stressed the electricity grids were throughout much of the country, not just in New England.

New England avoided any brownouts brought by extreme cold and high energy costs, but other regions were not so lucky. “According to FERC, January’s cold weather events stressed the bulk power system with high loads, and other challenging operating conditions, including more than 50 gigawatts of forced outages,” the letter states.

A report prepared by FERC staff notes that forced outages were significant in some regions during the week of Jan. 4.

“In the Southeast, Duke Energy Progress and South Carolina Electric and Gas implemented voltage reductions on Tuesday morning, Jan. 6. Several generating units also tripped in the SCE&G area, forcing the company to implement rotating outages and shed approximately 300 megawatts of firm load during the morning peak. The load was restored later in the morning,” the report states.

The fact that much of the country was facing the prospect of roving brownouts during what was admittedly a severe winter worries people.

The letter from the House committee to ISO-NE and three other grid operators that together cover most of the U.S. east of the Mississippi, came just a week after a group of U.S. senators from the six New England states called on federal regulators to ensure that markets functioned properly and that prices were not increased by speculation or manipulation.

The senators, five Democrats and one Independent, focused on the possibility of foul play, while the House committee, controlled by a Republican majority, focused on the impact of EPA regulations that could force more coal-fired plants offline in the years ahead.

“We are concerned that outages and price increases could be exacerbated in the future as coal-fired power plants that utilities have relied on to meet the surge in demand are shuttered for environmental reasons,” the letter from the Energy and Commerce Committee states.

The letter cites a February report from the Energy Information Administration suggesting that the number of coal-fired power plant retirements will be higher than originally anticipated, and that an estimated 60 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity will retire by 2020.

“We are specifically concerned that the loss of these critical generation facilities in such a short timeframe will make it increasingly difficult to meet electricity demands in the future, thereby putting reliability at risk and driving up electricity prices for consumers,” the representatives write.

In New Hampshire, PSNH is under pressure from regulators to sell off its coal-fired plants in Bow and Portsmouth. Those plants were called upon to produce electricity throughout much of the winter, when their cost of operation was actually lower than the cost of electricity produced by natural gas.

The president of ISO-NE, Gordon van Welie, warned that things are likely to get worse before they get better, when he addressed an energy industry conference in Washington, D.C., in mid-March. The region will be in a “precarious operating position” for the next three to four years, he said.

The regional grid operator, ISO-New England, attributes these sharp increases to the combination of “low temperatures, high demand for natural gas and constraints on natural gas pipelines.” Because natural gas runs so much of New England’s power generation, the price of that fuel is closely tied to the price of electricity.  The lawmakers are probing into the price spikes. 

The lights stayed on this winter largely because of the ISO’s “Winter Reliability Program.” Power plants that could burn oil (some of which hadn’t done so in a while) stocked up on fuel inventory and were able to run on oil when natural gas was either unavailable or too expensive.  Over the course of the winter, these power plants had burned through most of the 3 million stockpiled barrels.  Some generators, at one point, only had two days’ worth of oil left.  See with next year’s early outlook (given the El Nino Modoki and warm pool in the Gulf of Alaska and more blocking than 2013) why we would have trouble especially given the shutdown of 95% of all coal plants due to EPA’s reckless regulatory assault. Remember Obama promised electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. Expect if blackouts occur the democrats will be blaming the oil companies.


Apr 23, 2014
America’s Power Grid at the Limit: The Road to Electrical Blackouts

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Communities Digital News. Reprinted with author Permission.

Americans take electricity for granted. Electricity powers our lights, our computers, our offices, and our industries. But misguided environmental policies are eroding the reliability of our power system.

Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the US electrical system-and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.

Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet - we dodged a cannon ball.”


Environmental policies established by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “...the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”

EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of US electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one-quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.

In addition to shrinking reserve margin, electricity prices are becoming less stable. Natural gas-fired plants are replacing many of the closing coal-fired facilities. Gas powered 27 percent of US electricity in 2013, up from 18 percent a decade earlier. When natural gas is plentiful, its price is competitive with that of coal fuel.

But natural gas is not stored on plant sites like coal. When electrical and heating demand spiked in January, gas was in short supply. Gas prices soared by a factor of twenty, from $5 per million BTU to over $100 per million BTU. Consumers were subsequently shocked by utility bills several times higher than in previous winters.

On top of existing regulations, the EPA is pushing for carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants, as part of the “fight” against human-caused climate change. If enacted, these new regulations will force coal-fired plants to either close or add expensive carbon capture and storage technology. This EPA crusade against global warming continues even though last winter was the coldest US winter since 1911-1912.

Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided 20 percent of US electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.

What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the US wind industry. Wind-generated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can wind systems operate at negative prices?


The answer is that the vast majority of US wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC) of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.

As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.

But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy.

Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) by as early as this summer.

The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe. But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing, unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses, driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.

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.

Apr 02, 2014
LA Times Tony Barboza gets caught fear mongering the IPCC report, becomes first victim of facts

Anthony Watts

This sentence…

“One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.” in this LA Times story by by Tony Barboza about the latest IPCC report which has so much gloom and doom in it, one of the lead authors, Dr. Richard Tol, asked his name to be taken off of it for that very reason.

Problem is, the agricultural data doesn’t match the LATimes/IPCC claim, see for yourself:

Source: USDA data at plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer.


Not only is the LATimes/IPCC claim about agriculture false for the world, but also the USA:

Source: USDA Data here compiled by Dr. Mark J. Perry, economist at the University of Michigan.

In fact, U.S. Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since the 1930s and Are Estimated to Double By 2030 according to Perry.

Note that temperatures in the US Corn belt aren’t rising, but models are, and as we know, the IPCC prefers model output over reality.


Source: USHCN data
from NOAA, CMIP5 model data plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer

Why is it that checking such simple facts are left to bloggers and independent thinkers like Roy Spencer, instead of “professional” journalists like Tony Barboza?

Maybe he’s just too lazy to check facts like this? Or, is it belief mixed with incompetence?

Icecap Note: CO2 is clearly a plant fertilizer that with water fed nutrients and sunlight creates photosynthesis. It enhance canopy growth shading the sub soil from desiccating sunlight and reducing water need. CO2Science reported on a studyThe two researchers with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service—who hold joint appointments in the Agronomy Department of the University of Florida (USA)—grew two cultivars of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) for a period of three months in paired-companion, temperature-gradient, sunlit greenhouses under daytime CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720 ppm and air temperatures of 1.5C (near ambient) and 6.0C higher than outside ambient temperature, after which they measured a number of different plant properties.

“On a main stem basis,” in the words of Vu and Allen, “leaf area, leaf dry weight, stem dry weight and stem juice volume were increased by growth at doubled CO2 [as well as at] high temperature,” and they say that these increases were even greater under the combination of doubled CO2/high temperature, with plants grown under what climate alarmists would call these extreme conditions averaging “50%, 26%, 84% and 124% greater leaf area, leaf dry weight, stem dry weight and stem juice volume, respectively, compared with plants grown at [the] ambient CO2/near-ambient temperature combination.” In addition, they say that “plants grown at [the] doubled CO2/high temperature combination were 2- to 3-fold higher in stem soluble solids than those at [the] ambient CO2/near-ambient temperature combination.”

Consequently, as Vu and Allen conclude—based on their research and that of many other scientists—“sugarcane grown under predicted rising atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the future may use less water, utilize water more efficiently, and would perform better in sucrose production,” which bodes well indeed for tropical-region agriculture, especially, as they note, “with the worldwide continued increase in demand for sugarcane as a source of food and biofuel.”

Reference:Vu, J.C.V. and Allen Jr., L.H. 2009. Stem juice production of the C4 sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is enhanced by growth at double-ambient CO2 and high temperature. Journal of Plant Physiology 166: 1141-1151.

Mar 27, 2014
New paper finds “surprisingly, many US weather stations show cooling” over the past century

Hockey Schtick

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US “monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing - perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century]. In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.”

In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures “and even some cooling” of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.

According to the paper, the warming in minimum temperatures is regional, with the SE US showing “the least warming (even some cooling),” suggesting that other processes such as ocean and atmospheric oscillations are responsible, rather than a uniform warming from AGW.

Note these results are after the huge up-justments made to the US temperature data and urban heat island [UHI] artificial warming, which could account for all or most of the warming of minimum temperatures.


UPDATE: Graph from Verity Jones from the cross-post at WUWT showing cooling stations in blue/green in not only the SE US, but nationwide:


Journal of Climate 2014 ; e-View
Trends in Extreme United States Temperatures
Jaechoul Lee*
Department of Mathematics, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho
Shanghong Li and Robert Lund
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina

This paper develops trend estimation techniques for monthly maximum and minimum temperature time series observed in the conterminous 48 United States over the last century. While most scientists concur that this region has warmed on aggregate, there is no a priori reason to believe that temporal trends in extremes and averages will exhibit the same patterns. Indeed, under minor regularity conditions, the sample partial sum and maximum of stationary time series are asymptotically independent (statistically). Previous authors have suggested that minimum temperatures are warming faster than maximum temperatures in the United States; such an aspect can be investigated via our methods. Here, statistical models with extreme value and changepoint features are used to estimate trends and their standard errors. A spatial smoothing is then done to extract general structure. The results show that monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing, perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling. In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.

Apr 03, 2014
Only crickets on the record Great Lakes Ice season

Joseph S. D’Aleo, CCM

It was end of one of the coldest months of March in United States history. Already cold cities like Burlington, Vermont, and Caribou, Maine, experienced their coldest March in recorded history. March 2014 also registered among the coldest ever in cities such as Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and Green Bay.

For Chicago, it was the coldest December to March since records began in 1872. Chirp...chirp…

More than 2,000 record low temperatures were set this March, according to the National Climatic Data Center. By comparison, there were less than 300 record high temperatures.  Chirp....chirp

The Great Lakes challenged all-time record ice levels in March, with more than 90 percent of the Great Lakes frozen over in early March. Dozens of cities throughout the Northeast and Midwest broke or challenged all-time winter snow records.

The combination of extremely cold temperatures and high snowfall contradicted assertions by global warming alarmists that increasing snowfall in recent years is being triggered by warmer temperatures.


Here in April we still have 65.7% of the Great Lakes frozen. Chicago had the third snowiest winter, Detroit, second.



It is near 900% of normal ice coverage.


At the peak, 92.2% was ice covered second greatest peak behind only 1978/79.


And the pain goes on...big snows and ice for the northwest Lakes region fell this week with up the a foot and a half.



Mar 03, 2014
Buffett said the supposed increase in extreme weather “hasn’t been true so far”

Sean Long, CNS News

Update: Charles Krauthammer Responds To Climate Change Group Trying To Silence Him

Any climate alarmist will tell you that climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but liberal billionaire Warren Buffett easily destroyed that argument.

Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events have’’t increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago. Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk.

Buffett said the supposed increase in extreme weather “hasn’t been true so far, Joe. We always think it’s cold. We always think it’s cold in Omaha. But, it was cold in Omaha 50 years ago.”

CNBC’s Becky Quick asked Buffett on March 3’s “Squawk Box” if extreme weather events have increased, affecting insurance markets. Buffett responded that “the effects of climate change, if any, have not affected our - they have not affected the insurance market.”

Specifically, Buffett rejected claims that hurricanes have increased due to climate change, citing his experience in hurricane insurance. He said “we’ve been remarkably free of hurricanes in the United States in the last five years.” He added “If you are writing hurricane insurance, it has been all profit.”

Buffett compared the climate to previous decades, dismissing claims that weather events have been more unusual. He said “I think that the public has the impression that because there has been so much talk about climate, that events of the last 10 years, from an insured standpoint on climate, have been unusual. The answer is, they haven’t.”

He argued “You read about these events, but you read about events 30, or 40, or 50 years ago.”

In that same interview, Buffett rejected two other liberal talking points. He expressed concern over an increased minimum wage, agreeing with the Congressional Budget Office that wage hikes would kill jobs. He also expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline, calling it “useful.”

Buffett, long a liberal darling and active Democrat, has been praised endlessly after calling for higher taxes on the rich. Of course, the media are unlikely to publicize these doubts over climate change, just like they failed to report on allegations that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, hadn’t even been paying all of its taxes.

The business and economic reporting of is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.


Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.


See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.


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


See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.


See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.


From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge


Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.


See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.


See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.


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

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.


Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.


See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

See sister sites:

WeatherBell Analytics here.

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

Coleman’s Corner here.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)