It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they’re saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media, for sensationalism, Universities and professors for grants. You can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change.
It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases, and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.
Senate Testimony February 25, 2014
“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”
Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.
In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5C. This compares with a low of about 12C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910 to 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?
It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.
If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.
CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh
Beaumont, TX (CNN) - Sen. Ted Cruz, R, Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the “data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing.”
“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that - that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened,” said Cruz.
Cruz spoke to CNN in an exclusive interview following an event here to promote his new energy plan, which he says he will formally introduce in the Senate next week.
When pressed about the fact that the arctic is melting, and whether that helps prove climate change is real, Cruz dismissed it.
“Other parts are going up. It is not - you know, you always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory,” argued Cruz.
“I am always troubled by a theory that fits every perfect situation. You know, back in the ‘70s - I remember the ‘70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded. And then we were told by Al Gore and others there was global warming and that was going to be a big problem. And then it morphed. It wasn’t global warming anymore, it became climate change. And the problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing,” said Cruz.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently made waves by declaring climate change is “perhaps - perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
Not surprisingly, Cruz disagreed.
“Well, you know, it is ironic that Secretary Kerry would say that, uh, given that he is, right now, in the process of negotiating with the nation of Iran in - in what Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has called an historically bad deal,” said Cruz.
“It is ironic that he sees a greater threat from your SUV in your driveway than he does from the nation of Iran, with their radical Islamic jihad and and their stated desire to obliterate, to annihilate Israel. He sees a greater threat from your SUV than he does to Iranian nuclear weapons,” Cruz said of Kerry.
Cruz chose the Spindle Top Boomtown Museum here, where oil discovery sparked the Texas oil boom more than a century ago, to push his ideas to support what he calls a “great American energy renaissance.”
His proposal includes many traditional GOP ideas more oil drilling and expanding energy exploration and repealing many EPA regulations he calls harmful.
Missing from his official plan are other forms of energy, what Republicans call “all of the above,” but he told CNN he does support alternative energy, as long as it comes from the private sector, not the federal government.
“We ought to be allowing the private sector to pursue every form of energy because the energy of the future, it’s not going to come from the government picking winners and losers,” Cruz told CNN.
“We ought to open up energy innovation across the board and - and remove the barriers to every form of energy.”
ICECAP NOTE: Roy is not the only one pushing back against the powerful, heavily funded warmist political machine. Read how Mark Steyn and others are battling Michael Mann in this excellent summary by Judith Curry.
In it, Dr Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, acknowledges something really quite extraordinary:
With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.
Tenure is an amazing privilege for academics. And now we see in the Mann/UVa case, that the establishment academics are worried about fear of embarrassment by public disclosure and fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them. Come on, big boy pants please. We are talking about publicly funded research, and a primary concern is supposed to be avoiding embarrassing the scientists?
For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. It’s time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.
The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior.
Time to Push Back against the Global Warming Nazis By DR. Roy Spencer
Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation...all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree...even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.
I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.
I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.
They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.
This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class...I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.
So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.
I didn’t start this fight...they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did - all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause, I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.
Other terms like Marxists also apply.
Blue - the movie you MUST see so you truly realize the danger from the green environmental movement
There is a movie available called “Blue” that will show the green movement’s true color - red (or as Delingpole has written watermelon - green oustide - red inside).
“BLUE will change the radical green direction we’ve been heading.”
That’s what Curtis Bowers, director of the award-winning documentary Agenda: Grinding America Down, said about J.D. King’s new video documentary BLUE.
Our good friend Curtis is right!
Documentary film maker J.D. King has done a masterful job. Circling the globe, he presents the testimony of some of the world’s leading scholars on environmental science, economics, ethics, and politics to lay bare many of the common falsehoods of the Green movement.
He shows how they harm people - especially the poor.
And he offers a truly Christian perspective on earth stewardship in its place.
The result is a film that combines beauty and passion to convey sound science and economics, excellent Christian worldview and theology, and keen political insight in an entertaining way.
BLUE will captivate viewers old and young alike.
What does BLUE stand for?
B stands for Beautify. It’s our job to make this planet more beautiful. This task requires the use of our heads and our hands. This is the crucial point where BLUE differs from Green: BLUE believes active management is the best way to enhance the earth, while Green believes in preservationism. Preservationism means adopting a hands-off, “let nature do its thing” approach to environmental matters. Active management, on the other hand, means seeking out ways to make nature better.
L is for Liberate. Today, we enjoy some of the longest and healthiest lives on the most fruitful planet in history. Why? Because humanity, especially in the West, has become more free than ever before. BLUE believes people can create solutions to problems, if only granted freedom and private property rights. This means less government. Green uses government to restrict human activity and freedom. But BLUE promotes limited government, where people are free to make decisions for themselves and their property.
U is for Utilize. BLUE is for wisely utilizing natural resources. But wait, isn’t mining, drilling, and logging bad for the planet? Well, they can be, just like eating too much is unhealthy. But the careful extraction of natural resources is actually good for nature. Using resources also creates jobs. In turn, we can invest the added wealth into studying ecology and cleaning up our planet. In nearly every case, the more free and wealthy a country is, the healthier is its environment.
E is for Enjoy. Green loves alarmism, and to tell you to worry about everything from polar bears and ice caps to CO2 emissions and the weather. BLUE, while acknowledging facts, challenges the hysteria and believes in the God-given power of human creativity and freedom to solve our problems. History is a story of humanity finding solutions to difficulties. The only necessary ingredient is freedom. So let freedom ring and don’t forget to simply enjoy this beautiful BLUE planet we call home.
The Cornwall Alliance played an important part in the making of BLUE. We provided extensive consultation from inception to completion, as well as featured interviews with Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner and Senior Fellows Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi and Dr. Steven F. Hayward.
Among the other outstanding scholars and leaders J.D. presents in BLUE are nuclear physicist and cultural analyst Dr. Robert Zubrin, author of Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal PseudoScientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism; Lord Christopher Monckton, science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and among the world’s leading critics of global warming alarmism; Geologist Dr. Leighton Steward, Chairman of the Board of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University and Chairman of the non-profit organization Plants Need CO2, who explains the benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide to earth’s ecosystems and humanity through increased plant growth and crop yield.
Now, because of J.D. King’s generosity, we can offer you a FREE copy of this thrilling, brand new documentary.
During the month of March, as our way of expressing gratitude for your support, we’ll send a FREE DVD of BLUE to anyone who donates any amount to the Cornwall Alliance and requests it (see how here).
Back in October, Steve Goddard shows how PRI talked about Great Lakes Warming and how the Great Lakes used to freeze but it wasn’t happening anymore, a recommended phrase right out the Society of EnvironMENTAL Journalist handbook.
Thanks for your support over the years for Icecap - now going on 7 years with well over 50 million page hits. Thank you for your donations that helped us pay the bills. The account was down to $0.02 last I checked. So any help would be welcomed. We often have to subsidize the site maintenance (we needed high security because of a few hacking instances) ourselves and all out outside efforts are pro bono. We continue to battle the true deniers who are flailing away trying to explain why lack of warming is going on 20 years while sea level rises stop or slow and snow increases not decreases with colder not warmer winters. Some of their explanations are ludicrous. They have a lot to lose after gotten used to easy money from the $169B from governments and NGOs and foundations. They forgot how to do real science, real work, how to look at the data with an open mind. I never thought this could happen to the science I love.
The puppetmasters have orchestrated this hoax in the schools, in governments at all levels and the compliant left leaning media including the once reliable TWC. If we can’t stop them we will like Europe find out energy costs already hurting low and middle class becoming prohibitively high and hurting the people the government claims their care most about. There are many stories from here in the north this winter that should awaken people. We will post on those. But the public doesn’t yet blame the politicians who are hell bent on doing away with coal, natural gas, nuclear in favor of undependable and extremely costly wind and solar. Europe now recognizes their mistake in listening to the greens and are undoing them by furiously building coal and gas plants and stopping subsidies for renewables. Why can’t our politicians do their homework before following what their enviro friends push them to pursue - heavy subsidization of renewables with bug kickbacks to their cronies and supporters who manage (mismanage) them, and demonization of nuclear and fossil fuels.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
They have other motivations we will talk about in future posts.
Mar 01, 2014
Top 5 coldest and snowiest winter for many especially in the North Central
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Meteorological winter ended with a flourish in the north country with record temperatures and extreme wind chills. The winter in this region has ranked among the great winters historically including the three in the late 1970s, 1916/17-1917/18 and 1894/95. Reports are just beginning to dribble in and we’ll update you on the cold and after the next few weeks the snow records.
Persistent cold temperatures in the Midwest this winter have almost completely frozen over many of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) reported that 88 percent of the Great Lakes were frozen as of mid-February. The last time ice cover was even close to this extent was in 1996, when maximum seasonal ice cover was approximately 82 percent.
Percent ice cover on the Great Lakes on February 13, 2014. Shades of blue indicate ice concentration, with the darkest shade of blue indicating areas where 0 percent of the water’s surface is frozen, and white indicating areas where the water is entirely frozen over. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data provided by the U.S. Naval Ice Center.
The map shows ice coverage on the Great Lakes on February 13. Shades of blue indicate ice concentration, with the darkest shade of blue indicating areas where 0-10 percent of the water’s surface is frozen and white indicating areas where the water is entirely frozen over. Lakes Superior, Erie, Huron, and St. Clair were 90-100 percent ice covered, while Lakes Michigan and Ontario were 82 percent and 43 percent ice covered, respectively. Overall, 88 percent of the Great Lakes were frozen on this date-the most extensive total ice coverage observed so far this winter.
Maximum ice cover on the lower lakes normally occurs between mid-February and end of February, while the maximum on the upper lakes normally occurs between the end of February and early March. According to the Midwest Regional Climate Center, average temperatures were below normal across the region during the second week of February. If cold temperatures persist, the MRCC reports, “it is possible that the Great Lakes could approach the record-setting year of 1979, which recorded 94.7 percent maximum ice coverage.”
But while ice cover and water levels are known to vary on the Great Lakes from year to year, scientists have observed an overall decrease in ice extent since records began in the early 1970s. From 1973 to 2010, annual ice coverage on the Great Lakes declined by 71 percent (relative to 1973).
Percent ice cover on the Great Lakes at winter maximum each year since 1973. The dashed line shows the long-term average of 51%. Prior to the mid-1990s, most years were above the long-term average; since then, most years have been below average. As of February 13, 2014, the lakes were 88% ice covered. Graph adapted by NOAA Climate.gov, from an original provided by The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab.
According to the 2009 National Climate Assessment, higher temperatures could mean more evaporation from the upper Great Lakes and hence a likely reduction in some Great Lakes water levels. Lower water levels could have potential impacts on the major industries that depend upon the lake-hydropower generation, commercial shipping, and fishing-as well as recreational beaches and coastal ecosystems.
So far this winter, extensive ice cover has allowed access into previously inaccessible ice caves near Lake Superior and provided a safe landing spot for an airplane experiencing an emergency over Lake Huron. The effects of extensive ice cover could even last into the summer and fall, potentially contributing to cooler water temperatures. Since the ice must be melted first before the water below it can be warmed, the lakes could heat up slower although weather conditions and heat storage in the lakes will be contributing factors as well, according to an FAQ on the GLERL website. Lower water temperatures could also potentially reduce evaporation from the lakes this year, which could help drive water levels up.
Canadian Ice Service shows how much above normal the ice has been.
Report: UN officials hid overblown global warming estimates
Senate Democrats throw pajama party to warn of global warming impacts at the capitol even though there has been no warming for 18 years.
UN hides model failures
Posted By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller On 2:38 PM 03/07/2014
The United Nations doesn’t want you to know the facts about global warming, according to a new report out of Europe.
Over the years climate scientists have been reducing their estimates of how much global warming will occur over the next 70 to 100 years if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were doubled - an estimate called “climate sensitivity.”
But readers of the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment would be ignorant of this, according to a report by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The IPCC’s fourth climate assessment in 2007 estimated that the Earth would warm 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century - this estimate was in a range of warming from 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. But as the 2000s wore on and little warming occurred, climate scientists began to lower their climate sensitivity estimates from 3 to 2 degrees Celsius in a century and only 1.5 degrees of warming in the next 70 years.
But this revelation was only hinted at in the IPCC’s 2013 climate assessment. Instead of lowering their central climate sensitivity measure down from 3 degrees Celsius, the IPCC simply did not give a central estimate and just reduced its lower-bound warming estimate from 2 to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Now the IPCC’s warming range for the next hundred years is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.
“Good empirical evidence of both long-term warming and that over a seventy year period now imply very different expectations of future warming than do climate models - some 40% to 50% lower to 2081-2100,” according to the study by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok.
“This is almost certainly the most important finding of climate science in recent years, particularly since there are good reasons to doubt the reliability of climate model forecasts,” the authors continue.
“However, in its report the IPCC only alludes to this issue in an oblique fashion,” the authors add. “Moreover, rather than reducing its best estimate of climate sensitivity in the light of the new empirical estimates, it simply reduced the lower bound of the uncertainty range and omitted to give a best estimate, without adequately explaining why it had been necessary to do so.”
The IPCC only added a paragraph on why they did not give central climate sensitivity estimate in the technical summary of its final report - published in January 2014, four months after the report’s initial release.
Climate sensitivity is used by policymakers to predict global temperature increases and economic costs, and therefore is a crucial estimate to nail down. In the U.S., the Obama administration is using the UN’s climate sensitivity measures to come up with its “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimate, which applies monetary damages to each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
Last year, the Obama administration raised the SCC from from $21 per ton to $37 per ton before the president went public with his plans to cut U.S. emissions 17 percent by 2020. Raising the SCC inflates the benefits of policies that reduce carbon emissions, therefore, giving more justification to Obama’s fight against global warming.
“The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way,” Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union Address. “But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say, ‘Yes, we did.’”
But the recent GWPF report casts doubt on Obama’s justification for raising the SCC to $37 per ton, as it was based on the UN’s misleading climate assessment. If the IPCC can no longer give a central climate sensitivity estimate, can the Obama administration credibly peg a price to carbon dioxide emissions?
“It should be obvious that no SCC estimates should be published until a credible climate sensitivity probability distribution is developed,” wrote attorney Francis Menton in his comments to the White House on the SCC changes. “This multi- agency effort has relied on the IPCC work, but IPCC’s own results imply that the U.S. government should stop publishing any estimates of SCC until such a credible distribution exists.”
The Obama administration, however, has showed no indication that it intends to scale back its SCC estimate or scrap it altogether.
Feb 26, 2014
Behind the scenes legal battle with the EPA over the ‘social cost of carbon’ and looming carbon tax
Watch for the movie “blue” coming soon that will recolor green, painting that radical agenda in its true color - red.
See Former Governor John Sununu on the Politics of Global Warming...It Ain’t Pretty and read more here.
February 24, 2014 by Anthony Watts
WUWT has been granted exclusive first access to this new legal document challenging the EPA’s proposed use of calculations on SCC.
While this submission to OMB from Attorney Menton may look forbiddingly legalistic document to many WUWT readers, a number of you may well have signed one or more of the Amicus Briefs and other materials cited in it.It is important to read this because it provides a window into the future of a potential carbon tax in the USA.
I consider it a “must read” for those of you who are very concerned about the EPA’s current and proposed CO2 related regulations. EPA uses its Social Cost of Carbon estimates to justify all such regulations. And, these estimates are also being used as recommended starting points for future carbon taxes. Enough said as to why it makes sense to read and think about the submission?
If not, you will note it begins by showing that using IPCC’s own words, its estimates of Climate Sensitivity must be treated using what the mathematics of decision theory would call under “Complete Ignorance Uncertainty.” Therefore, EPA’s reliance on IPCC is hardly justified.
Next, it argues that, in the court room, EPA’s own Endangerment Finding was predicated on three easy to understand “Lines of Evidence,” where each has now been shown to be invalid.
The three lines of evidence used by the EPA are A. B. and C.
The hot spot has not appeared, surface temperatures are stalled, and climate models aren’t modeling reality, yet, in the arcane world of the court system, EPA presses on as if these problems don’t exist.
Finally, it points out that the methodology now being used to calculate the SCC estimates is total nonsense for EPA’s purposed use, yet they are being considered “good to go” at this stage of the game.
Attorney Francis J. Menton, Jr. wrote a long letter in this issue to the OMB which can be sen in the long full post on WUWT here.
Will Supreme Court permit EPA deceit and tyranny?
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what could be the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before it in decades. Here at CFACT, we have been following this case (Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA) for some time now.
In fact, CFACT submitted two amicus (friend of the court) briefs for it: the first arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case; the second presenting a more detailed analysis of what is at stake and how the Court should decide the case.
Environmentalist groups and the Obama Administration say the issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to require that power plants and other industrial facilities get EPA permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Questions by the justices during oral arguments suggest that some are very skeptical about EPA’s assertions of authority, while the Court’s liberal wing seems inclined to give the agency the broadest possible authority to interpret the law, decide the science and regulate as it wishes.
If the Court sides with EPA, there will be virtually no limitations on how far Executive Branch agencies can go, in twisting science, laws and our Constitution to advance their agendas while ignoring facts, genuine science, and the impacts of regulations on our lives, livelihoods and liberties.
CFACT’s analyses, amicus briefs and articles demonstrate that the issues are far more fundamental and important. The real issues before the Court are these:
How far can the EPA and Obama Administration extend their regulatory overreach, by rewriting the Clean Air Act, ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine, and disregarding federal laws that require them to consider both the costs and benefits of their regulatory actions?
May the EPA and Obama Administration ignore the fact that, between 1989 and 2010, Congress considered and rejected almost 700 bills addressing various aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and simply impose their radical anti-hydrocarbon agenda by executive fiat?
May the Executive Branch continue to ignore the enormous benefits of using hydrocarbon energy and emitting carbon dioxide including affordable heat and electricity, better crop growth and nutrition, more jobs, and improved living standards, health and welfare and focus solely on the alleged and exaggerated “costs” of carbon and carbon dioxide?
Should EPA be permitted to impose these job-killing greenhouse gas regulations even though full compliance with them would achieve zero benefits, because emissions from rapidly developing countries will continue increasing total atmospheric CO2 levels, and because climate change is driven not by carbon dioxide, but by natural forces over which we have no control?
In short, should the EPA and Obama Administration be permitted to continue regulating in a manner that can properly be described as deceitful, fraudulent, illegal and unconstitutional?
Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees the answer is a firm “No.”
For nature and people too,
Executive Director CFACT
Feb 18, 2014
Mass Destruction of Science
Perhaps given the chance to avert public eyes from his lackluster results with containing the deteriorating situation in Syria, nuclear talks with Iran, and the Middle East peace process, Secretary of State Kerry has chosen to flaunt his lack of scientific understanding as a needed diversion.
Kerry described those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as “shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues,” and said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to “hijack” the climate debate. “Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
These sound-bite alarmism utterances from an ideologue lacking scientific training himself, shoddy or otherwise, are consistent with a special-interest politician always alert to the political climate. By unilaterally labeling a fundamental, natural feature of Earth itself a “weapon of mass destruction,” Kerry has now redefined “original sin” as being the result of excess man-made carbon dioxide. He has removed the path of redemption from the hands of traditional religion and proclaimed salvation in government-imposed “global warming pollution reduction.” The failed 2010 Kerry/Lieberman “American Power Act” apparently lives on in Kerry’s psyche.
Let Kerry produce the impartial evidence that would quantify how much human activity has caused how much global warming (or cooling). The inherently chaotic nature of climate has defied attempts of climate modelers to accurately predict the future climate. What is “normal climate” is heavily dependent on the time period and geographic place chosen. The scientific record shows no global warming for the past 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 9 percent. True “weapons of mass destruction” have reliable on-off switches, well-calculated destructive impacts, and specific targets.
“Climate change” has been coopted by the progressive/liberal movement as something akin to the “universal solvent.” It is the term used to explain any untoward event anywhere, and direct blame to all of mankind...but with the exception of the ruling class. It is the term that brings visions of guaranteed profits to the corporate cronyist, endless government research grants to compliant scientists, and elitist political control of the populace, whose function is reduced to paying for the scam.
Charles Battig, M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.wordpress.com
We are reminded of the dangers of consensus science in the past. For example, in the 18th century, more British sailors died of scurvy than died in battle. In this disease, brought on by a lack of vitamin C, the body loses its ability to manufacture collagen, and gums and other tissues bleed and disintegrate. These deaths were especially tragic because many sea captains and some ships’ doctors knew, based on observations early in the century, that fresh vegetables and citrus cured scurvy.
Nonetheless, the British Admiralty’s onshore Sick and Health Board of scientists and physicians (somewhat akin to the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) dismissed this evidence for more than 50 years because it did not fit their consensus theory that putrefaction (or internal decay) caused scurvy, which they felt could be cured by fresh air, exercise and laxatives.
Can you believe John Kerry said that?
Of all the threats we face, is global warming truly the “most fearsome?”
Temperature records show no global warming since the nineties. Climate computer models call for warming which has not occurred.
In a world where despotic and unstable regimes toil ceaselessly to arm themselves with actual nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, why would the U.S. Secretary of State rank global warming the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction?
Is CO2, the naturally occurring gas you just exhaled, truly more dangerous than a nuclear armed Iran or North Korea? Is CO2 truly more dangerous than terrorists?
CFACT’s Marc Morano summed it up in what the Washington Examiner described as a “superbly insightful answer”:
“After more than 40 years in public life,” Morano said, “John Kerry is still seeking a legacy, and he has chosen global warming as his ticket. Kerry is steering the Obama administration’s international focus to embarrassingly bad man-made climate fears. Kerry has his sights set on committing the U.S. to a new U.N. global climate treaty in Paris in 2014. And he is using his pulpit as secretary of state to entangle the U.S. into a sequel to the Kyoto Protocol.”
President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Hillary Clinton share a problem. Their feckless foreign policy has been totally ineffective. There is no sign of their efforts at statecraft leading to anything worthwhile in a major way, yet their failures abound.
The United States has lost a great deal of respect with foreign leaders.
For Obama, Kerry and Clinton the answer may be global warming—the last refuge of the ineffective.
Can Kerry shift focus away from real world issues and onto climate?
The UN plans to complete work on a new climate treaty in Paris next year. Will Obama and Kerry try to create a legacy for themselves by locking the U.S. into a new regime of wasteful and destructive climate agreements?
It has been a brutal winter - ranking near the coldest ever in the north central including the northwest Great Lakes region, where it has AVERAGED over 10F below normal. Tom Skilling, Chicago’s long time TVmeteorologist notes
It’s been 3 decades since we’ve experienced a winter like this--and more snow’s on the way this weekend followed by another slug of arctic air Sunday night into the opening days of next week. The 2013-14 snow season has moved to 3rd snowiest of the past 129 years while meteorological winter 2013-14 ranks 8th coldest of the past 143 years.
According o the Canadian Ice Service this past week, we trailed only 1995/96 and 1993/94 for coverage for the date. they began records in 1980. It should be noted, the modern record may hav eben et in 1978/79.
It should be noted most of the region has also been very snowy with 200-300% of normal snowfall. As one commenter said “if this global warming gets any worse, we are going to all freeze to death”.
Before someone accuses me of not knowing the difference between weather and climate, I will note there is no difference. Climate is a description of weather - averages, ranges, means, and variances. I know no one who denies climate change is real. We just dispute the cause(s). And oh by the way we predicted a very cold winter and Joe Bastardi and I even speculated on Weatherbell similarity to 1917/18 and 1993/94. See how similar 1917/18 and 2013/14 were in the Pacific anomalies. Focus on the big warm pool near Alaska and warm water near Indonesia which anchored convection there.
1918 january and February mean sea surface temperature anomalies.
The oceans just as they drive the seasonal patterns drive the climate regimes over longer periods including the cooling of the 1940s to 19070s, warming from 1979 to 1998 then the pause and soon the decline.. The sun drives the ocean cycles. CO2 goes along for the ride.
The wind production tax credit has long outlived any public policy usefulness. Late in 2013, Big Wind fought fiercely to renew its expiring subsidy but failed. We hope that means many members of Congress see this as a mature industry that long ago outgrew its infancy and understand that the nation’s new wealth of lower-cost natural gas has profoundly rewritten U.S. energy economics.
In the early 1990s, with dreams of cheap and clean wind energy ascendant, Congress lavished a generous subsidy on power from the tall, twirling turbines. The wind industry responded, and since then has increased its installed generating capacity 30-fold.
For 20-plus years the subsidy has been intermittent, although not as unreliable as the winds that drive the turbines. The most recent authorization, a 2013 extension tucked into the federal budget deal that avoided the so-called fiscal cliff, expired Dec. 31. Applause, please, for our do-little Congress: What’s known as the wind production tax credit has long outlived any public policy usefulness. Lawmakers now being urged by industry lobbyists to renew the subsidy retroactively instead should let it blow away.
We say this with no animus toward the bucolic concept of wind energy, whose clean-and-green image is to electrical generation what puppies and kittens are to the animal kingdom. Our concern is the reality of subsidized wind energy at a time when natural gas is more plentiful, and cheaper, than Washington could envision in the 1990s. Today wind generation is a comparatively expensive proposition that, whenever its tax subsidy temporarily has vanished, has seen the new construction of wind farms all but vanish too. These welfare payments to the industry have incentivized private investors to sink money into wind projects that, without the federal freebie, they’re eager (and probably smart) to avoid.
Like its cousins, the ethanol and solar industries, the wind lobby basks in political correctness and political favoritism: Big Wind, too, has grown comfortable in its dependence on federal and state governments that decide which energy industries will be winners or losers - discrimination enforced by squeezing taxpayers or rigging regulations.
News about eagles killed by turbines is an issue separate from government coddling, but one now emerging as a public relations debacle. In late November, Duke Energy agreed to pay $1 million in fines in the first criminal case brought against a wind company over the killings of federally protected birds, 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds slain at two wind projects in Wyoming. Robert G. Dreher, an acting assistant U.S. attorney general, explained the violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths.”
Duke said it is working with federal officials and field biologists to determine when it should shut down its turbines to limit bird deaths. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it is investigating similar cases elsewhere - and has referred seven of them to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution.
Motor vehicle drivers, illegal hunters and deaths by poisoning kill more eagles than turbines do. But growing publicity about wind farms chewing up eagles undercuts the industry’s promotion of itself as environmentally friendly. The National Audubon Society and other conservation groups are especially exercised about a new federal rule, announced in December, that lets wind farms obtain 30-year permits to lawfully kill bald and golden eagles. Many Americans who only have heard about neighbors of wind farms criticizing the turbines’ thrumming noises will have a far easier time relating to criminal cases based on huge blades pulverizing wildlife.
All of which pins the Obama administration between its dueling political loyalists: environmentalists learning about the 30-year eagle kill permits, and fans of renewable energy sources that don’t spew carbon dioxide.
Wind energy’s peculiar problem is that, because wind blows erratically, companies that rely on it also need backup generating capacity - typically fossil-fueled - for days when customers want electricity but the air is still.
The obvious solution here is for Congress and the White House to stop manipulating the tax code as America’s de facto energy policy: Thorough federal tax reform should sunset this arbitrary favoritism for wind energy and other politically favored industries.
Late in 2013, Big Wind fought fiercely to renew its expiring subsidy but failed. We hope that means many members of Congress see this as a mature industry that long ago outgrew its infancy and understand that the nation’s new wealth of lower-cost natural gas has profoundly rewritten U.S. energy economics.
The wind lobbyists will be back in 2014, pleading for more handouts from American taxpayers. Tell your members of Congress that a government $17 trillion in debt - and still borrowing heavily - can’t afford to keep protecting this industry from cheaper competition.
Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground and now of the Weather Company (formerly known as The Weather Channel) says that this winter’s cold and snow is due to global warming. It is important that we learn to distinguish between natural cold, global cooling cold, and global warming cold. The chart above makes the distinctions ‘abundantly clear.’
As a smart man once said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe”
2013/14 RANKING AMONG COLDEST WINTERS ON RECORD
Ironwood, Michigan 1st
Marquette, Michigan 1st
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 1st
Rhinelander, Wisconsin 1st
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 1st
Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin 1st
Munising, Michigan 2nd
Green Bay, Wisconsin 2nd
Wausau, Wisconsin 2nd
Alpena, Michigan 2nd
Houghton Lake, Michigan 2nd
Duluth, Minnesota 2nd
International Falls, Minnesota 2nd
Chicago, Illinois 3rd
Rockford, Illinois 3rd
Mason City, Iowa 3rd
Wheaton, Minnesota 3rd
St. Cloud, Minnesota 4th
Waterloo, Iowa 4th
Flint Michigan 5th
Sault Ste Marie, Michigan 6th
Sisseton, South Dakota 6th
Fort Wayne, Indiana 6th
South Bend, Indiana 6th
Saginaw, Michigan 7th
Watertown, South Dakota 7th
Detroit, Michigan 8th
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 10th
Madison, Wisconsin 11th
The global energy outlook has changed radically in just six years. President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters who believed we were running out of oil and gas, that climate change needed to be halted, and that renewables were the energy source of the near future. But an unexpected transformation of energy markets and politics may instead make 2014 the year of peak renewables.
In December of 2007, former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on man-made climate change, leading an international crusade to halt global warming. In June, 2008 after securing a majority of primary delegates, candidate Barack Obama stated, “...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...” Climate activists looked to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference as the next major step to control greenhouse gas emissions.
The price of crude oil hit $145 per barrel in June, 2008. The International Energy Agency and other organizations declared that we were at peak oil, forecasting a decline in global production. Many claimed that the world was running out of hydrocarbon energy.
Driven by the twin demons of global warming and peak oil, world governments clamored to support renewables. Twenty years of subsidies, tax-breaks, feed-in tariffs, and mandates resulted in an explosion of renewable energy installations. The Renewable Energy Index (RENIXX) of the world’s 30 top renewable energy companies soared to over 1,800.
Tens of thousands of wind turbine towers were installed, totaling more than 200,000 windmills worldwide by the end of 2012. Germany led the world with more than one million rooftop solar installations. Forty percent of the US corn crop was converted to ethanol vehicle fuel.
But at the same time, an unexpected energy revolution was underway. Using good old Yankee ingenuity, the US oil and gas industry discovered how to produce oil and natural gas from shale. With hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, vast quantities of hydrocarbon resources became available from shale fields in Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
From 2008 to 2013, US petroleum production soared 50 percent. US natural gas production rose 34 percent from a 2005 low. Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, and more than ten nations in Europe began issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing. The dragon of peak oil and gas was slain.
In 2009, the ideology of Climatism, the belief that humans were causing dangerous global warming, came under serious attack. In November, emails were released from top climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, an incident christened Climategate. The communications showed bias, manipulation of data, avoidance of freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process, all to further the cause of man-made climate change.
One month later, the Copenhagen Climate Conference failed to agree on a successor climate treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Failures at United Nations conferences at Cancun (2010), Durban (2011), Doha (2012), and Warsaw (2013) followed. Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States announced that they would not participate in an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
Major climate legislation faltered across the world. Cap and trade failed in Congress in 2009, with growing opposition from the Republican Party. The price of carbon permits in the European Emissions Trading System crashed in April 2013 when the European Union voted not to support the permit price. Australia elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the fall of 2013 on a platform of scrapping the nation’s carbon tax.
Europeans discovered that subsidy support for renewables was unsustainable. Subsidy obligations soared in Germany to over $140 billion and in Spain to over $34 billion by 2013. Renewable subsidies produced the world’s highest electricity rates in Denmark and Germany. Electricity and natural gas prices in Europe rose to double those of the United States.
Worried about bloated budgets, declining industrial competitiveness, and citizen backlash, European nations have been retreating from green energy for the last four years. Spain slashed solar subsidies in 2009 and photovoltaic sales fell 80 percent in a single year. Germany cut subsidies in 2011 and 2012 and the number of jobs in the German solar industry dropped by 50 percent. Renewable subsidy cuts in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom added to the cascade. The RENIXX Renewable Energy Index fell below 200 in 2012, down 90 percent from the 2008 peak.
Once a climate change leader, Germany turned to coal after the 2012 decision to close nuclear power plants. Coal now provides more than 50 percent of Germany’s electricity and 23 new coal-fired power plants are planned. Global energy from coal has grown by 4.4 percent per year over the last ten years.
Spending on renewables is in decline. From a record $318 billion in 2011, world renewable energy spending fell to $280 billion in 2012 and then fell again to $254 billion in 2013, according to Bloomberg. The biggest drop occurred in Europe, where investment plummeted 41 percent last year. The 2013 expiration of the US Production Tax Credit for wind energy will continue the downward momentum.
Today, wind and solar provide less than one percent of global energy. While these sources will continue to grow, it’s likely they will deliver only a tiny amount of the world’s energy for decades to come. Renewable energy output may have peaked, at least as a percentage of global energy production.
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.
American taxpayers foot the bill for the Environmental Protection Agency’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. EPA bureaucrats routinely hide this public information, insolently foreshadowing President Obama’s recently outed code of ethics, “I can do anything I want.”
As Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, bluntly forced the issue, “Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims.”
“Nontransparent data and unverifiable claims”? Translated from scientese, it’s like this: If you’re a good scientist, you make an exact, detailed description of how you did your study or research so anybody else can follow your description and get the same result.
If you won’t tell anybody how you did it, your work is not “transparent”.
If you do tell and nobody else can get the same result you got, your science is junk, or not “reproducible” - not verifiable.
Face it, EPA science is junk science and they’re hiding that fact.
Smith is in a position to do something about Obama’s scofflaws: he’s chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, where his panel this Tuesday held a hearing on “Ensuring Open Science at EPA.”
It was the launching pad for the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a bill to bar the EPA from proposing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or not reproducible.
That sent shockwaves through Big Green, which has a vested interest in hiding outdated, biased, falsified, sweetheart-reviewed, and even non-existent “science” that has destroyed the lives of thousands in the death-grip of agenda-driven EPA rules.
Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., gaveled the hearing to order. “For far too long,” he said, “the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”
The average American would probably ask why the EPA is such a problem. The first witness told why: John D. Graham, a dean at Indiana University and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has years of experience telling good science from junk.
Graham surprisingly said that EPA science standards are “quite high” because lives depend upon proper rules to protect us from the harmful effects of pollution while avoiding data errors that can unjustly destroy whole sectors of America’s economy.
EPA isn’t living up to its standards. Why not?
EPA’s downfall is its poorly developed science culture, said Graham. “In my experience working with EPA, I have found that the political, legal and engineering cultures are fairly strong but the cultures of science and economics are highly variable ... First-rate scientists who are interested in public service employment might be more inclined to launch a career at the National Academy of Sciences” or elsewhere.
Most damning, Graham cited a decade of National Science Foundation reports documenting the bad quality, transparency and reproducibility of EPA’s scientific determinations.
Dr. Louis “Tony” Cox, chief sciences officer at Nexthealth Technologies, needs access to sound data for his work on health risk assessment, but he’s more than alarmed at the state of EPA science. Cox sees “catastrophic failure in the reproducibility and trustworthiness of scientific results.”
Even science editors complain that many published research articles are false and even peer-reviewed results are not reproducible.
EPA demands sensational reports, true or not, and isn’t checking scientists’ work.
In short, we need junk sniffers.
Raymond J. Keating, chief economist of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, who testified for the Center for Regulatory Solutions, provided one of the hearing’s big shockers: “The annual cost of federal regulations registered $1.75 trillion in 2008.”
A highly credentialed witness, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Professor Ellen Silbergeld, picked the Secret Science Reform bill apart. She hit two points: lack of protection for patient information privacy in EPA health studies, and a requirement for everyone but industry to reveal their data.
In rebuttal of both points, Graham noted that the National Academy of Sciences is now focusing not on whether patient data is to be shared, but how to do it while protecting privacy; and the Secret Science Reform bill requires all EPA science, regardless of source or funding, to have open data, including industry.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., asked of the witness panel, “Do any of you disagree with the principle that in [the] case of taxpayer-funded research or studies, the public should have access to the underlying data?” Silbergeld responded, “As stated in my testimony, for reasons given, I disagree with that - respectfully.”
EPA is basing major regulatory decisions on junk and inviting a rebellion by doing it.
Taxpayers must become America’s army of junk science sniffers and ruthlessly axe the EPA’s heart rot - respectfully, of course.
RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.
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 CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing today that the president must have fabricated two oft-repeated climate claims.
“Both statements are false,” Sen. Inhofe said of Obama’s global warming claims, since neither the EPA nor the U.N. IPCC climate group can provide any supporting statistics:
“On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that ‘the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago’ and that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’
“Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we’ve asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they don’t have any data and referred us to the UN IPCC. And, their scientists, apparently, the EPA thought they were the source of this.
“Well, we went there and they had nothing to back it up, so apparently the president just made that up.
“And, I think that’s very important because, when you get statements that are made, they’re supposed to be logic and on truth, you have to check them out.
“Last week’s record cold temperature brought the global warming debate back to the public’s attention, but that’s only important to the extent that it’s bringing more awareness to the uncertainty of the science around the debate.”
“The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements,” Sen. Inhofe said, noting that temperatures have “flat-lined” over the last 15 years - something no climate model used to promote global warming theory ever predicted:
“When you go back and look at the at look at the temperature projections from climate models and compare them to actual temperatures, two that two things are readily evident: first, temperatures have flat-lined over the last fifteen years; and second, an average of over 100 climate models from the last decade shows that the scientific community did not predict this would happen. And to my knowledge, not a single climate model ever predicted that a pause in global warming would ever occur. Senator Sessions is going to go deeper into this.
“The truth completely contradicts the president’s statements and begs the question why he and the EPA not only continue to deny the truth but why it has raced to stop this information from disseminating into the scientific record.”
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
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.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)