Google+ Followers

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Common Sense and Climate Change, Climate-predicting computer models are man-made, and their outcomes are self-serving for the men who designed them, while actual changes to the climate are the result of natural, cyclical forces, far beyond the control of man

Scientists believe that over the last two billion years or so, there have been as many as seventeen times that Earth has experienced an Ice Age.  They suspect an Ice Age when they see shifts in geological formations that are so severe that the only explanation appears to be glaciers forming and moving large quantities of land from one part of the continent to another part.

Each Ice Age is estimated to have lasted for at least 100,000 years, with some lasting millions of years.  Each was eventually followed by a period of gradual warming, resulting in the glaciers melting and retreating, and leaving behind the land that the glaciers had moved or carved.  Contrary to anything being reported in the mainstream media, we are currently living in an Ice Age.
Man did not inhabit the planet during any of the Ice Ages, except the last one.  For those Ice Ages that took place prior to man, the only inhabitants of the planet were animals and plants.  They were also all that was left when the subsequent periods of warming began and ended.  Nature, and nature alone, caused these periods of climate change.

The men and women who lived through their Ice Age, not knowing that there had been previous periods of global cooling, probably wondered what they did to cause the planet to become so cold.  Did they burn too many fires, kill too many animals for food and clothing, or not kill enough animals, resulting in excessive animal flatulence?  Or perhaps they did not wonder at all, knowing that acts of nature were beyond their control.

And herein is the problem for climate scientists.  There is no "normal" temperature for Earth.  What is normal is for the temperature, over hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years, to vary greatly.  The cycle of periods of extreme warmth and cold, and everything in between, is what is normal.  Before man and after man, the Earth has experienced these huge swings in temperatures.  Who are we to say that the climate for the last couple of hundred-thousand years is normal and that some deviation of a degree or two is abnormal?  Who are we to say that the rising or falling of sea levels from recent levels is abnormal?  To the contrary, variations in temperatures and in sea levels have been taking place for the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's existence.  Change is what is normal.
The different Ice Ages have proven to be a reset button of sorts.  Some of them have cleansed the planet of life that had previously dominated the surface and the seas.  The glaciers destroyed that which was not wise enough or which was unable to get out of its path and then receded to leave behind a clean slate for nature to begin anew.  Destruction and renewal is what is normal.
Short of a Star Wars-like planet-annihilating Death Star, Earth will survive any attempts by man to destroy the planet.  We see the power of Earth with every hurricane, tsunami, tornado, earthquake, and volcano.  Man has yet to defeat any of these singular events.  Our batting average is .000.  Earth is pitching a perfect game against us.
This is a commonsense analysis of climate change.  It is based on the history of Earth’s climate, not on a computer model trying to predict the future.  Climate-predicting computer models are man-made, and their outcomes are self-serving for the men who designed them, while actual changes to the climate are the result of natural, cyclical forces, far beyond the control of man.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/common_sense_and_climate_change.html

The hilarious history of 'climate tipping points'

The UN is trying to scare us into believing we have only 15 years left. It looks ridiculous doing so, considering all the similar declarations that have come and gone.
A brief history of “climate tipping point” declarations discloses that the only scary hot air comes from warmist blowhards. Marc Morano at Climate Depot debunks the fake hysteria being generated to jjstify a massive tax and power grab:

According to the Boston Globe, the United Nations has issued a new climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming.
The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Once again, the world is being warned of an ecological or climate “tipping point” by the UN. 
In 1982, the UN issued a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
There are plenty more such examples:
As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 (snip)
It’s all so confusing. In 2007, UN IPCC chief Pachauri declared 2012 as the climate deadline to act or it would be “too late.” See: Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change! (snip)
 Not to be outdone by the UN, Former Irish President Mary Robinson weighed in this week, issuing a more generous 20 year tipping point. (snip)
Former Vice President Al Gore also created a 10 year climate tipping point in 2006 (snip)
The list goes on and on. Don’t these people realize that they are now well into "the boy who cried wolf" territory?
This is the sort of thing Saturday Night Live ought to be parodying.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/the_hilarious_history_of_climate_tipping_points.html

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Eroding Case Against Carbon Dioxide.

When I hear concerns about soil erosion, I always think about my grandma. She was an amazing woman. She grew up in Huron in the heart of the Great Depression, which just happened to coincide with the Dust Bowl. Growing up, my sister and I listened to her stories of dealing with the dust storms, stuffing rags in the window sills and the cracks around the doors in an attempt to keep the dust out of the house. Despite her best efforts, a fine film of dust would still cover the interior of the house.

The dust from the Dust Bowl claimed crops, cattle, and the lives of two children in Huron. To this day, when contractors cut into houses that survived the Dust Bowl, they find sand in between the interior and exterior walls. The Dust Bowl eroded more than the soil; it eroded a way of life.
Erosion is a problem that persists to this day, and it’s responsible for dust storms, mudslides and sinkholes. Fortunately, plants in forests, grasslands, and everywhere else set roots in the soil and help the soil stay put, and plants around the globe are getting a boost from increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Although many people, spurred by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, think “going green” means using less carbon dioxide, plants prefer just the opposite.

We all know plants need carbon dioxide to breathe, but many don’t know plants turn that carbon dioxide into carbon in the form of the roots, stems, trunks, branches, leaves, and fruit with which we are more familiar. And according to a new study by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the greener the planet gets.
The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, published by The Heartland Institute (where I am a research fellow), cites thousands of peer-reviewed studies rising atmospheric CO2 levels are helping almost all plants grow bigger, become more efficient in using water, and better withstand the stress of high air temperature.

In a way, this CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is to plants like an oxygen mask is to a winded football player — helping to prepare him for the next play.

More CO2 in the atmosphere also means plants start to grow in places they couldn’t before, reducing the amount of erosion and, consequently, dust in the air in places around the globe, while increasing the potential for agriculture and wildlife habitat as the range of certain plant species expands.
Increased levels of CO2 also have been found to increase the fine-root density in some plants by up to 184 percent, and a 55 percent increase in above ground biomass despite water and nutrition limitations — meaning plants become better at anchoring the soil in place and allowing water to permeate the surface, which is especially important during droughts.

This would have been great news for my grandma and everyone else who survived the Dust Bowl. Improved farming techniques have played an important part in reducing the amount of erosion around the world, and these efforts certainly will be helped by having more CO2 in the atmosphere. Instead of being a detriment to plant growth, more CO2 acts as a fertilizer, making plants grow bigger, faster, more resilient, and more abundant, greening the world we live in.

[Originally published in the Argus Leader]
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/04/the-eroding-case-against-carbon-dioxide/

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.
Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.
There is no scientific support for the UN theory.
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.
Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”
The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”
The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.
“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”
The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?
The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.
Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.
At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.
Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.”  When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.
Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!
We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.
[Originally published at Warning Signs]

EPA All Out Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”. says CO2, cow-pig manure and urine rank 1-2-3 as global warming threat?

Warmer winter weather, which many environmentalists blame on global warming, actually helped to cut emissions of global warming-causing greenhouse gasses to the lowest level in a decade, according to a new EPA report on climate change.

In the EPA's “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,” the agency said that greenhouse gas emissions dropped 3.4 percent in 2012 from 2011. And emissions are down to their lowest level since 1994.

Among the reasons cited: Less heating fuel is burned when it's warmer outside.

“The decrease from 2011 to 2012 was due to a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed by power producers to generate electricity due to a decrease in the price of natural gas, a decrease in transportation sector emissions attributed to a small increase in fuel efficiency across different transportation modes and limited new demand for passenger transportation, and much warmer winter conditions resulting in a decreased demand for heating fuel in the residential and commercial sectors,” the EPA said in the executive summary of the 529-page report.

The EPA did not mention warmer winter temperatures for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in its press release.

Still, the government blames man for over 82 percent of the emissions and said that the U.S. is responsible for 17 percent of the world emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Besides cars and trucks, one major reason is because of cow and pig manure and urine, which produce harmful methane and nitrous oxide. Both of those have been on the increase. In fact, methane and nitrous oxide rank second and third behind carbon dioxide as the top three drivers of global warming, said the EPA.

In the section titled "Global Warming Potential," the EPA says carbon dioxide ranks first followed by methane and nitrous oxide, both produced in big numbers by the animals. Methane increased 68 percent in emissions from 1990. "The majority of this increase was from swine and dairy cow manure, where emissions increased 53 and 115 percent, respectively," said EPA.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/epa-says-co2-cow-pig-manure-and-urine-rank-1-2-3-as-global-warming-threat/article/2547266

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Global warming now literally part of religion?

Global warming “skeptics” have long joked that belief in man-made global warming is a “religion.” Ironically, it has been part of some people’s religious practices for the past few years.
For years, environmental activists were pretty much the only ones who really cared enough to take personal action against global warming, but now religious communities are joining in on the climate fight. From the U.S. to the UK to the Vatican, global warming activism has become part of the religious conversation.
Carbon fasting in the U.S.
For years, some U.S. Christians have been doing what they call a “carbon fast” for Lent — the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. During this time, thousands of people make an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, whether it’s driving less or not investing in hydrocarbon fuels.
New England Regional Environmental Ministries (NEREM) launched the effort in 2011. The goal of the “carbon fast” is to wean people off carbon dioxide-intensive goods and foods in order to stem global warming.
Rev. Dr. Jim Antal is one of the founders of NEREM and currently writes daily messages to thousands of carbon fasters around the globe about how to lower their carbon footprint and be one with the climate.
Antal heads the president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, which, in 2009, became the first U.S. religious body to pass a resolution urging the government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Last year, it tried to become the first U.S. religious body to divest itself of fossil fuels.
“I know I’m way out ahead,” Antal said. “That’s what leadership is all about. Leadership is about being far enough out ahead to cast a vision, to extend the horizon and to then invite people to come with you.”


“I tell congregations, ‘I want to trade a shriveled hope that you will recycle, or maybe walk or bicycle a little more instead of using your car — I want to trade in that tiny hope for a much grander hope,” Antal added. “I have 100 percent confidence that the people in this congregation know exactly where the railroad tracks are, and that soon enough you will put your bodies on the tracks and block the transport of oil from the Canadian tar sands to our processing plants.’”
Antal has long touted the religious significance of global warming. He has told other ministers that every third sermon should be about climate. Antal was also among those arrested at the White House last year protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. He has been arrested twice with environmentalist Bill McKibben, who founded the group 350.org.
“The thousands of young people through 350.org who have showed both surprise and respect at my leadership — getting arrested a couple of times at the White House, and other brands of leadership — it opens their eyes to say, ‘My goodness, maybe there is something in the church,’” Antal said.


he Church of England’s alarmist side
Is global warming a “great demon”? The Church of England says it is and has promised to divest itself of hydrocarbon fuels as a last resort in order to help cut Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Calls for the church to divest came from its own clergy in the wake of massive flooding and torrential rainfall that hit the UK last winter, as climate scientists debated whether or not the wet winter was caused by global warming.
Canon Giles Goddard of the church’s Southwark diocese said the religious body should “align the mission of the church with its investment arm and with the life of the parishes.”
“Climate change is a moral issue because the rich world has disproportionately contributed to it and the poor world is disproportionately suffering,” said Goddard. “Poor communities are least equipped to deal with the impacts.”
Goddard’s calls for divestment were echoed by Bishop Steven Croft of Sheffield who called global warming “a giant evil; a great demon of our day.”
“Its power is fed by greed, blindness and complacency in the present generation, and we know that this giant wreaks havoc through the immense power of the weather systems, which are themselves unpredictable,” Croft said.
The Church of England has so far not divested of hydrocarbons, but has said it’s still committed to tackling global warming.

he pope wants in on the action
It’s not just a small group of U.S. Christians that have been pushing for action on global warming, the Catholic church has been weighing in on the issue as well.
In his 20009 Encyclical, Pope Benedict wrote that it is mankind’s duty to respect the environment and sustainably grow economies so they are more equal and environmentally friendly. Benedict described the global economy as one “which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.”
Benedict’s message of caring for the environment and tackling global warming was also presented to the 2009 UN global warming summit. The pope told the summit it was important they “send the right signals to their citizens and succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment.”
Global warming activism has been carried on by Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis who was elected to the head the church last year. News reports say that Francis’s inaugural mass was full of references to environmental protection and indicated that fighting global warming would be a key part of his tenure as pope.
“We are losing the attitude of wonder, contemplation, listening to creation,” Francis told an audience on World Environment Day last year. “The implications of living in a horizontal manner [is that] we have moved away from God, we no longer read His signs.”
It’s not just the pope who has been more active on environmental issues in recent years. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has also been a vocal environmental activist, calling for countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions and stop using hydrocarbon fuels.
Tutu recently coauthored an oped in the UK Guardian with Former Irish president Mary Robinson calling for the European Union to do more to address global warming, labeling it as a civil rights issue as well as an environmental one.

Cost of fighting warming 'modest,' says UN panel


The Greenhouse Effect

This section provides an overview of the earth's atmospheric "greenhouse effect" by briefly exploring the atmospheres of nearby planets and discussing our atmosphere's greenhouse gases. The general concepts found in this section include the following:
  • The earth's "greenhouse effect" is what makes this planet suitable for life as we know it.
  • The earth's atmosphere contains trace gases, some of which absorb heat. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) are referred to as "greenhouse gases."
  • Albedo has an important influence on the earth's temperature.
  • Greenhouses are structures designed to retain heat.
  • The heat-trapping ability of a greenhouse is influenced by a number of factors including the transparency of the greenhouse cover, color of the surfaces inside the greenhouse, and type of surfaces inside.
This section includes two classroom activities.
These gases, mainly water vapor ( ), carbon dioxide (), methane (), and nitrous oxide (), all act as effective global insulators. To understand why, it's important to understand a few basic facts about solar radiation and the structure of atmospheric gases.
Solar Radiation
Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space. 

Read The Rest Here: The Greenhouse Effect
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
The cost of keeping global warming in check is "relatively modest," but only if the world acts quickly to reverse the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change said Sunday.
Such gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, rose on average by 2.2 percent a year in 2000-2010, driven by the use of coal in the power sector, officials said as they launched the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change'sreport on measures to fight global warming.
Without additional measures to contain emissions, global temperatures will rise about 3 degrees to 4 degrees Celsuis (5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 compared to current levels, the panel said.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press after the panel's weeklong session in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
The IPCC, an international body assessing climate science, projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
The IPCC said the shift would entail a near-quadrupling of low-carbon energy — which in the panel's projections included renewable sources as well as nuclear power and fossil fuel-fired plants equipped with technologies to capture some of the emissions.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called it a global economic opportunity.
"So many of the technologies that will help us fight climate change are far cheaper, more readily available, and better performing than they were when the last IPCC assessment was released less than a decade ago," Kerry said.
The IPCC said large changes in investments would be required. Fossil fuel investments in the power sector would drop by about $30 billion annually while investments in low-carbon sources would grow by $147 billion. Meanwhile, annual investments in energy efficiency in transport, buildings and industry sectors would grow by $336 billion.
The message contrasted with oil and gas company Exxon Mobil's projection two weeks ago that the world's climate policies are "highly unlikely" to stop it from selling fossil fuels far into the future, saying they are critical to global development and economic growth.
Coal emissions have declined in the U.S. as some power plants have switched to lower-priced natural gas but they are fueling economic growth in China and India.
The IPCC avoided singling out any countries or recommending how to share the costs of climate action in the report, the third of a four-part assessment on climate change.
Though it is a scientific body, its summaries outlining the main findings of the underlying reports need to be approved by governments. This brings a political dimension to the process.
In Berlin, a dispute erupted over whether to include charts that showed emissions from largedeveloping countries are rising the fastest as they expand their economies. Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier.
"This is the first step for developed countries of avoiding responsibilities and saying all countries have to assume the responsibility for climate change," said Diego Pacheco, the head of Bolivia's delegation in Berlin.
In the end the charts were taken out of the summary, but would remain in the underlying report, which was to be published later in the week, officials said.
Counting all emissions since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the U.S. is the top carbon polluter. China's current emissions are greater than those of the U.S. and rising quickly. China's historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade.
The IPCC summary also refrained from detailed discussions on what level of financial transfers are needed to help developing countries shift to cleaner energy and adapt to climate change.
Another IPCC report, released last month, warned that flooding, droughts and other climate impacts could have devastating effects on economies, agriculture and human health, particularly in developing countries.
"The world's poorest nations are in need of economic development. But they need to be helped to leapfrog dirty energy and develop in a way which won't entrench their poverty by making climate change worse," said Mohamed Adow of charity group Christian Aid.
The IPCC reports provide the scientific basis for U.N. climate negotiations. Governments are supposed to adopt a new climate agreement next year that would rein in emissions after 2020.
The ambition of that process is to keep warming below 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 Fahrenheit) compared to today's levels. Global temperatures have already gone up 0.8 Celsuis (1.4 Fahrenheit) since the start of record-keeping in the 19th century.
The IPCC, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007, said the U.N. goal is still possible but would require emissions cuts of 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050 and possibly the large-scale deployment of new technologies to suck CO2 out of the air and bury it deep underground.
"The IPCC is telling us in no uncertain terms that we are running out of time — but not out of solutions — if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group. "That requires decisive actions to curb carbon pollution — and an all-out race to embrace renewable sources of energy. History is calling."
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/13/6320436/climate-panel-warns-emissions.html




Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/13/6320436/climate-panel-warns-emissions.html#storylink=cpy

Friday, April 11, 2014

Cass Sunstein: Climate inaction a psychological problem — people not sufficiently afraid:

 Cass Sunstein writes at Bloomberg See post below:
 
 
1.Cass Sunstein Nudged Obama Into the Ideology Of “Nudging” - The latest scandal concerning the Obama administration's seeking a way to control the people of the United States, using the Cass Sunstein approach of "nudge," is being talked about all over the internet. This is an almost Nazi-style way of getting people to do what you wish them to do without them even thinking you
 
2.Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein… Just WHO Is This Radical, Anti-American Extremist Sitting In Our White House?
 
In the world of Obama there can be no dissent or criticism of the “messiah” squatting in our White House, and any attempts to impugn the Obama plans for “change” must be demolished. So if negativity comes from the internet , then of course the blogosphere must be added to litany of government control and censorship.

The Obama appointment of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a rather formidable nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. In this position Sunstein has powers that are unprecedented and very far reaching; not merely mind-boggling but with explicit ability to use the courts to stifle free speech if it opposes Obama policies. In particular, Sunstein thinks that the bloggers have been “rampaging out of control” and that “new laws need to be written” to contain them. Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” should give everyone serious pause for concern. Considering Sunstein’s position, the powers with which Sunstein is endowed are very, very, troubling.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job is crucial as the administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.””

Sunstein is another Obama “Czar” but is really the chief regulator of what can or cannot appear on the internet. It is very scary that the person who is in charge of public cyberspace believes that – “Whether you’re a blogger or the York Times or a Web hosting service – you should be held responsible even for what your comments say.” 

Currently you’re immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Just who is this radical, anti-American law professor with a long time association with Obama?
Below is a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein.

3.Somewhat more broadly, I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law." -- Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration. Yes, we have someone in charge of regulations in D.C. who thinks pigs should be able to sue farmers and cats should be able to sue their owners. Do you think it's a coincidence that the cost of business keeps skyrocketing under Obama because of all the new regulations?

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/obamas-czar-cass-sunstein-just-who-is-this-radical-anti-american-extremist-sitting-in-our-white-house/


Cass Sunstein writes at Bloomberg:
The first obstacle is that people tend to evaluate risks by way of “the availability heuristic,” which leads them to assess the probability of harm by asking whether a readily available example comes to mind. An act of terrorism, for example, is likely to be both available and salient, and hence makes people fear that another such event will occur (whether it is likely to or not). So, too, a recent crime or accident can activate attention and significantly inflate people’s assessment of risk.
By contrast, climate change is difficult to associate with any particular tragedy or disaster. To be sure, many scientists think that climate change makes extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, substantially more likely. But it is hard to prove that climate change “caused” any particular event, and as a result, the association tends to be at best speculative in many people’s minds.
Second, people tend to be especially focused on risks or hazards that have an identifiable perpetrator, and for that reason produce outrage. Warmer temperatures are a product not of any particular human being or group, but the interaction between nature and countless decisions by countless people. There are no obvious devils or demons — no individuals who intend to create the harms associated with climate change. For terrorism, a “we-they” narrative fits the facts; in the context of climate change, those who are the solution might well also be, or seem to be, the problem. In these circumstances, public outrage is much harder to fuel.
Third, human beings are far more attentive to immediate threats than to long-term ones. Behavioral scientists have emphasized that in their private lives, people sometimes display a form of myopia. They may neglect the future, seeing it as a kind of foreign country, one they may not ever visit. For this reason, they might fail to save for retirement, or they might engage in risk-taking behavior (such as smoking or unhealthy eating) that will harm their future selves.
In a political context, citizens might demand protection against a risk that threatens them today, tomorrow or next month. But if they perceive climate change as mostly a threat to future generations — if significant sea-level rises seem to be decades away — they are unlikely to have a sense of urgency.
Read more…

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Report: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant, Provides ‘Beneficial Impacts’ to Planet

(CNSNews.com) – Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring chemical compound that benefits plants and thus, the planet and its inhabitants, according to a lengthy  report released Wednesday by the free-market Heartland Institute.

“Carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer that provides many beneficial impacts,” said Craig Idso, one of the lead authors of the report, when CNSNews.com asked him to name the most salient finding of the 37 scientists from 12 countries who contributed to it.

“You can look at thousands of studies – real world data studies that have actually been conducted that demonstrate beyond any doubt that higher levels of CO2 are going to increase the productivity of plants,” Idso said.

“They’re real,” Idso said of the benefits of CO2. “They’re not imagined. They’re not projected. They’re real, and they’re occurring now.”

On December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final regulation listing CO2 as one of the greenhouses gases that is considered a pollutant that “endangers public health.” The regulation is part of what the EPA says is required under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA relies heavily in its environmental assessments on the climate change reports produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issued its fifth report in September 2013.

Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, said the IPCC report has been “largely discredited” by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s (NIPCC) “Climate Change Reconsidered II” series of reports, including a 1,000-page report on the physical science of climate change that was released in 2013.

Fred Singer, report co-author and an atmospheric and space physicist and climate change expert, said at the press conference that the models used by IPCC do not reflect the real-world data about the planet and its warming and cooling trends.

Idso provided dramatic examples of how CO2 impacts plants, showing images of small and underdeveloped plants that were exposed to a small amount of the compound compared with thriving plants with generous leaves and blossoms and expansive root systems.

“One of the overall important findings of our report is that atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant,” Idso said. “It is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that offers many biosphereric benefits.

“Probably chiefly known among all of these benefits is that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to increase the biomass and productivity of nearly all plants and ecosystems on earth,” Idso said.
Some of the other findings in the biological impacts report summary include:

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth.
• Rising levels of CO2 are increasing agricultural productivity around the world, therefore increasing food security.

• Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived around the world where temperatures have warmed, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles and mammals.

• A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/report-co2-not-pollutant-provides-beneficial-impacts-planet

These certainly are desperate times, but it sounds like the times are desperate for the environmentalists., Do we need a climate Plan B?

The world needs a Plan B on climate change because politicians are failing to reduce carbon emissions, according to a UN report.

It warns governments if they overshoot their short-term carbon targets they will have to cut CO2 even faster in the second half of the century to keep climate change manageable.

If they fail again, they will have to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

This could be achieved by burning wood and capturing the CO2 emissions.

The gas could then be stored in rocks underground.

But a leaked draft of the UN report also says that the technology for carbon dioxide removal is untested at such a scale.

The authors warn that carbon removal systems may encounter resistance from the public - and if the policy goes wrong, it could damage forests and ecosystems

The final draft report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopts a new tone of realism in the face of repeated failures by governments to meet their rhetoric on climate change with action.

It warns that governments are set to crash through the global CO2 safety threshold by 2030. Humans have tripled CO2 emissions since 1970, it says - and emissions have been accelerating rather than slowing.

The experts advise governments that it will be cheaper overall to cut the greenhouse gas before 2030 if they want to hold emissions at 430-480ppm CO2 - a level that's calculated to bring a 66% chance of staying within a desired 2C threshold of warming by the end of the century.

These are not recommendations - the IPCC isn't allowed to make them - but they are an acknowledgement that many countries appear to lack the will or the ability to cut emissions.

A Greenpeace spokesman said: "This new report captures the choices we face. It's not too late; we can still avoid the worst impacts of global warming but only if the clean energy technologies that can slash carbon pollution are given the green light.

"The more we wait, the more it will cost. The sooner we act, the cheaper it will be."

But Bob Ward, from the LSE's Grantham Institute, said it was crucial to reach safe levels by 2100.

"We are in a much worse situation politically than we were seven years ago," he said.

"The current lack of action means that we may have to consider overshoot scenarios, which would be better than abandoning our temperature target threshold of 2 degrees. Some people think there's a degree of political dishonesty in allowing governments to claim they will keep to their targets in the short term."

The report says emissions are running at the high end of projections. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to break the 450ppm threshold by 2030. It adds that current pledges by governments made at climate summits in Copenhagen and Cancun currently exceed this cautionary limit.

The share of clean energy sources needs to triple or even quadruple by 2050, relative to 2010, the final draft explains. Delaying emissions reductions beyond 2030 will increase the challenge of bringing down CO2 to a safe level by the end of the century.

The report will be discussed by government representatives and experts through the week.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26922661

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

First, it was cows. Now it's humans. Will Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama not stop until everything is regulated in the name of global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's called this week? So the stage is set. The EPA will protect us from evil cows that emit methane. We can all sleep better now. Or can we?

On March 28, 2014, Obama released a Fact Sheet meant to justify his unilateral actions to regulate climate change.  The Fact Sheet states that:
... last June, President Obama issued a broad-based Climate Action Plan, announcing a series of executive actions to reduce carbon pollution, prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced seven new "climate hubs" to help farmers and ranchers adapt their operations to a changing climate and the President's Budget proposed a $1 billion in new funding for new technologies and incentives to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure to help communities prepare for a changing climate.
In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and DOE will jointly release a "Biogas Roadmap" outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
That portion of the Fact Sheet was based upon an EPA study that said cows are a leading cause of methane (CH4).  But neither the EPA report nor the Fact Sheet mentioned the ocean floor or volcanoes or landfills.  The study says that:
Methane is produced as part of normal digestive processes in animals.  During digestion, microbes resident in an animal's digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal.  This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces CH4 as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated [belched] by the animal.

From the Fact Sheet we get this:
Reducing methane emissions is a powerful way to take action on climate change; and putting methane to use can support local economies with a source of clean energy that generates revenue, spurs investment and jobs, improves safety, and leads to cleaner air.  When fully implemented, the policies in the methane strategy will improve public health and safety while recovering otherwise wasted energy to power our communities, farms, factories, and power plants.

The fact sheet also says that $1 billion will be available "for new technologies and incentives to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure to help communities prepare for a changing climate."   Sounds familiar.  Oh, yeah, green energy technology.  I'll bet that a vast portion of that money will go to Obama's donors and cronies.  When history repeats itself, no new technology will be developed.  But the money will be spent, and we taxpayers will again foot the bill.  What a fiasco green energy was, and still is.

So the stage is set.  The EPA will protect us from evil cows that emit methane.  We can all sleep better now.  Or can we?

Yesterday (April 2, 2014) we learned from an EPA Inspector General (IG) report that "The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations." [emphasis mine]
It seems that the EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 on people with health issues such as asthma and heart problems, and on the elderly.  The experiments exposed people to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel exhaust fumes.  Diesel exhaust fumes contains forty toxic air contaminants, including nineteen that are known carcinogens along with particulant matter [PM]. 
The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM.  An EPA document from 2003 that says short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease.  It further states that long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death.
The EPA has what it calls PM2.5, PM that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, about 1/30th the thickness of a human hair.  The EPA sets its PM2.5 standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of outdoor air.  Yet the EPA exposed people to PM levels of 600 micrograms per cubic meter. So 600 micrograms per cubic meter is forty times what the EPA sets as an acceptable outdoor air standard. The EPA advises "... [e]veryone should avoid any outdoor exertion.  People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should remain indoors" when PM2.5 levels are between about 250 and 500 micrograms per cubic meter.
In the IG report were these statements:
  • "... the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies' consent forms."
  • "An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures..."
  • "... only one of five studies' consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant" [they would be exposed to].
  • "... two of five [study consent forms] alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease."
  • "... exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans."
The IG report also contains these two statements:
  • The EPA needs to ensure that the human research study team members obtain annual ethics training to properly protect study subjects.
  • This lack of warning about PM is also different from the EPA's public image about PM.
Let's see. 2010 and 2011, both years during Obama's watch. Where was the MSM on this?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/in_the_name_of_global_warming.html 

Scaremongers Global Warmism's New Campaign: 'Loss and Damage'

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MUST TAKE URGENT ACTION
We must make dramatic reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change (“mitigation”), and we must fund and implement programs to help people adapt to the effects of climate change that are already happening (“adaptation”). Increasingly, we will also need to help poor countries deal with unavoidable damages caused by climate change (“loss and damage”).
– anti-poverty K-Street non-profit ActionAid

The above statement lists the three ways that activists tackle what they call the “climate crisis.”  The concepts of mitigation and adaption are not new, but the third strategy, “loss and damage,” is a recent ideological banner that brings together advocates for global wealth redistribution based on climate injustice.  (Not to be confused with a “loss & damage waiver” from Hertz Rent-a-Car.)


It even has its own logo.
The concept was first introduced at the 2010 IPCC conference in Cancun.  In November 2013, at the IPCC’s 19th Conference of Parties in Warsaw, “loss and damage finally [got] embedded institutionally within the international climate regime” with the establishment of the “Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts (the Mechanism).”  Who would have thought that 1960s liberals raging against the machine would now be rallying around a movement called “the Mechanism”?
If one mechanism is good, two are better, and a second was established: the Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries Initiative (see lossanddamage.net).  The website of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) explains:
The new focus [on loss and damage] follows logically from the failure to make progress on either mitigation or adaptation. In other words, as the impacts [sic] climate change continue to mount – damaging property and reducing revenue from activities such as commercial fishing and tourism – the need for a system capable of compensating victims for the associated costs is not going away.
Loss of tourism revenue will be compensated?  I can’t imagine how that might be abused.





According to AOSIS, loss and damage has three components: risk assessment, insurance for places where it is “cost prohibitive,” and the creation of “an international solidarity fund in order to compensate communities for damage.”  It’s not clear why communities need both an insurance policy and an international solidarity fund.  It’s evident, however, that loss and damage is a form of social justice, or rather, climate justice – taking from the rich and giving to the poor, with reparations based on greenhouse gas emissions, which are a proxy for wealth.
How much money are we talking about?  The New York Times reports:



the [IPCC] report…cited a World Bank estimate that poor countries need as much as $100 billion a year to try to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries.
Elsewhere, this $100 billion is described as “orders of magnitude” too low.  Greg Pollowitz at Planet Gore points out that the $100 billion/year figure was dropped from the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, an indication that this wealth transfer is unlikely to happen.
This funding argument is creating a rift between rich and poor countries at the IPCC conferences.  We read in the New York Times:
At a climate conference in Warsaw in November [2013], there was an emotional outpouring from countries that face existential threats, among them Bangladesh, which produces just 0.3 percent of the emissions driving climate change.
Are we permitted to smile when divisive income inequality rhetoric leads to squabbling among the jet-setting climate activists on their junkets in Cancun and Bali?
Climate activists are in a bit of a bind.  They want to confiscate money from developed countries to lower their excessive CO2 “pollution.”  But if they succeed in lifting billions of poor people into the middle class, all these new consumers will result in an unsustainable path for our fragile planet.  Happily for them, it is very difficult to create prosperity through redistribution; the “mechanism” can take from the rich, and the poor will still remain poor.
The loss and damage campaign, however, has more pernicious effects.  For one, climate activists now demand open borders to rescue “climate migrants.”  Since rich countries are making poor countries uninhabitable, the logic goes, it’s only fair that the victims be offered a new home.  Atiq Rahman, Bangladesh’s “leading climate scientist,” argues:
“It’s a matter of global justice,” [Rahman] said. “These migrants should have the right to move to the countries from which all these greenhouse gases are coming. Millions should be able to go to the United States.”
The Times’ article cites another disconcerting consequence:
The effects of climate change have led to a growing sense of outrage in developing nations, many of which have contributed little to the pollution that is linked to rising temperatures and sea levels but will suffer the most from the consequences. […]
“Talk to someone who’s just lost their livelihood two times in the last five years, lost their cow for reasons related to climate change,” says an ActionAid spokesperson.

Consider Bangladesh: global warming did not create the desperate situation where millions of poor people live on low-lying islands in the Ganges Delta.  Cyclones have hit the region since the time of Noah; a devastating storm in 1970 killed 500,000 people (in a time of global cooling).

A rising ocean would certainly exacerbate the effects of storm surges, but the amount of sea level rise and its causes are by no means settled science.  Furthermore, mitigation in the developed countries will do little to stop whatever changes are happening.  This hasn’t prevented climate activists from preaching to impoverished Bangladeshis that they are victims of the excessive consumption of rich people.  If Americans shared their money, they argue, it would both help the poor and encourage a simpler lifestyle among the rich.

Loss and damage is a gift to politicians in developing countries, who benefit from an external enemy, especially if it comes with gobs of foreign aid.  Instead of voters blaming their government for not building levees, they blame Americans for their consumerism.

The mechanism creates an expectation that wealth redistribution will solve age-old problems, and if it is not forthcoming, it’s likely that resentment, anger, and a toxic victim mentality will increase.  Loss and damage activists are fostering anti-American hatred in millions of people, teaching them that the prosperity of the West – its massive SUVs and unnecessary consumption of meat, its air-conditioned skyscrapers and mega-mansions – is destroying their homeland.  And if Atiq Rahman gets his wish, these millions will have the right to immigrate to the United States.
If you’ve been taught that wealth is the problem, why wouldn’t you conclude that terrorist attacks are a just and righteous solution?

1. ActionAid’s most recent financial statement in 2012 breaks down expenses as follows: program services: $1.4 million, or 53%; fundraising and administrative: $1.2 million, or 47%, well above the federal government’s guideline of a maximum 25%.

Total assets were $4.97 million, nearly two years of operating reserves, well above the recommended 6-9 months.
In 2011, their IRS 990 form shows some embarrassingly ineffective “face-to-face” fundraising:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/loss_and_damage.html