Google+ Followers

Friday, May 30, 2014

Former UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘One of the startling facts about climate change is that there are very few facts about climate change. Climate change is mainly something of the future so we are really talking about model projections’

EIF 2014: UN Climate Change efforts destined to fail, as Beijing will shape policies for years to come, according to University of Sussex Professor Richard Tol. speaks with Dr. Richard Tol during the recent European Insurance Forum about climate change, and its impact on the insurance industry. He is a Professor at the University of Sussex, and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.

According to Dr Tol, “One of the startling facts about climate change is that there are very few facts about climate change.  Climate change is mainly something of the future so we are really talking about model projections.”  

Dr. Tol feels that the impact of climate change is a “symptom of underdevelopment and mismanagement. For example (hurricane) Katrina devastated New Orleans. How much of that was due to bad weather and how much to bad management of the costal defenses."

Dr. Tol says the climate does not increase risk, but reduces the predictability of future weather hazards, requiring more risk capital and better risk management.

Carbon free energy sources have been proven in the lab and can supply the world's energy needs 10 times over says Dr.Tol. "The problem is an economic one.  These alternative carbon-free energy sources are simply too expensive. They only work on a small scale and are not very convenient.” 

While the insurance industry has been active in the climate debates its power is one of persuasion.

The next big political event concerning climate change is the Paris Negotiations for the United Nations Framework on Prevention of Climate Change, which according to Dr. Tol “are going to fail as others have failed so far.”  He points out that “China is...burning a lot of coal and it's bad for the health of their people and they are trying to find alternatives. They can follow the European and North American model and put scrubbers on coal fired power plants that will increase energy use and increase CO2 emissions, or they could switch to alternatives to coal that would decrease carbon dioxide emissions. This is gong to shape climate policy for the next 10-20 years - the decisions that are made in Beijing.”

WAPO accuses the left of scientific misconduct? Well slap me down, The Insiders: The left is to blame for the distorted global warming debate

The problems of the warmsters continue–when even the robots at the WAPO see a problem?I will say I am amazed. Maybe its a head fake?

The New Republic’s recent article by Jonathan Cohn, “Obama’s new rules for coal plants are a B.F.D.,” exemplifies what is wrong with the political debate on climate change. The piece is ostensibly about the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, but it serves to make the left’s tired case for action on global warming.
In pushing the left’s climate change agenda, Cohn cites the same old claims that get repeated ad nauseam. He even purports to answer a list of “frequently asked questions,” but actually relies on vague talking points supplied by the usual suspects on the left instead of providing any precise, clear information. What scientists say about global warming isn’t the problem; the problem is what political professionals and ideologues say when they enter into the conversation. The public sees their dishonesty and reacts accordingly. This is why climate alarmists lose most objective voters.
I pass all writings related to global warming through my filter of asking whether the author states what his plans to reduce global warming will cost, who will pay and what result will be achieved. Here, Cohn is at best evasive or at worst deceptively too cute by half in his avoidance of supplying any clarity.
Astonishingly, Cohn claims that these forthcoming new EPA regulations will provide “the Administration with more leverage to negotiate a far-reaching, international treaty on emissions from multiple sources.” Is he serious? Which administration is he talking about? Members of the Obama administration have proved time and time again that they could not negotiate themselves out of a wet paper bag. No country is going to watch the United States unilaterally harm our own economy in deference to the global thermostat and think that it should follow suit. It is crazy to think otherwise.
Cohn goes on to reference research from the Center for American Progress and the Natural Resources Defense Council, neither of which can be claimed as nonpartisan or unbiased.  Center for American Progress senior fellow Daniel Weiss called the plan to reduce power plant emissions by about 25 percent a “major blow against climate change.” Really. What constitutes a “major blow”? What is the result we can expect? A planet cooled by a degree? Half a degree? When? Next, Cohn cites the Natural Resources Defense Council estimate that the “net savings to society” as a result of carbon emissions limits “would be between $25 and $53 billion in 2020.” In other words, virtually nothing. What does he mean by “society?” What society is he talking about: American society? Global society? You get my point.
Cohn offers a question the majority of Americans can relate to: “This is going to drive up my electric bills, isn’t it?” His answer is rich. It includes the pathetic advice, “If you find ways to use less electricity – whether it’s as simple as turning off more lights or as complicated as putting in new insulation – then your bill can stay the same or come down.” In other words, yes, your electric bill will go up, but Cohn won’t dare say by how much. Until those who want the public to be alarmed and want to micromanage our lives are more honest, the voters will continue to shrug and snicker.
This type of superficial preaching and condescending pablum reminded me of a great quote that recently caught my eye from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. In a classic case of projection, Krugman said, “the European elite’s habit of disguising ideology as expertise, of pretending that what it wants to do is what must be done, has created a deficit of legitimacy.” Sound familiar? This is exactly what liberals in America are doing with the global warming debate.
Members of the left in America could learn from these words from one of their own. They need to be honest with themselves and others about how the absurdity of their platitudes and the punitive measures they want to take are what is destroying the political debate on global warming, not Republican intransigence or denial that man-made global warming is at hand.

Global Warming Insanity Has Gone Beyond Satire

It is now obvious that the Warmist movement will go to any lengths to try to frighten and intimidate the public as their cause goes slowly down the drain.  I can scarcely believe what I have just read in the respected climate blog,
Last August, I wrote a satire article for AT, titled  “Global Warming Responsible for Epidemic of Rail Disasters?”  Although the article was clearly labelled “Satire”, several left-leaning blogs reposted it as fact, including Time-Warner Cable (until they realized it was a joke).  My post was obviously an over-the-top analysis of rail disasters linked to global warming, making fun of the apocalyptic predictions of global warming alarmists:
The devastation that this will cause is incalculable.  Passenger deaths will rise to the millions.  Poisonous fumes from wrecked tank cars will pollute the atmosphere; noxious chemicals will be released into rivers and lakes, destroying the ecosystem.  Flammable liquids will be ignited, causing horrific, out-of-control wildfires.  Finally, critically-needed foodstuffs will not be delivered to their destinations, resulting in mass starvation on a global scale never previously experienced in human history.
To my absolute amazement, Climate Central has has published an article almost identical to my satire, “Climate Change Could Warp Rails With ‘Sun Kinks’”.
When anything goes wrong on the rails, it’s big news even without the help of climate change. Whether it’s a Metro North Railroad passenger train going off the rails in New York City or tanker trains carrying volatile Bakken shale crude oil derailing and exploding, major railroad accidents kill people and destroy
Climate change could make moving all those passengers and freight more challenging if it throws a sun kink into the rails.
Actually, I believe my article was much more effectively researched and statistically sound than Climate Central’s.  Based on my synchronicity with the Warmist movement and the timeliness of my insights, I think I deserve to be recognized as a legitimate climate scientist in Al Gore’s army.
My request in my satire for a $5 billion government grant to solve this critical problem, using millions of solar-powered fans to cool the tracks still stands.  Based on the current insanity run rampant in our country, if I actually submitted this proposal I think I might actually have a reasonable chance of getting it.  Anyone else willing to get in on the action?
Andrew Thomas blogs at

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

America’s Highest Ranked Climate Charlatans: Obama and Kerry, The Myth of the Climate Change 97%

John Kerry, our Secretary of State, continues to provide reasons to believe he is either too stupid to hold such a high position or too willing to tell lies to keep pace with President Obama.

Their views on “climate change” are so lacking in scientific fact that they are telling people we’re all doomed if we don’t abandon vast traditional U.S. energy resources and continue to throw more billions at “renewable energy” that provides a very costly three percent of the nation’s huge energy needs. Meanwhile, nations in Europe, China, India and elsewhere are abandoning solar and wind, and building coal-fired plants.

At a Boston College commencement speech on May 19, Kerry outdid himself talking about climate change. “If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge—and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong—supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen?” The worst is more wasted billions spent on something mankind can do nothing about and the administration’s continued efforts to control every inch of land in the U.S. and all of its waters.
In the May 27 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Joe Bast, the president of the free-market think tank, the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama, teamed out to write about “The Myth of the Climate Change 97%.” While demolishing this Big Lie, they noted that “Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.”

Obama’s and Kerry’s problem, along with all the other climate change charlatans, is that is the Earth is now into its 17th year of a natural cooling cycle based on lower radiation from the Sun, itself in a natural cycle. It is the Sun, not mankind that determines the climate of the Earth.

The Petition Project in which 31,073 U.S. scientists, over 9,000 of whom have a Ph.D. in a scientific field, participated says “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.”

In his State of the Union speech, Obama said “climate change is a fact.” Well, yes, if you keep in mind that climate change is measured in centuries, not decades or years. Claiming that every hurricane or tornado is evidence of climate change ignores this. His claim that climate change is “settled science” is just one more lie.

Mr. Kerry isn’t right and that makes him and President Obama a national and a global problem

The Obama administration recently released a Climate Assessment report that was nothing more than a repeat of the lies the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been telling since 1983. They have all been based on computer models rigged to produce a global warming outcome. This process continues in several U.S. government agencies.

Following the last mini-ice age that lasted from 1300 to 1850, the Earth quite naturally warmed, most of which occurred prior to 1945. Meanwhile, the ice sheets of both the Arctic and Antarctica have been growing, particularly at the South Pole. The rise of oceans is measured in mere centimeters, posing no threat to polar bears or the island of Manhattan.

To Kerry’s question, “What’s the worst that can happen?” a recent Wall Street Journal opinion said that answer is “we spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we can’t do anything to stop: that we misallocate scarce resources in a way that slows economic growth; that slower growth leads to less economic opportunity for Boston College grads and especially the world’s poor; and that America and the world become much less wealthy and technologically advanced than we would otherwise. All of which would make the world less able to cope with the costs of climate change if Mr. Kerry is right.”
Mr. Kerry isn’t right and that makes him and President Obama a national and a global problem.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Friday, May 23, 2014

CLEANER AIR COULD MEAN HIGHER ELECTRIC BILLS, the current rules are expected to force power companies to shut down 68 coal plants across 20 states between 2014 and 2017,

NEW YORK (AP) -- Electricity prices are probably on their way up across much of the U.S. as coal-fired plants, the dominant source of cheap power, shut down in response to environmental regulations and economic forces.
New and tighter pollution rules and tough competition from cleaner sources such as natural gas, wind and solar will lead to the closings 

of dozens of coal-burning plants across 20 states over the next three years. And many of those that stay open will need expensive retrofits.

Because of these and other factors, the Energy Department predicts retail power prices will rise 4 percent on average this year, the biggest increase since 2008. By 2020, prices are expected to climb an additional 13 percent, a forecast that does not include the costs of coming environmental rules.

The Obama administration, state governments and industry are struggling to balance this push for a cleaner environment with the need to keep the grid reliable and prevent prices from rocketing too much higher.
"We're facing a set of questions that are new to the industry," says Clair Moeller, who oversees transmission and technology for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which coordinates much of the electric grid between Minnesota and Louisiana.

Coal is the workhorse of the U.S. power system. It is used to produce 40 percent of the nation's electricity, more than any other fuel. Because it is cheap and abundant and can be stored on power plant grounds, it helps keep prices stable and power flowing even when demand spikes.

Natural gas, which accounts for 26 percent of the nation's electricity, has dropped in price and become more plentiful because of the fracking boom. But its price is on the rise again, and it is still generally more expensive to produce electricity with gas than with coal. Also, gas isn't stored at power plants because the cost is prohibitive. That means it is subject to shortages and soaring prices.

During the brutally cold and snowy winter that just ended, utilities in several states struggled to secure natural gas because so much was also needed to heat homes. Some utilities couldn't run gas-fired plants at all, and power prices soared 1,000 percent in some regions.

As Indiana has reduced its reliance on coal to 84 percent from 97 percent over the last decade, its power prices rose far faster than those of its neighbors and the rest of the country.

That makes things tough on customers, especially big power users like Rochester Metal Products Corp., in Rochester, Indiana. The hulking furnaces it uses to melt scrap iron consume enough electricity to power 7,000 households.

"As Indiana's price of electricity becomes less and less competitive, so do we," says Doug Smith, the company's maintenance and engineering manager.
Burning coal releases toxic chemicals, soot and smog-forming chemicals, as well as twice the amount of carbon dioxide that natural gas produces. The Supreme Court last month gave an important approval to one Environmental Protection Agency clean-air rule. That cleared the way for a new rule expected to be announced by President Barack Obama early next month.
This rule, the first to govern emissions of carbon dioxide from existing power plants, could accelerate the move away from coal - if it survives the legal and political challenges that are sure to come.

Already, the current rules are expected to force power companies to shut down 68 coal plants across 20 states between 2014 and 2017, according to Bentek Energy, a market analysis firm.

The Energy Department estimates coal plants with the output to supply 33 million homes will close by 2020.
"We haven't operated at those low levels (of generation) for at least 30 years," says MISO's Clair Moeller.
To meet high demand this past winter, American Electric Power, which serves 5 million customers in 11 states, needed to run 89 percent of the coal plants it will soon have to shut down, says AEP CEO Nick Akins.
This raises concerns that the power system soon won't have enough wiggle room to handle extreme weather, making blackouts more likely.

"It's a warning of what may be to come," Moeller says.
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, responding to critics, notes that pollution also imposes costs on the economy because it harms human health and the environment. And she has also forcefully promised that the coming carbon dioxide rule will keep costs in check and power flowing.

"EPA is not going to threaten electric reliability," she told a gathering of executives in Houston in March. "That is our No. 1 priority."

Richard Sedano of the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises officials on regulatory policy, says the transition to cleaner sources can be smooth with proper planning.

States, utilities and the federal government have helped reduce the need for more power plants through efficiency programs and standards for energy-conserving lights and appliances. Utilities are building new transmission lines and updating grids. And customers are generating more of their own power with solar panels and managing their consumption through digital meters and other technology.

Also, power prices across the U.S. are relatively low compared to those in the rest of the developed world. Adjusted for inflation, the national average residential price is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1984.


Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Gore, Obama and Socialist LibDems Back on Big Lies Again

hey’re baaaaaaaack.  The people from the left, or as they say more properly in Latin, la sinistra, or ‘sinister ones’, are back at their lies, cheating, duplicity and sheer untrustworthiness.

As Jennifer G. Hickey writes online in on 18 May 2014 in ‘Scientists Rebut White House Global Warming Claims’, “A group of independent scientists, economists and meteorologists has issued a pointed response to the scientific foundation of the Obama administration’s claims that humans are drastically changing the climate by burning fossil fuels.”

I am personally pleased that the Libs, the “lyin left” as we so better know them, have stopped blaming George W. Bush for all the imaginary visions these people suffer through just to not have to face the truth of their failings not only of themselves but of their dealings with the whole socio-communist Party so improperly named Democrat, a derivative of the word democracy which today is totally foreign to them. 

No, their left-minded actions now blame Republicans and Conservatives for all the ineptness and floundering of their Islam-Communist-inspired Party leadership from Farrakhan, Alinsky, Soros, Obama, etc.  No longer do we hear, “It’s all Bush’s fault.”  Now we hear and read in the newspapers’ ‘Letters’ columns, that the declining economy is all the fault of the Republicans.  Those writers have yet to hear about the staggering national debt that Obama has amassed.  Typically, though, they ignored Obama’s VA, which allowed war veterans to die for lack of VA care.

Non-stop, multi-faceted lying by Obama and his minions in his Administration by almost all of his “alphabet” departments, EPA, NSA, IRS, CIA, AG, VA

I have even read where at least one of them manufactured a Wall Street crash in 2007 which was as great as the “Republican” Crash in 1929 and created all the business failures that Obama inherited when elected as President.  His subsequent bailout boondoggles and treasury losses along with borrowing against the national debt were never mentioned.  Oh, but they say Obama’s attempts to “compromise” with the Republicans were rejected.  I take that as proof of good fiscal sense by the GOP.
There are others in the Hitler/Obama ‘wealth-redistribution’ Party of blunders who refuse to accept that theirs is the Party of Liars.  With all the front page evidence of the practically non-stop, multi-faceted lying by Obama and his minions in his Administration by almost all of his “alphabet” departments, EPA, NSA, IRS, CIA, AG, VA, etc. who have absolutely no compunctions whatsoever against lying before Congress or even the courts. Those entrenched clowns who are inclined to bypass the laws of the United States even after swearing to uphold the Constitution are merely following their leader, Obama the Liar-in-Chief. 

Getting back to the “Gore’ers,” all one would have to do is look at the evidence provided by the Administration and its subordinate and command obedient instruction following lower entities alongside a totally independent group of internationally known and highly respected authorities in the subject of atmospheric conditions and phenomena.  This latter is more the case than any explanation offered by the Administration.  The former, being responsive to instructional orders for construction of a report on the strict confines of “orders from headquarters” and highly subjective, would provide a “hoped for” diagnosis as opposed to a “clean” fact-filled report of all facets under investigation.

As stated in Hickey’s article by Newsmax, “With expertise. the 15 signers make the case that the White House. NCA is a “masterpiece of marketing” that crumbles like a “house of cards” under the weight of real-world evidence.”  Meaning that the NCA promotes their ‘Climate Models’ as reliable to predict future climate which “fail basic verification tests.” Needless to say, the independent scientists feel the NCA report with administration officials characterization as “the most comprehensive, authoritative, transparent scientific report on climate change ever generated, as undependable.”

“But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection,” assert the scientists. 

As reported by Ms. Hickey, “the scientists’ rebuttal, however, strongly challenges the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), which it says is “based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions” that human burning of fossil fuels is driving up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and “is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes.”

Continuing Hickey said, “The authors criticize the NCA report for a lack of objectivity and its failure to include input from scientists who may question whether climate change is irrefutable and that a robust regulatory response is required.

“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they said.” 

In their report the NCA and White House assert “that urgent action is needed because increasing average temperatures in the United States are responsible for a greater frequency of extreme weather events. “

That statement makes me wonder, ‘what happened to global warming’?  And it reminds me of hearing some liberal assert that he heard a report that the reason for the accelerated temperatures of this past year and the prediction for more is because of global warming.

Kind of makes me think of the guy who said that the reason he was getting fed up with politics is because of all the Republicans lying so much.  DUH!


The 67-year-old Wheel of Fortune host tweeted a strange accusation Monday night that declares global warming activists are "unpatriotic racists."

The television host actively supports conservative political causes, and has written several articles for conservative magazine Human Events. He frequently opines about the weather on Twitter, and many view his recent tweet as an outright denial of climate change.

Sajak took to Twitter again on Tuesday after news outlets began to cover his tweet. He writes, "Sometimes it's fun to poke a stick in a hornets' nest just to hear the buzzing."

Scientist On PBS: Lock Up Politicians Who Question Climate Change.

Canadian geneticist David Suzuki urged Western governments to lock up politicians who question man-made climate change, telling PBS’ Bill Moyers “our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!”
Suzuki appeared on “Moyers and Company” earlier this month to express his abject frustration over politicians, in both Canada and the United States, who refuse to accept the “settled science” on man-made global warming.
“Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!” he asserted. “If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness.”
“I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences to our children and grandchildren,” Suzuki continued. “It’s an intergenerational crime.”
Moyers, a well-known climate alarmist, didn’t push back a bit — instead gently tabling the idea as impractical.
“The problem is, if that should happen — if politicians were to be convicted to willful blindness to the fate of the Earth and future generations — there would have to be mass arrests, and lots more funding for new prisons,” he noted. “We’re not talking about a mere handful of culprits. It’s hard to know where to start.”
Willful blindness is a legitimate legal reference in the United States (and, presumably, Canada) used to describe the intentional failure of an individual to become aware of facts pointing to criminal liability.
But arresting politicians for “being willfully blind” to facts on climate change would mean criminalizing not only those industries and individuals that emit carbon, but also anyone who dares take an opinion contrary to the “settled

erhaps that would fly in Suzuki’s home country, which prosecuted conservative writer Mark Steyn a few years ago for his views on Islam. But the good scientist may want to brush up on the U.S. Constitution before making such claims south of the border.
In April, Rochester Institute of Technology professor Lawrence Torcello argued that those who deny global warming are “criminally negligent” and that “the funding of climate denial” should be an imprisonable offense.

Read more:

L.M.A.O The Climate Change Fundamentalists., in persuading the rest of us the sky is falling is that they keep changing their explanations. L.M.A.O

Climate change fundamentalists are predicting an apocalypse. Human depredation in the form of unbridled materialism is the cause. Any dissent from the fundamentalists’ doomsday prophesies if their radical prescriptions to save humanity and Mother Earth are not followed is regarded as heresy. 

Charge the well-funded climate change “deniers” with committing “criminal negligence” for “their willful disregard for human life,” says Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. After all, heretics must be punished.

Stop job-creating energy independence initiatives such as the Keystone XL pipeline, says the former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, which he called the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Hansen was arrested during the course of a civil disobedience protest against the pipeline as he sat in front of a banner proclaiming, “Witness for Climate and Creation.” Who knew that a pipeline transporting oil to the United States, which would otherwise travel by rail or be shipped elsewhere such as to China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon gases, would upset God’s plan of creation?

Hansen co-authored with other like-minded scientists and economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia’s Earth Institute and adviser to the United Nations, a scare-mongering paper entitled “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.” The paper, published in December 2013, predicted “mass extinctions” of species and demanded “urgent change to our energy and carbon pathway to avoid dangerous consequences for young people and other life on Earth.” The authors moralized that human-caused climate change is on par with the evil of slavery. It represented inter-generational injustice, they said, for which they recommended there be legal remedies.

James Gustave Speth, formerly dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality from 1979 to 1981, wrote an indignant letter to the New York Times on May 13, 2014 complaining that the “United States’ response to the climate crisis has been beyond pathetic. It is probably the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic.” What is Speth’s solution? Ideally, as he described in his book Red Sky at Morning, he would like to see “a world environment agency entrusted with setting international standards and enforcing them against laggard countries.”

Even some scientists who agree that human-induced greenhouse gas buildup is a real problem policymakers should address believe that the climate change fundamentalists are going too far. For example, Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology, discussing his reaction to the Hansen-Sachs paper, said he was  “concerned about the presentation of such a prescriptive and value-laden work” in a piece that wasn’t marked as an opinion. Caldeira has also said, regarding the Keystone pipeline, that “I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect.”

Rather than providing balanced scientific data and reasoned analysis to persuade lay people of the potential adverse environmental consequences of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases with recommendations for practical incremental approaches to dealing with these consequences, the climate change fundamentalists reject any notion of a gradualist approach. As Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, explained: “Climate change is a fact. But apocalyptic thinking distorts the scientific debate and makes it harder to explain the causes and consequences of this fact, which in turn makes it harder to know how to deal with it.  The danger is that we become so infected with the apocalyptic virus that we end up creating a real catastrophe — the meltdown of our economies and lifestyles — in order to avoid an imaginary one.”

The doom merchants aim to shove radical economy-wrecking prescriptions down our throats by parading before us their version of the plagues – draught, intense rain storms, floods, fires, pestilence, very warm temperatures and very cold temperatures, all of which they attribute to human-caused climate change. The idea that some natural events may be random occurrences in a universe that far transcends human activity is foreign to the climate change fundamentalists who believe that Mother Earth itself is anthropomorphic.

One problem that the climate change fundamentalists have in persuading the rest of us the sky is falling is that they keep changing their explanations.  For example, the catchphrase “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when their computer models could not account for the fact that average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998.

There are intellectually honest scientists in climatology who are willing to admit something is going on that the computer models may have missed.  “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “Now it’s something to explain.”

However, the climate change fundamentalists rationalize that looking at ten or fifteen year trend lines is a waste of time. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” said Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists want it both ways.  Now they tell us that every unusual day-to-day weather phenomenon is a result of human-caused climate change.
Another problem for the climate change fundamentalists is that many of their prior doomsday predictions have not come true. In 1972, for example, Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen was reported in the Christian Science Monitor as predicting that a general warming trend over the North Pole “may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2,000.”

Al Gore, one of the original climate change prophets of doom, predicted in 2008 that the entire North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.
While the Arctic Sea ice extent has declined, it has far from disappeared. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Arctic sea ice extent for April 2014 was 14.14 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the record April monthly low, which occurred in 2007.”

Here is another dire prediction that did not quite come to pass. Michael Oppenheimer, the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, predicted in a book of his published in 1990: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”

The Platte River in Nebraska has not dried up, and the continent-wide black blizzard and computer shut downs have not materialized.

Moreover, the hyperbolic rhetoric we hear from climate change fundamentalists does not correspond with what we observe around us ourselves, nor with some relevant empirical data.

For example, the Obama administration recently released its National Climate Assessment. It gave several examples of what it claimed to be the drastically worsening effects of human- caused climate change during the last fifty years, stating that “Americans are noticing changes all around them.” Two such examples we are purportedly seeing play out in extreme weather aberrations right now according to the Obama administration’s Assessment:  “Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours…large increases in heavy precipitation have occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the capacity of storm drains and levees, and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion.”

People who shivered in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, during one of the ten coldest winters in those states since records were kept, would probably not agree with the Obama administration’s description of shorter, warmer winters. Indeed, large parts of the United States just experienced one of the longest and coldest winters in forty years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that overall, for the winter period from December 2013 through February 2014, the “contiguous U.S. experienced much drier and colder than average winter that ranked ninth driest and 34th coldest on record.”  Those records go back to 1895.

As for rainfall, we are certainly experiencing heavy downpours of rain. But this is not a phenomenon that has sprung up only in the last fifty years.

Anecdotally, the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, which began with extremely heavy rains in the central basin of the Mississippi in the summer of 1926, was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. This occurred more than seventy-five years ago, well outside the most recent fifty year period in which human activity supposedly created the weather conditions of very heavy precipitation and floods cited by the Obama administration’s National Climate Assessment as evidence of accelerating human-caused climate change here and now.  If the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 is not considered far enough back in time to put the Obama administration’s Assessment findings in perspective, then consider the Johnstown Flood Of 1889. More than eight inches of rain fell in less than a one day period, resulting in a flood that took more than 2000 lives.

As for empirical data, the following is a chart prepared by NOAA which shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation in any given year starting with 1895, which means it scored 2.0 or above on the annual Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). The thicker orange line shows a nine-year weighted average that smoothes out some of the year-to-year fluctuations.

The biggest spike was in 1940. The years 1910 and 2000 were nearly equal in terms of the percentage of land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation. There is no discernible accelerating upward trend line in the last fifty years.

Data source: NOAA, 2013
None of this is to deny that human activity worldwide contributes to climate change via the cumulative impact of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. The questions to be debated are the extent and imminence of the problem, as well as the best measures to deal with the problem without wrecking our economy in the process. This is where the climate change fundamentalists become unglued. They do not want a policy debate. They want immediate action on their terms. Anyone questioning their dogma is blackballed.

For example, a paper written by an eminent climate change researcher Professor Lennart Bengtsson and four other scientists, which challenged the basis for predictions regarding the speed of global warming, was recently rejected for publication in a scientific journal because it was said to be “less than helpful.” Professor Bengtsson, an author of over 200 papers and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology which has contributed to United Nations reports on climate change, was harassed for daring to question the received dogma. He said: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”

Through their excommunication of serious-minded scientists who dare to raise questions and their increasingly strident and dogmatic proclamations, the climate change fundamentalists are turning into Cassandras whose prophesies are being tuned out by the public. Sadly, they drown out more reasonable voices who can contribute positively to the public’s understanding of the multiple dimensions of climate change and sensible solutions.

Climate debate not settled but thugs and bullies out in Force, Teeth Showing

So thousands of scientists disagree with the IPCC, the evidence is not convincing.

Here is more on polling. You know that the claim of the green left is that 97 % of scientists are supposed to be convinced of anthropogenic warming of a catastrophic nature requiring immediate action if the world is to be saved.

Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition says.

"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong," the petition asserts. "No such consensus or settled science exists."

Over 9,000 of the petition's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.

For all the talk of "settled science," all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited "hockey stick" graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow.

Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises, leading to widespread flooding and death.

But those are all myths, according to the World Climate Report, whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.

Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best, and "after removing biases caused by urbanization, thermometer relocations, instrument changes, and so on, it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years" in the United States, the World Climate Report found. In fact, "aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930, when trace-gas concentrations were low, the trend is essentially zero."

The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and "based on the best available temperature records," the region has actually warmed only "about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860."

The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."

Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years."

Urgent: Assess Your Heart Attack Risk in Minutes. Click Here.

"We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."

As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."

What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears, owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies, other scientists and researchers say.

"We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds, including lobby groups and activist scientists," Susan Crockford, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria, Canada, said in a previously published statement.

"Many of these tales of imminent doom, however, have important facts left out, glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed," she said.

One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."

"They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."

Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence.

"The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies, declaring in his State of the Union address that "climate change is fact" and embracing the notion that the issue is "settled science."

White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that "97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity."

But even the White House's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate, as the Petition Project demonstrates.

Adherents of the "science-is-settled" argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.

The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.

In 2013, Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.

Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented, he said it was "not an accurate representation of my paper" and that it "would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009, showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters.

"Once you grasp who and what they are, their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense," Horner, an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics, told Newsmax.

However, daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues, often isolated and derided for their findings.

Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of "McCarthyist"-type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning, the Daily Mail reported.

Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in England, joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's claim that the Earth's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.

Bengtsson's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to "reduce the underlying uncertainty" of its findings.

"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models."

Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore, who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world's first "carbon billionaire" for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.

But to at least one environmental analyst, the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money.

"My basic argument is that climate change is an identity, and changing their mind about science means changing their identity," Myers told Newsmax, referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts.

"That's too much for people to do — to say 'I've been living a lie.' It's become all about who they are as a person, as their identity. And that's why the attacks have become so personal."

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Are global warming alarmists running out of ways to describe the certain destruction that will surely befall us?

t seems with every passing year these religious zealots try to one-up themselves by pushing the urgency envelope – from global warming to climate change to climate shift to climate destruction to climate catastrophe to climate chaos.

I read an article on May 14 that claimed in its headline that this past “April was the second warmest ever recorded.”
This obviously is supposed to scare us, and for some, who still believe this crap, it probably does. But as is usually the case with these articles meant to scare the general public, toward the end, it states that in the United States it was the 46th warmest. Now, that’s not very alarming is it?
It would be like two climate scientists standing in the kitchen – one next to the oven and the other well away from it. The headline would read, “Hottest Kitchen on Record,” because the researchers used only the temperature observed by the scientist standing beside the oven.
The fact is, these global warming clowns don’t really have a clue what the climate is going to be like even next year, much less 20 or 40 years from now. All they do – all they’ve ever done is make false claims from poorly designed computer models that can be manipulated to conclude anything they wish.

It’s all politics. It’s about money, and a boatload of it. It’s about power and control.
I used to think that at least some of these scientists and world leaders were actually true believers , that they really did trust and believe the theory of man caused warming. Not anymore.

Not when the French Foreign Minister stands up, flanked by our own Secretary of State, the haughty John Kerry, and has the stones to exclaim, “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Chaos? I thought that’s who Maxwell Smart, the Chief and Agent 99 battled in the 1960s sitcom “Get Smart.” Oh wait, that was “KAOS.” My mistake.
Yet it is a politician, or two politicians, who warn us of certain doom.

Actually, the 500-day figure simply works out to be the next “Climate Summit” in Paris, November 30, 2015. I think what this whole “Climate Change” thing is all about wanting to travel to all the best cities on the taxpayers dime for sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

As an aside – could these event organizers be any dumber? Why go to Paris in November or December? It’s likely to be freezing. Heck – go back to Rio or someplace it’s guaranteed to be “warm.” Sheesh!

Anyway, two days after I read the “Second Warmest April” article, I saw this. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a longtime and well respected meteorologist at Reading University in the UK, says his scientific reports questioning climate change are being blocked from publication by “activists.”

He and others call it a “poisonous atmosphere” where alarmists plot in secret to block those who question man-caused warming.

One unnamed “peer reviewer” of Bengtsson’s findings claimed it would generate bad publicity and have a “strongly negative” impact on climate change science.
Bengtsson said, “It’s an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the computer models.”
He claimed he was the target of a “witch-hunt” and that the pressure from pro-warming academics was “virtually unbearable.”

Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “Instead of serving as open-minded brokers of the contested field of climate science, most science editors have opted to take a dogmatic stance that no longer allows for open research.”
This is just one more nail in the coffin of climate alarmists. Climate change politics is just like any other right versus left argument.

The right questions the left’s motives, methods, and conclusions and the left attempts to shout them down, shut them up, isolate and discredit them – but interestingly, never refuting their findings.

It’s as if Saul Alinsky designed the whole “global warming” movement.
Rules for Climate Radicals.