Google+ Followers

Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Risky Business of Extreme Heat Hysteria

The Risky Business Project led by Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer recently released its report on “The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States.” The project’s co-chairs have all been out in the media promoting the project’s report, and—like sheep—the mainstream media have generally been uncritical of the report’s claims.

A core concern repeated throughout the Risky Business report is the predicted massive increase in what are termed “extremely hot days” (defined as days with a temperature exceeding 95°F) throughout the United States over the coming century due to anthropogenic climate change, and the resulting negative impacts of these increasingly numerous “extremely hot days” on the American economy.
Here are selections from the Risky Business report on the topic of extremely hot days:
“By the end of the century, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho could well have more days above 95°F each year than there are currently in Texas ...

The Southeast will also likely be hit hardest by heat impacts. Over the past 30 years, the average resident of this region has experienced about 8 days per year at 95°F or above. Looking forward, if we continue on our current emissions path, the average Southeast resident will likely experience an additional 17 to 52 extremely hot days per year by mid-century and an additional 48 to 130 days per year by the end of the century. That’s one and a half additional months of extreme heat each year.

This kind of weather could have serious economic impacts: Our research shows a decrease in labor productivity in high-risk sectors like construction, mining, utilities, transportation, agriculture and manufacturing of up to 3.2 percent by the end of the century in this region, and a smaller but still noticeable impact on labor productivity in low-risk sectors like retail trade and professional services.

We are also likely to see an additional 15 to 21 deaths per 100,000 people every year in this region over the course of the century due to increases in heat-related mortality, with urban residents at greater risk due to the heat island effect. At the current population of the Southeast, that translates into 11,000 to 36,000 additional deaths per year ...
In the southern states of the Great Plains region (Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas), our research shows an increase in extremely hot days. The average resident of these states experienced 39 days per year over 95°F in the past 30 years. This number will likely increase by 28 to 60 additional extremely hot days by mid-century and 60 to 114 days per year by the end of the century—for a total of between three and four months of additional extreme hot days per year ...
The average Northwest resident will likely go from experiencing only 5 days of 95°F or warmer temperatures per year on average for the past 30 years to an additional 7 to 15 extremely hot days by mid-century, and to an additional 18 to 41 extremely hot days by the end of the century. This represents an increase of 3 to 8 times the number of hot days for the region per year, which is a significant change from historic norms ...
Over the past 30 years, the average Southwest resident experienced 40 days per year of temperatures of 95°F or more. If we continue on our current path, by mid-century the average Southwest resident will likely see 13 to 28 additional extremely hot days. By the end of the century, this number will likely rise to an additional 33 to 70 days of extreme heat due to climate change. That translates to one to two additional months of days over 95°F each year within the lifetime of babies being born right now in this region—one of the fastest-growing in the United States.”
This sounds terrible. Mass death, destruction, and economic loss all because of exponential increases in the number of extremely hot days across the United States of America compared to what we’ve seen over the past three decades.
This led me to examine trends—or the lack thereof—in the number of extremely hot days in these regions “over the past 30 years.” Here are the results.
So only 11 percent of the 212 climate sub-regions have statistically significant increasing trends in the number of extremely hot days over the past 30 years—a period of time during which greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing rapidly, and during which the impacts of anthropogenic global warming should be most evident.
Neither the Midwest nor Northeast have any sub-regions with significant increasing trends. And in the Southeast, where the Risky Business report predicts literally tens-of-thousands of people will be dying each year due to anthropogenic climate change caused extreme heat related mortality during the 21st century, only 6 percent of the sub-regions have an increasing trend.
The region in and around Yuma, Arizona has what appears to be the most days above 95°F each year—at present—in the United States, and Arizona is projected to be ground zero for climate change induced extreme heat problems. Here are the number of extremely hot days per year in the Yuma area over the past three decades.
See an increasing trend? Certainly not. Actually, there is nearly a statistically significant declining trend (p~0.1).
As with the National Climate Assessment, there appears to be a major disconnect between predictions of extreme heat catastrophe in the Risky Business report and the actual climate trends we see in recent decades.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64145?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=44199610bc-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-44199610bc-297703129 

Friday, June 27, 2014

State Rep. Lenar Whitney, who is running for Congress in Louisiana, GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.

State Rep. Lenar Whitney, who is running for Congress in Louisiana, has released a new video proclaiming man-made global warming as "the biggest deception in the history of mankind, GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.



LENAR WHITNEY ANNOUNCES RUN FOR CONGRESS 

NEW ORLEANS - At the Republican Leadership Conference on Saturday, Lenar Whitney announced her candidacy for congress in Louisiana’s sixth congressional district. Whitney is currently a State Representative and also the Republican National Committee Woman from Louisiana. 

In her speech, Whitney declared, “I believe Republicans can make history, beginning in 2014. We have a chance to start a movement and that’s a movement I feel called to be a part of. That’s why today I am announcing my candidacy for United States Congress here in Louisiana.”

Whitney will join a growing field of Republicans seeking the seat. However, she will join State Senator Dan Claitor as the only other elected official seeking the office. 

“Several people have asked me to run for this seat because I have one of the most conservative voting records in the Louisiana House,” added Whitney. “I fully intend to join the growing ranks of conservatives in Congress and I think that is something people can count on, from my past performance. I think that’s the main reason people are calling for me to run,” said Whitney. 

The Legislative Session comes to a close on Monday. Whitney will hit the campaign trail on Tuesday morning. Her campaign website can be found now at www.LenarWhitney.com


In the video, Lenar Whitney says, "The global warming hoax is merely a strategy designed to give more power to the executive branch, while increasing taxes in a progressive plan to regulate every aspect of American life ­from our lightbulbs to our thermostats."

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Al Gore, Church of Global Warming delivers its latest, and perhaps most hilarious, apocalypse warning

The old adage, "it's not the heat, it's the humidity," will come into play more often and in more places because of climate change, with life-altering results in southern U.S. cities from Miami to Atlanta to Washington and even northern ones such as New York, Chicago and Seattle.
"As temperatures rise, toward the end of the century, less than an hour of activity outdoors in the shade could cause a moderately fit individual to suffer heat stroke," said climatologist Robert Kopp of Rutgers University, lead scientific author of the report. "That's something that doesn't exist anywhere in the world today."
That result emerges from the heat-and-humidity analysis in "Risky Business," the report on the economic consequences of climate change released on Tuesday. The analysis goes beyond other studies, which have focused on rising temperatures, to incorporate growing medical understanding of the physiological effects of heat and humidity, as well as research on how and where humidity levels will likely rise as the climate changes.
The body's capacity to cool down in hot weather depends on the evaporation of sweat. That keeps skin temperature below 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius). Above that, core temperature rises past 98.6F. But if humidity is also high, sweat cannot evaporate, and core temperature can increase until the person collapses from heat stroke.
"If it's humid you can't sweat, and if you can't sweat you can't maintain core body temperature in the heat, and you die," said Dr Al Sommer, dean emeritus of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and author of a chapter on health effects in the new report.
The highest heat-plus-humidity reading in the United States was in 1995 in Appleton, Wisconsin, when the outside temperature was 101F. While the Upper Midwest is not known for tropical conditions, climate research shows that it will experience more warming than lower latitudes as well as more humidity.
As a result, the deadliest heat-and-humidity combinations are expected to center around that region, with threads reaching to the Eastern Seaboard and islands of dangerous conditions along the northwest Pacific coast.
If climate change continues on its current trajectory, the report concluded, Midwesterners could see deadly heat-and-humidity pairings (which meteorologists call "wet-bulb temperature") two days every year by later this century.
"It will be functionally impossible to be outside, including for things like construction work and farming, as well as recreation," said climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University.
Even without killer humidity, heat waves are expected to take a larger and larger toll.

The Southeast is expected to be hit with an additional 17 to 52 extremely hot days per year by mid-century and an additional 48 to 130 days by 2100. That could prove deadly for thousands: "Risky Business" projects an additional 15 to 21 deaths per 100,000 people every year from the heat, or 11,000 to 36,000 additional deaths at current population levels.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-climatechange-economy-regions-idUSKBN0EZ0AI20140624

Al Gore inconvenient Lie.

al gore fiddled global warming data

Al Gore A Loon

al gore fiddled global warming data

The scandal of fiddled global warming data The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

al gore  fiddled global warming data




When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Al Gore Climate Cultists, Has Al Gore Global Warming Crusade Reached Its Waterloo?





The climate change crusaders, who have been at it for a quarter-century, appear to be going clinically mad. Start with the rhetorical monotony and worship of authority (“97 percent of all scientists agree!”), add the Salem witch trial-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters, and the categorical demand that debate about science or policy is over because the matter is settled, and you have the profile of a cult-like sectarianism that has descended into paranoia and reflexive bullying. Never mind the scattered and not fully suppressed findings of climate scientists that the narrative of catastrophic global warming is overstated, like nearly every previous predicted environmental apocalypse. It matters not. The recent crescendo of scary government climate reports and dutiful media alarm has paved the way for the Obama administration to throw its weight around in ways that would make Woodrow Wilson blush


Making sense of this tiresome issue requires stepping back for the long view. If you strip away all of the noise from smaller scientific controversies that clutter the debate—arctic ice, extreme weather events, droughts, and so forth—the central issue is climate sensitivity: How much will average global temperature increase from adding a given level of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere? The most recent “official” estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), given a doubling of greenhouse gases, is a planet 1.1 to 4.8 degrees Celsius warmer a century from now. On the low end of this range—up to as much as 2 degrees—warming would be no big deal, and possibly a net benefit. Warming on the high end of this range would present significant problems, requiring a number of responses. Narrowing the range of outcomes is therefore the most pressing climate science question. Everything else is a sideshow.

It may well be that it can’t be done. Right now the IPCC can’t settle on a best-guess estimate within the 1.1‑4.8 degree range, though a number of scenarios for the year 2100 cluster around 2 degrees of warming. This is nearly the same range and best guess as the previous four reports of the IPCC stretching back to 1990. More astonishing, this range differs little from that proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It was Arrhenius, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1903, who first supplied the basic equation that forms the basis for modern climate models. Working without a computer, he estimated a range of climate sensitivity from a doubling of greenhouse gases of 1.6 to about 5 degrees Celsius, with a best guess of about 2.1 degrees.
In other words, despite billions spent on climate research and the development of enormously complex computer models, we are no closer to predictive precision than we were 110 years ago. The computer models are still too crude and limited, especially about the crucial question of water vapor “feedbacks” (clouds in ordinary language), to spit out the answers we’re looking for. We can fiddle with the models all we want, and perhaps end up with one that might produce a correct prediction, but we can never be sure so long as our understanding of water vapor behavior remains sketchy. 
While climate skeptics are denounced for mentioning “uncertainty,” the terms “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appear 173 times, while “error” and “errors” appear 192 times, in the 218-page chapter on climate models in the latest IPCC report released last September. As the IPCC admits, “there remain significant errors in the model simulation of clouds. It is very likely that these errors contribute significantly to the uncertainties in estimates of cloud feedbacks and consequently in the climate change projections.” The IPCC’s latest report rates the confidence of our understanding of clouds and aerosols as “low,” and allows that it is possible that clouds could cancel out most of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. If anything, our uncertainty about future climate change has increased with each new IPCC report.

The IPCC modeling chapter, which virtually no reporter reads, is also candid in admitting that most of the models have overpredicted recent warming. The 17-years-and-counting plateau in global average temperature, following two decades of a nearly 0.4 degree increase in temperature that boosted the warming narrative for a time, is the biggest embarrassment for a supposed scientific “consensus” since Piltdown Man. The basic theory says we’re supposed to continue warming at about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but since the late 1990s we’ve stopped. In one of the infamous emails revealed in the East Anglia “climategate” scandal of 2009, Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist, called it a “travesty” that scientists couldn’t give a good reason for the pause. They’ve been scrambling ever since, offering a variety of explanations, but none of them can minimize the fact that nearly all of the models failed to predict a “pause” of this length, and if the “pause” continues for another 5 to 10 years, all of the models will be falsified.

Where is the missing heat? The climateers are certain it is going into the deep ocean, and while this is a plausible theory, we have very little data to substantiate the hypothesis, and still less understanding of how this might play out in the future if it is happening. If the El Niño (warmer than average surface temperatures in the Pacific) predicted for this coming year is as big as some current data suggest, we may well see a global temperature spike commensurate with the El Niño-related spike of 1998. The specific effects of high El Niño years are hard to predict, but if there is an El Niño-related spike next year, you can be sure the climate campaigners will loudly proclaim that “the pause is over!” But this would obfuscate rather than clarify the reasons for the pause. Other explanations for the pause include western Pacific wind patterns, aerosols, and solar variation. (This last explanation is ironic, since the climateers have been adamant up to now that solar variation plays very little role in climate change.) Some or all of these may be factors, but the difficulty the climate community is having provides reason to doubt their grasp of a matter we are consistently assured is “settled.”
The temperature plateau and the persistent limitations and errors of the computer models strongly suggest the kind of “anomalies” that Thomas Kuhn famously explained should constitute a crisis for dominant scientific theories. What’s more, several papers recently published in the peer-reviewed literature conclude climate sensitivity is much lower than previously thought, making the problem of climate change much less likely to be catastrophic and more likely to be easily managed. But with the notable exceptions of the Economist and straight-shooting New York Times science blogger Andrew Revkin, these heterodox findings, which have steadily eroded the catastrophic climate change narrative, have received almost no media attention.
Despite all this, there has been not even the hint of a second thought from the climateers, nor any reflection that their opinions or strategies could bear some modification. The environmental community is so deeply invested in looming catastrophe that it’s difficult to envision a scientific result that would alter their cult-like bearing. Rather than reflect, they deflect, blaming the Koch brothers, the fossil fuel industry, and Republican “climate deniers” for their lack of political progress. Yet organized opposition to climate change fanaticism is tiny compared with the swollen staffs and huge marketing budgets of the major environmental organizations, not to mention the government agencies around the world that have thrown in with them on the issue. The main energy trade associations seldom speak up about climate science controversies. The major conservative think tanks have no climate change programs to speak of. The Cato Institute devotes just two people to the issue. The main opposition to climate fanaticism is confined to the Heartland Institute, the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a scattering of relentless bloggers who have acquired surprisingly large readerships. That’s it. These are boutique operations next to the environmental establishment: The total budgets for all of these efforts would probably not add up to a month’s spending by just the Sierra Club. And yet we are to believe that this comparatively small effort has kept the climate change agenda at bay. It certainly keeps climateers in an uproar.


Instead of confronting the fact that their cause has foundered mostly of its own dead weight—and the sheer fantasy of proposals for near-term replacement of hydrocarbon energy—the climate campaigners have steadily ratcheted up their bad-faith arguments and grasping authoritarianism. The result is a catalogue of exaggerated claims and appalling clichés, the most egregious being the refrain that “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change.” This dubious talking point elides seamlessly into the implication that scientists should strive for unanimity and link arms in full support of the environmentalists’ carbon-suppression agenda. 
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, two-thirds of the articles expressed no opinion about the human causation of climate change, while the one-third that did were twisted by Cook into a simpleminded tautology: Among all the scientists who agree with the “consensus” are all of the scientists who agree with the consensus. Cook, incidentally, refused to share how he and his graduate students coded the 11,000 abstracts, which is reminiscent of the East Anglia cabal and their withholding of tree ring data. But as with the East Anglia group, someone at the University of Queensland left the data on the Internet, where blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. The predictable happened: The University of Queensland claimed that the data had been hacked, and sent Shollenberger a cease-and-desist letter. Nothing bespeaks confidence and transparency like the threat of lawsuits. 
The only real surprise about Cook’s conclusion is that the number wasn’t 100 percent, since a human role in climate change is acknowledged by every single prominent climate skeptic including Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen. Studies like Cook’s seek to establish something that virtually no one is arguing. The real argument is over how much future warming is reasonable to expect. Lindzen, Michaels, and others think that we’ve seen most of the temperature increase we’re likely to see, even with further increases in greenhouse gas levels.
The climate establishment refuses to argue the matter. Instead, it has stepped up its vilification and intimidation of any scientist who expresses the slightest deviation from their increasingly narrow orthodoxy. Nate Silver, the celebrated wunderkind who left the New York Times to found FiveThirtyEight, summoned forth the full fury of the climateers when he enlisted Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado to write about climate change and natural disasters. Pielke is no climate skeptic, but he is scrupulous about the data and rightly annoyed when the climate establishment exaggerates data on extreme weather disasters like hurricanes for political purposes.
But Pielke’s treatment (FiveThirtyEight commissioned a rebuttal to his article) was mild compared with that of Len-nart Bengtsson, a prominent Swedish meteorologist with a long record in climate science circles. Despite being a fixture of the climate establishment, including serving as director of Germany’s prestigious Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bengtsson has always been cautious and warned against “oversimplification” and politicization of climate change. As far back as 1990 Bengtsson astutely noted:
In case of the greenhouse effect there is an interaction between media, politics and science. Every group pushes the other groups. Science is under pressure because everyone wants our advice. However, we cannot give the impression that a catastrophe is imminent. The greenhouse effect is a problem that is here to stay for hundreds of years. Climate experts should have the courage to state that we are not yet sure. What is wrong with making that statement clear and loudly?
Last year he wrote online:
In the very emotional climate debate today is it hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes .  .  . you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations. Some of our colleagues are exposed to a powerful group pressure or that of a politically correct boss. The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away.
That much dissent might have been tolerated, but when Bengtsson agreed early last month to join the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), it was a step too far. His affiliation lasted barely a week. The news of his joining the GWPF generated a firestorm of attacks. Bengtsson wrote on May 14 to GWPF chairman David Henderson to withdraw his affiliation:
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. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
In response to a query about the pressure campaign, Bengtsson declined to offer more detail, emailing only that “the field of climate change has been politically distorted to a degree that I was not aware of. I very much regret this, as I am afraid that this is harming the scientific independence of climate research and perhaps for science in general.”
It is clear that the climate establishment has become as narrowly intolerant as any department of gender studies on a college campus, and for much the same reason. The frenetic publicity campaigns of recent months—the hyped reports of imminent climate catastrophe and the serial exaggerations of the prognosis of the West Antarctic ice sheet, polar bear numbers, extreme weather events, and so forth—were designed to provide unstoppable momentum behind the Obama administration’s remarkable assertion of executive power unveiled on June 2: regulations aimed at putting coal-fired electricity in the course of ultimate extinction in the United States. 
Using the authority of the Clean Air Act improvidently granted by the Supreme Court in 2007, the EPA is proposing a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by the year 2030. But the proposal masks a lot of mischief. In a remarkable scheme of indirect regulation, the EPA doesn’t plan to restrict emissions from any individual coal plant, because such an approach might be open to a legal challenge. In fact, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy went out of her way to emphasize that coal-fired power would still constitute a major source of energy in 2030. States are promised “flexibility,” which could include setting up their own cap and trade system or joining an existing regime, such as the northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or California’s cap and trade program.
The EPA has taken great care to construct a complicated scheme that provides plausible deniability that they are targeting coal, even though everyone knows that is the object of the exercise. The centerpiece of the scheme is a different carbon-intensity standard for each state based on its current energy profile. In this way, coal-dependent states such as Indiana and Ohio, both of which get more than 80 percent of their electricity from coal, don’t appear to be disproportionately hit. The EPA’s “flexibility” consists of leaving states and electric utilities with a “menu” of options to reach the targets, such as higher plant efficiency, conservation, and more renewable power. But the EPA strategy will constrict the economic prospects of coal-fired power such that utilities will simply shut down coal plants on their own. And if states like Indiana and Ohio calculate that the easiest way to reach their targets is to buy emissions credits from other states through a cap and trade scheme, it will amount to a wealth transfer mostly from red states to the blue states that have gone whole hog for renewable energy subsidies.
What will it all cost? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce puts the price tag at more than $50 billion a year, while the EPA and environmentalists preposterously claim the scheme will actually reduce energy costs for consumers, even though they can’t point to a single state where their vaunted renewables have reduced energy costs. To the contrary, most states with aggressive renewable energy plans have higher than average electricity rates. One half-expected Gina McCarthy to say on June 2, “If you like your utility rates, you can keep your utility rates.” But the truth is, it will be very expensive. As Obama himself admitted in a rare moment of candor to the San Francisco Chronicle in early 2008,  “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants .  .  . would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
The EPA’s is a clever and devious approach, and once again it is necessary to step back and take the wide view. Back when a cap and trade bill was pending before Congress in 2009 and 2010, the EPA and environmental organizations all said that cap and trade was by far preferable to trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which was designed for very different kinds of conventional air pollution problems. The Clean Air Act was too slow and cumbersome, it was said, to use for climate change. In retrospect, this appears to have been a “please don’t throw me into that briar patch” argument. The ambitious and complicated EPA rule announced last week essentially establishes the EPA as the master-regulator of the electricity sector of the entire nation, and it clearly intends to use its newly asserted power. One of the EPA’s fact sheets says it expects “extensive and very rapid changes in the structure of the power sector.” In practice, state public utility commissions will now be under the detailed supervision of the EPA, and the case-by-case “flexibility” the EPA stresses today will become the arbitrary dictates of tomorrow. 
This overriding fact can be deduced from two aspects of the 645-page rule that largely escaped media notice. First, the rule chooses 2005 as the baseline year from which to reduce emissions 30 percent. But power sector emissions are already more than 10 percent below 2005 levels, the result chiefly of the recession of the last half-decade and the emergence of cheap natural gas-fired power that has displaced some coal plants purely for market reasons. In other words, the 30 percent target is less than meets the eye. Why are environmentalists so giddy over the EPA’s slow and indirect strategy, which is modest compared with the emissions cut they say is necessary (their cherished 2009 Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, killed in the Senate, had an 80 percent target)?
This puzzle deepens when a second odd aspect of the EPA proposal is brought to light. The EPA touts enormous health benefits from its emissions targets, all of them from reducing conventional air pollution such as ozone smog and fine particles. But there is one benefit conspicuously missing: There is no claim that the regulations will affect climate change. If anyone bothers to run full compliance with the new regulations through one of the computer climate models, the temperature difference in the year 2100 would be perhaps .02 degrees Celsius. It would be novel if a reporter had the wit to ask the White House how much warming will be prevented in the year 2100 by the full implementation of the new EPA policy, and then sit back and enjoy the tap dancing.
Anyone who seriously thinks climate change is an imminent crisis threatening humanity will scoff at the EPA’s proposed policy, but there has been barely a peep from the climate establishment. Al Gore gave away the game when he used the term “symbolic” to describe the EPA proposal. But the environmental movement is nothing if not persistent and patient. Environmentalists surely hope that once the EPA’s authority is firmly established and the regulations are up and running, a 30 percent reduction can be ratcheted up to 50 percent, then 75 percent, and so forth, reaching 100 percent at some point—all on the authority of the EPA alone. Congress can be completely bypassed. (By the way, the natural gas sector shouldn’t celebrate that the EPA scheme will increase demand for gas-fired electricity because they will be next on the EPA chopping block.) But although this would be a devastating blow to the U.S. economy, it still won’t make much difference to the planet’s prospects according to climate orthodoxy, unless the rest of the world achieves a similar reduction.
Given that Congress would never approve such a regulatory scheme were it proposed as legislation, has the Obama administration finally gone too far with its aggressive assertion of unilateral executive power? Could this step prove to be the Waterloo of the climate campaign? Coming on top of the commandeering of the states by Obamacare, this energy plan is likely to excite serious blowback from states. Demanding that the EPA’s plan be put to a vote of Congress might be a shrewd campaign theme in states with close House and Senate races this fall.
After all the sound and fury of the last few months, where does the issue of climate change stand? The cruel irony for the climateers is that the more they hype the apocalypse of future climate change, the more farcically inadequate are their proposed remedies. Global primary energy demand is going to double over the next generation, and there is no one who thinks hydrocarbons—especially coal—aren’t going to play a large role in providing this energy, especially in developing nations. While the EPA tries to shut down most or all of our more than 500 remaining coal plants, there are currently more than 1,000 coal plants under construction elsewhere in the world. If catastrophic climate change is somewhere in our future, the only serious remedy is to deploy new sources of affordable and abundant non- or low-carbon energy. The EPA plan does little in service of a serious energy transition; to the contrary, to the extent that it props up the inferior current renewable technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass, it will retard serious efforts to develop breakthrough energy sources.
The real “deniers” today are the climateers who refuse to consider that their case for catastrophe has weakened even as they promote unserious solutions that do little or nothing to stimulate the genuine energy transition they say they want. Their default position continues to be simpleminded exaggeration or distortion of every possible angle for political gain. 
The best opinion polls from Pew and Gallup show that the public doesn’t buy it and is suffering from a case of “apocalypse fatigue.” The rank politicization of the issue and the relentless demonization of any critics within the scientific community are a catastrophe for science and debilitating for serious deliberation about policy. But the left is so far gone into climate madness, and the Democratic party so beholden to its green faction, that they are likely to persist in their inordinate fear of the Keystone pipeline, natural gas fracking, and the extraordinary revival of American oil production, all of which, in a relatively unmolested market, would tend to displace coal. Absent an unusual level of political resolve from Congress, the climate campaign may yet succeed in hobbling the electric power sector in America. That would be a high price to pay for indulging a fanatical movement that in every other respect must be reckoned a pernicious failure. 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-cultists_794401.html?page=3

Al Gore compares climate change to the civil rights movement at Princeton











i must have missed something-when did al sell his jet and 2 of his 3 mansions-and i'm sure he donated his speaking fee,you know income inequality and all




Al Gore compared the fight against climate change to the civil rights movement, and called on Princeton graduates to help to do their part at the university’s annual Class Day.
Gore said that American society must agree that there is a problem before it can move to make a change. He recalled a childhood memory in the South about a friend who made a racist remark; his other friends were quick to tell the student to “shut up,” and informed him that such thinking was no longer acceptable.
“They are merchants of doubt who present falsehoods in an effort to confuse people."    
In the same way, Gore suggested progress can be made for climate change through changing the discussion.
“After the conversation was changed, the laws were changed,” said Gore.
Similarly, Gore remembered another conversation, when he was a student-nominee member   at the board of Harvard trying to stop apartheid. 
“It took some time, and the administration didn’t want to go along with that, but over time it was seen as the right thing to do,” said Gore. “So there will be a conversation, not only about divestment or the EPA’s announcement today, but about the future of human civilization, and I’m going to ask you to help win that conversation.” 
Though Gore declared that decisions must be made “on the basis of reason and the best available evidence,” he warned against those who are skeptical on scientific evidence of global warming.
“They are merchants of doubt who present falsehoods in an effort to confuse people to the point where they can’t recognize the truth,” said Gore. “They are doing exactly what the tobacco companies did 40 years ago, they hired actors and dressed them up as doctors.”
Instead, Gore advised students to take a firm position on the issue, arguing that “[t]he will to act is itself a renewable resource.”
Gore was appointed by the senior student body to speak and was made an honorary member of the class of 2014. Typically, the speaker for Class Day is a Princeton alum; however, Gore is a graduate of Harvard.
Class Day co-chair Teddy Schleifer praised the former vice president’s work on the issue.
“Before Al Gore, combating climate change was an issue considered by academics alone. Now, it’s a generational calling that will define the 21st century,” Schleifer said on the university's website.
But Princeton College Republicans president Evan Draim told Campus Reform that Gore’s speech was not only highly political, but representative of what is happening in college campuses across the nation.
“I think this represents a trend in college commencement speeches where liberal speakers such as Gore are given the opportunity to talk, while conservative speakers like Condoleezza Rice are silenced,” said Draim. “Hopefully moving forward there will be more tolerance and freedom of speech in higher education.”
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5671&advD=1248,355761

Agenda 21 – Forcing People Out of Our Wilderness, Our Precious Land!

Read, forward to all on your lists, and be VERY AFRAID.
Anti-human earth-worshippers have co-opted our environmental agencies, and are forcing new animal and habitat protection laws and regulations upon every man, woman, and child in California and America. These laws carry felony status criminality and severe penalties including imprisonment.
The latest, and most threatening to humans, is the re-introduction and protection of wolves in California. They are elevated above human status and, if you shoot one, you will be arrested and charged, and remanded for trial to determine if your actions were, in fact, justifiable self-defense (no, you cannot kill one because it is attacking your livestock or pets).
This isn’t about “balancing” the ecosystem, or protecting wildlife, as wolves are responsible for massive decimation of mammal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and entire herds of farm animals. This is about driving humans out of rural and wilderness areas. Why pay Fish & Game officers, when wolves are far more effective at ridding rural areas of humans; and also work for FREE.
I encourage you to watch the short documentaries listed below on the facts about the experiments to reintroduce wolves in other states, and the incredible devastation they have caused to the environment and to other animals and humans. It is mind-boggling that, knowing these historical facts and failures, they would push ahead to do it now in California.
We need to mount a huge push-back on this.
Marc
From: dbacigalupi@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:14:36 -0700
Yesterday, a few of us attended the June 4th California Fish & Game Commission’s public hearing all the way in Fortuna, CA on “listing” (under the California Endangered Species Act) the Gray Wolf (introduced from Canada (and eventually Mexico)) as “endangered”. California Department of Fish and Wildlife reps (Chuck Bonham and Karen Kovacs) discussed their efforts on the California Wolf Action Plan … 100% a waste of time as the Wolf Action (“management”) Plan does not matter anymore even though Chuck said they will likely still work on the “management plan.” My testimony…nervous, angry, and discombobulated as it was, starts somewhere around 2:25:00 (video link further down).
Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Luke 10-3
We lost!! And our loss is just the beginning…
It is a fact, packs of wolves are coming to Northern California and eventually into the Sierra Nevadas, Yosemite, Mammoth Lakes … and wherever else they are “introduced” and “invited” to take care of the ungulates (and other large hoofed animals) and “balance” our supposed “out of balance ecosystem” where “species are disappearing at record numbers” and “lack of biodiversity” is causing “climate change.” Here’s how they [government introduced wolves] have “balanced” the ecosystem in Yellowstone: “in 1995 when [Canadian gray] wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park, the elk herd numbered more than 19,000 animals. The count in 2009 was just a little over 6,000 elk.” (The Real Wolf, 2014. p7). The moose are also on the decline to a point where JD King (CryingWolfMovie.com) fears the loss will force the moose onto the endangered species list as well. During the same time the elk herd dropped considerably in Yellowstone, the moose population dropped from 1,000 to almost zero. Nice balance, eh?
Many of us have seen the black wolf (or wolves) on 97 near Weed, CA and others have seen them in the Dorris, CA area. There is NO stopping it [them] now…hybrids, crosses, new breeds, etc, but save for several humans (i.e. children) being attacked and killed.
As F&G Commissioner Michael Sutton (appointed by Jerry Brown, an enviro law professor at Vermont Law School who requires his students to read the Rio Declaration on the “Precautionary Approach” as well as the UN’ Convention on the Laws of the Sea Treaty {syllabus link}, and exec dir of Audubon with a history of anti-hunting quotes) suggested in his decision making testimony… Gray Wolves are the most iconic symbol to the Western United States.
WHAT?!?!?! I don’t recall growing up and hearing about gray wolves and their symbolism to the Great West … it is NOT a beast I would describe as “iconic”…but what do I know.
One pro-wolfer even suggested coyotes be protected because too many wolves are being mistaken for a coyote and therefore killed.
Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn to pieces because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased. Jeremiah 5:6
Furthermore, now a wolf from Canada, somehow transplanted into Oregon, and happened to meander into California has more Federal and State protection than we citizens and taxpayers. And OR-7′s offspring will have more protection than your children and grandchildren.
Additionally, we hear that the Oregon’s wolf “re-introduction” program is a success. OR-7 has become the darling of every radical leftists, to media outlets, including our own state agencies. If that is so, and Oregon’s program is a success, then why in the hell is OR-7 traveling further south and into California? If their wolf program is such a success then shouldn’t OR-7 be completely satisfied with the available ungulates [food/game/prey] in Oregon????
This now protected apex predator — carrying as many as 50 different parasites that cause many different diseases including deadly ones to wildlife, pets, and humans — is a killing machine for sustenance and sport. They average 4 to 7 pups in a litter, there can be as many as 40 members in a pack, they can travel up to 5 to 10 miles per hour and will travel 50 miles in a day, are known to mate with dogs and coyotes, and are NOW protected in California. You shoot or “disturb”…you are guilty until proven innocent (by their peers (the wolves’ peers (DFW, USFWS, F&G)…not yours), will be fined (up to $100,000), and/or thrown in jail. SSS doesn’t work when the wolves have government necklaces (collars) and earrings (tags) and are tracked instantaneously on camera and gps and via programs like http://www.argos-system.org/web/en/50-tracking-and-monitoring.php Tracking and Monitoring – Argos www.argos-system.org.
States like Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana have been forewarning us … and too few showed up to the few meetings that were held by CA F&G, CA F&W, and USFWS…or too few even took the time to comment. On the other hand, radical NGOs like Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, EPIC, Unions, Sierra Club, and students from radical liberal schools showed up consistently and in masses (100s of people at a time) with pro wolf trainings leading up to the meetings and public comment in the MILLIONS. They cried, they sang, they howled, they wore costumes, they had their dogs send in paw prints, they had their elementary students creating artwork, they wore t-shirts, wolf masks, wolf hats and more.
“Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat.” Habakkuk 1:8
Some may argue that the decision to “invite” wolves into California was already a done deal so it didn’t matter if we showed up or not. But I beg to differ; WHAT DIFFERENCE THOUSANDS of farmers, ranchers, campers, hikers, runners, cyclists, parents, teachers, doctors, vets, veterans, children, students, lawyers, skiers, mountain bikers, land owners, realtors, documentary filmmakers, Christians, gun owners, politicians, CONCERNED CITIZENS etc. WOULD HAVE MADE if WE were present…never mind the millions of written public comment. I know if we created an in-person counter spectacle … we wouldn’t have just gotten thrown to the wolves so quickly nor easily … LITERALLY!!
Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. Ezekiel 22:27
Here’s the Cal-SPAN page where you can watch the F&G Commission hearing and public testimony. The wolf issue was the first item and lasted just shy of 3 hours. The final decision is right around 2:50:00 – witness yourself how they came to their decision. You may need to let it download completely before being able to fast forward thru. http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG
Note, Michael Sutton, the lead guy, was recently appointed as Exec Dir. of Audubon and proudly wore is Audubon/Patagonia vest when not parading as dictator en masse. Audubon is keen on land grabs using “endangered” “species” as that vehicle (and our money)…whether Conservation Easements, forced regulation, lobbying efforts, or invited as a “stakeholder” or onto a Fed/State “peer” review panel…it’s a one way show against the small, private, landowners, farmers, ranchers, mom&pop taxpaying businesses.
http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG
For the truth about the impact of wolves, see these videos:
Wolvesingovernmentclothing.com ; youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPZXevpiGBg
Crying Wolf http://cryingwolfmovie.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/Rockholm66
For the truth, order and read these books:
The Real Wolf http://www.therealwolf.com
Wolves in Russia http://www.wolvesinrussia.com
For an informative website with great scientific research and the truth about wolves:
Idaho for Wildlife http://www.idahoforwildlife.com
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15
I found this…and thought it was perfect…
“As we Believers go forth into this wolf-infested world, let us be at least as smart as they are!
Don’t fail to learn their cunning tactics! Don’t let them sneak up on you! Don’t let them out of your sight! When they “gang up” watch them ever so closely!
Be “wise as serpents!”
Let’s not allow that ungodly crowd to be “wiser” than we are! After all, we Believers have the Holy Spirit of God at our side (and indwelling us too)!
Yet … also be “harmless as doves.”
We will be around wolves … but not mixing with them or becoming like them!
Still untainted with sin, let us live “harmless” lifestyles!
As pure as “doves!”
Be Spirit filled folks … especially when you’re around those wolves!
And, armed with such weapons — the Wisdom of God and the Purity of the Holy Spirit — we cannot be eternally harmed … even by wolves!”
(attached, a couple photos I took two days ago of Roosevelt Elk … our Elk population is a mere 7,000 so what are the Canadian Gray Wolves going to eat, chase, terrorize, disease after they demolish that herd?)
Godspeed.
Debbie Bacigalupi, MBA, CS, CMP
Independent Consultant


http://octeapartyblog.com/2014/06/12/agenda-21-forcing-people-out-of-our-wilderness-our-precious-land/