Google+ Followers

Monday, August 31, 2015

Sea Level Rise Alarm Turned Off? NOAA: “Absolute Global Sea Level Rise Is Believed To Be 1.7 – Algore And Obama stop their lies?

The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century. A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.”
Hurry up and read it before this gets taken down! To be on the safe side I’ve cut out the location of interest:
NOAA sea level
So many among us have severely criticized the various institutes for hyper-hyping the dubious, and some even say manipulated, satellite data showing a rise of over 3 – while tide gauges as the NOAA writes above indicate no such thing.
Expect this site to get wiped out.
- See more at:

Al Gore Environmental Defense Fund raises money by lying about global warming.

Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions to get attention and raise money, but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may have set a new low. The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers. 
EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook. Each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make! Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmists’ playbook.
Alarmist Assertion #1
“Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.” 
The Facts
Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year in the United States alone.1 This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3 percent of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30 percent of U.S. electricity production would likely mean annual bat kills of 10 to 30 million. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense. 
Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator. To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night. 
Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years.2 Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wave that occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? 
Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent warming.3 
Alarmist Assertion #2
“Lyme Disease Spreads – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.” 
The Facts
Lyme disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions.4Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientists extensively researched Lyme disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal EcoHealth, “the only environmental variable consistently associated with increased [Lyme disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.”5 
Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally – and properly – viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists’ proclivity to claim anything and everything – no matter how beneficial – is severely harmful and caused by global warming. 
Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.”6 According to the CDC, Lyme disease is a contributing factor in fewer than 25 deaths per year in the United States. During a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme disease.”
Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year.7 The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate.8 Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climate’s propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving. 
Alarmist Assertion #3
“National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.” 
The Facts
The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Facts refute both assertions.
Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms.9 Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As repeatedly documented in my columns,10 global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security. 
The same holds true for water supplies. Data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank.11 If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, then global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world.
Alarmist Assertion #4
“Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.” 
The Facts
The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the twentieth century, even as global temperatures gradually rose.12 There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Using twentieth century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. With twenty-first century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise. 
Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.13 
Alarmist Assertion #5
“Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”
The Facts
Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth. Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen.
NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions.14 For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it. 
Alarmist Assertion #6
“Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.” 
The Facts
Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by real-world data.
As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters.15 One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists’ propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place on truthful debate. 
Scientific data verify winters are not getting colder, countering the key prerequisite to EDF’s pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades.16 Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States.17 
Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States.18 Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that pine beetles are “destroying iconic Western forests” when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms. 
Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska.19 
Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles.
Alarmist Assertion #7
“Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”
The Facts
Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life are a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency of people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. But global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.
Alarmist Assertion #8
“Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease” 
The Facts
Severe storms, floods, and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms.20 Accordingly, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits. 
As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and at, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams.21 Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.22 
Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF. 
Regarding “the spread of disease,” as documented in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses.
Additionally, the alarmists’ desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions – more expensive energy sources – make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Barack Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The economic consequences of Obama’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history. Remarkably, Obama’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices. 
Alarmist Assertion #9
“Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.” 
The Facts
Outbreaks of “new or resurgent diseases” are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage
during the mid-twentieth century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving
mosquito killer throughout much of the world. As a result, malaria has re-emerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result.23 
Also, as documented above in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme disease (which, as documented above, isn’t even related to global warming). 
Alarmist Assertion #10
“Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.” 
The Facts
Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg – no matter how large – breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers” as EDF alleges. 
To the contrary, the Antarctic ice sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the ice sheet in 1979. During the same year EDF claims “an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago” broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused “Shrinking Glaciers,” the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history.24 Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than at any time in recorded history, yet EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking.
EDF’s assertion about Glacier National Park is also misleading. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park and elsewhere have been receding for more than 300 years, since the Earth’s temperature bottomed out during the depths of the Little Ice Age.25 The warming of the past 300 years and the resulting recession of alpine glaciers predated humans building coal-fired power plants and driving SUVs. Moreover, opening up more of the Earth’s surface to vegetation and plant and animal life would normally be considered a beneficial change, if global warming alarmists had not so thoroughly politicized the global warming discussion. 
There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong. 
No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate. 
James M. Taylor ( is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001 – 2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
1.         “U.S. Wind Turbines Kill 1.4 Million Birds and Bats Every Year,” Environment & Climate News, July 24, 2013,
2.         “Rainfall and Temperature Records,” Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology,
3.         James Taylor, “Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme,”, May 8, 2013,
4.         “Lyme Disease,” U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
5.         Mary E. Killilea et al., “Spatial Dynamics of Lyme Disease: A Review,” EcoHealth 5 (2): 167–195, June 5, 2008,
6.         Kiersten J. Kugeler et al., “A Review of Death Certificates Listing Lyme Disease as a Cause of Death in the United States,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, February 1, 2011,
7.         “The Reason for the Season: why flu strikes in winter,” Science in the News, December 1, 2014,
8.         “NIH Scientists Offer Explanation for Winter Flu Season,” U.S. National Institutes of Health, March 2, 2008,
9.         James Taylor, “Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records,”, January 16, 2013,
10.       See, for example, James Taylor, “Global Warming Is Creating Perfect Crop Conditions,”, March 23, 2011,; James Taylor, “Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records,”, January 16, 2013,; and James Taylor, “Wheat Production Sets New Records Thanks To Global Warming,”, December 26, 2014,
11.       Thomas G. Huntington, “Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis,” Journal of Hydrology 319 (2006): 83–95,
12.       J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean, “Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses,” Journal of Coastal Res. 27 (3) (2011),
13.       “Global Sea Ice Area,” The Cryosphere Today, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Polar Research Group, accessed February 8, 2015 at
14.       James Taylor, “Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing ‘Global Greening,’”, July 10, 2013,
15.       “Is global warming causing COLDER winters? Melting ice is destabilising the polar vortex, study claims,” UK Daily Mail, September 16, 2014,
16.       James Taylor, “20 Years Of Winter Cooling Defy Global Warming Claims,”, April 30, 2014,
17.       “Pine beetle epidemic slows in Wyoming,” Billings Gazette, February 17, 2014, and “Aerial Survey Shows Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Declining, Spruce Beetle Numbers Escalating,” U.S. Forest Service, January 30 2014,
18.       James Taylor, “Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing ‘Global Greening,’”, July 10, 2013,
19.       “The Spruce Beetle,” Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 127, U.S. Forest Service,
20.       James Taylor, “Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme,”, May 8, 2013,
21.       Thomas G. Huntington, “Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis,” Journal of Hydrology 319 (2006): 83–95,
22.       “Floods of the Upper Midwest United States: A 75-Year History,” CO2 Science,
23.       “Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths,”,
24.       “Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly,” The Cryosphere Today, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Polar Research Group, accessed February 8, 2015 at
25.       “Testimony of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu Before the United States Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts, April 26, 2006,

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Obama Global Warming Fear Mongering threatens US 'right now' Yes Obama, Your Right Your Global Warming Fear Mongering Dose Threatens US 'Right Now

In fact, Alaska’s governor recently told me that four villages are in ‘imminent danger’ and have to be relocated,” he said, citing Gov. Bill Walker (I). “Already, rising sea levels are beginning to swallow one island community.”
“Think about that,” Obama added. “If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
Obama’s remarks come as he gears up for a three-day tour of Alaska starting Monday.
He argued Saturday that the state is already beset by natural disasters and economic paid associated with harmful climate change.
“Alaskans are already living with its effects,” Obama said. “More frequent and extensive wildfires. Bigger storm surges as sea ice melts faster. Some of the swiftest shoreline erosion in the world – in some places, more than three feet a year.”
“Alaska’s glaciers are melting faster too, threatening tourism and adding to rising seas,” he added. “And if we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever.”
Obama touted multiple policies his administration had implemented for halting the negative effects associated with rampant climate change.
He listed international cooperation with Arctic nations, clean energy programs and increased safety standards in America’s oil industry as some of his counters to the natural phenomenon.
Obama added that repairing climate change damage is essential for America’s future prosperity.
“What’s happening in Alaska is happening to us,” he said. “It’s our wakeup call. And as long as I’m president, America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it’s too late.”

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Obama defends Arctic drilling decision on eve of Alaska climate change trip

Barack Obama has been forced to defend his decision to allow the hunt for oil in the last great wilderness of the Arctic, on the eve of an historic visit to Alaska intended to spur the fight against climate change.
The three-day tour – which will include a hike across a shrinking glacier and visits to coastal communities buffeted by sea-level rise and erosion – was intended to showcase the real-time effects of climate change.
But a defensive White House was forced to push back against campaigners who accuse Obama of undermining his environmental agenda by giving the go-ahead to Shell to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, only weeks after rolling out his signature climate change plan.
Obama, in his weekly address on Saturday, insisted there was no clash between his climate change agenda and Arctic drilling.
America was beginning to get off fossil fuels, he said. But Obama went on: “Our economy still has to rely on oil and gas. As long as that’s the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports.”
The challenges of protecting the Arctic from climate change as well as the risks of offshore drilling were both on full display on the eve of Obama’s visit.
Disappearing sea ice cover forced an estimated 6,000 walruses, mainly females and their young, to come to shore on a remote barrier island off the Chukchi Sea, US government officials said on Friday.
Meanwhile, Shell was forced to pause its drilling in the Chukchi and evacuate workers “because of extreme weather conditions”, a company spokesman said in an email.
Obama defended the drilling operation, saying: “We don’t rubber-stamp permits.”
The president had hoped to use his visit to showcase the changes unfolding in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, the White House said.
“This is an issue that is very here and now,” Brian Deese, a senior White House advisor told a conference call with reporters on Friday. “Near and above the Arctic circle the impacts of climate change are particular pronounced and Americans are living with those impacts in real time.”
He said Obama would use the visit to draw public attention to those consequences: the retreat of sea ice, land loss due to melting permafrost and coastal erosion, increasingly severe storms and growing risk of wildfires.
The president will also highlight the risks to Alaska’s tiny coastal communities, some of which could be forced to relocate because of climate change. A number have already chosen to move but have no funds to do so.

Monday, August 24, 2015

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming? Calling Al Gore? NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months

 According to the study, hurricanes in the southeast Atlantic have been increasing over the past 90 years, and there seems to be more hurricanes in "warm years," where water surface temperatures are higher than normal.


As of today, it has been a record 118 months since the last major hurricane struck the continental United States, according to records kept by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, which list all hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland going back to 1851

A major hurricane is Category 3 or higher hurrucine. The last one to strike the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which made landfall in North Carolina on Oct. 24, 2005.

President Obama is the first president in 122 years, since Benjamin Harrison was in office, who has not seen a major hurricane strike the U.S. during his time in office. In a statement on its website, NOAA expressed concern that Americans might suffer from “hurricane amnesia.”

The second longest stretch between major hurricanes hitting the continenatla U.S. was the eight years between 1860 and 1869, NOAA records show.

“It has been 10 years since Hurricanes Katrina (Aug. 29), Rita (Sept. 23/24) and Wilma (Oct. 24) made landfall along the Gulf Coast during one of the most active hurricane seasons in recorded history,” NOAA said in a statement marking the 10-year anniversary of the 2005 hurricane season.
“Wilma is also the last major hurricane to strike the U.S.--an unprecedented stretch that could unfortunately lead to ‘hurricane amnesia’ for the destruction such a hurricane can cause.”
Such a “drought” in major hurricane activity is “a rare event,” occurring every 177 years, according to a study published in May by researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies entitled The Frequency and duration of U.S. hurricane droughts, who concluded that “the admittedly unusual 9-year U.S. Cat3+ landfall drought is a matter of luck.”

Dr. Gerry Bell, NOAA's lead seasonal hurricane forecaster, told that the agency's seasonal outlooks are "not a hurricane landfall predictor. Where hurricanes strike and how strong they are depends on weather patterns, and there's no way to predict those patterns months in advance," he told

"What we do know is that we have a cycle in which there are more hurricanes and fewer hurricanes. In 2003, '04 and '05, we had one storm after another," he continued. "Beginning with 2006, we started getting a break, as weather patterns in the Eastern United States steered a lot more storms out to sea. Right now, that is expected to be the overall pattern this year" during hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30.

But Bell warned that storms that are not classified as major hurricanes can still do a tremendous amount of damage.

"We tell coastal residents to prepare every hurricane season, because it only takes one storm to make it a bad year," he said. Hurricane strength is "only one factor," he added. The size of the storm surge, whether it spins off tornadoes, and the amount of rainfall created by a slow-moving storm can create as much damage as a major hurricane, he said.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s absolutely authoritarian environmental policy scheme makes Barack Obama’s audacious clean energy pitch seem timid


 On the campaign trail in Ames, Iowa recently, the former Secretary of State said she wanted renewable energy to account for 33 percent of America’s electric power by 2027, 13 percent more than the president proposed last week.

“I want more wind, more solar, more advanced biofuels, more energy efficiency,” said Clinton. “And, I’ve got to tell you, people who argue against this are just not paying attention.”

Her cry of more, more, more, is a bit disconcerting, considering that Obama’s plan would“wash away” the coal industry, even though the U.S. accounts for only 15 percent of the world’s CO2 output, and even now is a global leader in renewable power, according to analysts.

The 2016 GOP presidential debaters last week barely touched on the environment as an issue. But if they are looking to distinguish themselves from the Democrats’ draconian, government-centered policies, they may want to give free-market environmentalism a try. This could, suggests a new book, be popular with millennials, the young voters who handed first term Senator Obama the American presidency in 2008 on hollow promises of hope and change.

Spurned by Obama’s embrace of big government, at the expense of job creation, these young voters are looking for new solutions.

“The 2016 presidential campaign gives Republicans a chance to speak to these millennials, and the Republican environmental policy message could be a starting point,” writes Terry L. Anderson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the co-author, with Donald Leal, of Free Market Environmentalism for the Next Generation. “Command and control regulations, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, to name a few, from Nixon-era Republicans, may have played with boomers. But millennials want results, not regulations.”

Obama and Clinton don’t seem to be in tune with these voters on environmental issues, analysts indicate.

A recent survey by Michigan State University reported that “gen Y does have concern for the environment when making purchases, but without an economic benefit in making eco-friendly choices, they likely would not make these purchases.”
Gov. Scott Walker has made some moves on the environment in this campaign, embracing a plan to disassemble the Environmental Protection Agency, and return regulation over ecological issues to the states.

But there is even more running room for other candidates here. The American Action Forum reported that federal environmental regulations accounted for $216 billion in costs for the U.S. economy in 2012, double its previous record-setting total.
Coming out against the carbon tax in this campaign might be a persuasive play for Sen. Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, or even Donald Trump, who has been rather circumspect on his policy positions, save for curtailing illegal aliens, thus far.

“A 2014 poll showed that half the voters between the ages of 18 and 29 are unwedded to either party,” writes Anderson. “Environmental policies based on markets, incentives, and entrepreneurship, offer Republicans a chance to win them over.”

Another important bookMillennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America, by Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, shows that millennials are very active entrepreneurs, as they have found new job creation at established companies close to nil during the Obama years.

The authors argue that a millennial environmental policy would be, for example, to reduce barriers to leasing water to farmers from federal irrigation projects in California’s Central Valley.

Another millennial-friendly environmental policy would be developing individual, but transferable, fishing quotas, which could preserve the livelihoods of fishermen, as well as the size of fish stocks.

Obama’s environmental policies are unpopular and are creating an opportunity for the conservative candidate who is willing to seize it. According to Rasmussen Research, 56 percent of likely U.S. voters believe Obama’s plan will “increase energy costs.” Just 17 percent think it will decrease costs. No one is buying what the Obama green team is selling. (Later this month, Obama, who has the biggest carbon footprint in the world when he travels on Air Force One, will venture to Las Vegas to tout the eco-regulation plan at Sen. Harry Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit. The Heartland Institute, and other libertarian think tanks, will be there to greet him at the Mandalay Bay resort with realistic analyses of his statist solutions for pollution.)

“To win the younger vote, conservatives in Washington will have to stop protecting status quo subsidies,” writes Anderson, in this summer’s edition of the Hoover Digest, in an article entitled, “Green Allies: What Would Bring Conservationists and Conservatives together? Environmental solutions that really work.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Al Gore Global Warming Alarmists Run Into Brick Wall Of Facts

alarmists must be shaking their heads in disbelief. Just when they felt they had the stars aligned to push their anti-capitalism/free enterprise agenda on the international stage and claim the power that they crave, the climate and scientists have begun to turn against them.

Sydney, Australia, has snow for the first time since 1836. To put this in perspective: in 1836, Andrew Jackson was president of the United States, Victoria was a year away from being crowned Queen of England upon her 18th birthday, and Davy Crockett met his heroic end at the Alamo.

Needless to say, it has been a long time since Sydney has seen snow.

In other news, the Big Island of Hawaii had snowfall in July. Not to be outdone, the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California also had snowfall this July. Antarctica set a new record for ice extent in 2014 and continues to set records for how much ice covers the oceans surrounding this southern hemisphere continent as 2015 progresses.

And to confuse the science-is-settled-on-global-warming crowd even further, some solar scientists are now projecting that due to changes in the sun's cycles, the earth is likely to suffer from what is known as a "Little Ice Age" starting in 2030, as the heat-giving star settles into a very rare pattern of inactivity. Imagine their consternation at learning that the sun actually plays a role in the earth's temperature.

Alarmists are battling the climate record's showing an 18-year hiatus from warming by changing and erasing temperature data collection to create the results needed to justify their continued funding.

The church of global warming is also struggling to explain why the much more reliable satellite temperature data also continue to embarrass them by showing no new warming for almost two decades.

Yet the Obama administration pushes on with their attempts to destroy coal-fired electric generation, as well as the misguided taxpayer funding of bird- and bat-destroying wind farms and regulatory schemes intended to hamstring oil-based domestic energy production.

The reason is simple. The global warming agenda is not about the planet. Otherwise, world environmental do-gooders would be focused upon the world's worst polluting nation, China, rather than giving them a pass.

The head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, readily admits that the real climate change agenda has nothing to do with the environment, but instead is about redistribution of wealth. "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves," she says, "which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook