Things That Just Make You Wonder

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about the Paris Climate Accord. It seems as if President Trump did the right thing by pulling America out of the agreement.

There is still no agreement among scientists as to the role that man and his civilization play in climate change. Obviously the climate has been changing continually since man has inhabited the earth. There is a documented period of global warming during the Middle Ages, and there is no way that carbon emissions could be responsible for that. There are also plant fossils found beneath the ice in Greenland, another indication that the climate has changed over time. We all remember the TIME Magazine cover during the 1970’s warning of the coming ice age. We also know that our local weatherman is not accurate 100 percent of the time.

The article at Investor’s Business Daily reports:

According to the latest annual UN report on the “emissions gap,” the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.

Eric Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program, which produces the annual report, said this week that “One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap.”

The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it “extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached.”

The article concludes:

What the report does make clear, however, is that all the posturing by government leaders in Paris was just that. Posturing. None of these countries intended to take the drastic and economically catastrophic steps environmentalist claim are needed to prevent a climate change doomsday. As such, Trump was right to stop pretending.

Whether you believe in climate change or not, the Paris climate accord amounted to nothing, or pretty close to it. Even the UN admits that now.

We need to look at the balance between civilization of the environment. America is one of the economic leaders in the world and yet one of the least polluting. Look at the progress we have made in recent years–many of our formerly polluted rivers are being cleaned up, the industries that created the ‘super fund sites’ are now controlled to the degree that they can no longer ruin the environment, waste disposal has improved, and carbon emissions for cars and factories have decreased.

The following chart is from the Energy Information website:

We are making progress. The Paris Agreement would not have positively impacted that progress–it would only have crippled the American economy.

Bias Can Be What You Leave Out Of A Story As Well As Choosing The Stories You Report

Global warming is one of the sacred cows of the political left. Part of this is due to the fact that climate change can be used as a weapon against capitalism, free markets, and successful democratic nations.

In February of last year, I posted an article that included the following quote:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

So that explains why the political left is so in love with the idea of global warming. Now let’s look at the omissions in a recent Associated Press article about global warming as reported in The Daily Caller.

The article reports:

An Associated Press reporter sent some questions to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. about what role global warming played in this year’s slew of billion-dollar natural disasters.

Pielke, an expert on natural disaster costs, apparently didn’t give AP reporter Seth Borenstein the answers he was looking for, because his ensuing article didn’t have any quotes from the University of Colorado professor.

The following questions and answers were omitted from the AP article:

Please follow the link to The Daily Caller and read the entire article. It illustrates how the media tries to shape the debate rather than simply reporting facts. As I have stated before, the best website on the internet for climate information is wattsupwiththat.com.

 

Nope–Global Warming Didn’t Do It

On Friday, The Heritage Foundation posted an article about what wasn’t the cause of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The hurricanes were not the result of global warming.

The article reports:

…Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma. As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls. Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years.

This comes not via “denier data,” but from mainstream science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that “(n)o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes … have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.”

According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, “It is premature to conclude that human activities – and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming – have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”

The article then goes on to disprove the myth that global warming made the hurricanes more severe:

Other media outlets took a more measured approach, claiming that man did not cause Harvey and Irma but supercharged them. The reasoning is that warmer sea surface temperatures increase moisture in the air and, in turn, up the intensity of the hurricanes.

But University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass, after examining precipitation levels in the Gulf, discredited this claim. He found that “(t)here is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.”

CNN asked Bill Read, former director of the National Hurricane Center, whether man-made climate change was intensifying storms. He said no, adding, “This is not an uncommon occurrence to see storms grow and intensify rapidly in the western Gulf of Mexico. That’s as long as we’ve been tracking them that has occurred.”

Even if man-made warming were responsible for Harvey and Irma, the policies that tax or regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are costly non-solutions. The U.S. could slap a $40 tax on all carbon dioxide emissions, and the “climate benefits” would be hardly noticeable. By the year 2100, the averted warming would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius, and the averted sea level rise would be less than 2 centimeters.

The article concludes:

Political opportunism is distracting from what is important: helping the people in Houston, Florida and the islands. Policymakers should focus on improving natural disaster response, resilience and preparedness. Blaming man-made climate change on Harvey and Irma is truly denying the data.

Let’s keep our priorities straight!

When Your Predictions Are Wrong, Just Change The Time Frame

Yesterday The Independent Journal Review posted an article about the global warming predictions that were supposed to be happening about now that are nowhere in sight.

The article reports:

The cult’s leader — Al Gore — said in 2009 that there was a 75 percent chance that the entire arctic polar ice cap would melt by 2014.

It’s still there.

The year before the North Pole was supposed to be gone, noted climate scientist Hans von Storch went against cult orthodoxy in an interview with Spiegel Online in 2013 and had some interesting things to say about the climate prediction models so revered by the alarmists.

After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch had this to say about the models:

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me that if your predictions supposedly using the scientific method continually do not happen, there might be something wrong with your models or your calculations.

The article reports what the scientists are doing to modify their failed predictions:

Climate alarmist James Hansen’s prediction of Manhattan being underwater by 2018 seems to not be happening, so he’s moving his own goal posts and saying “50 to 150 years” now.

That’s the beauty of being one of the “we believe in science” people: there’s never any penalty for being wrong. Every prediction that doesn’t come true isn’t a cause for reflection about perhaps adjusting the conclusion; it’s merely an opportunity to pull a new prediction out of thin air.

Perhaps they are finally getting embarrassed, though. Tossing all of the predictions a century down the road at least saves them from having to be around when those are proved wrong.

The global warming movement has never been about science or the environment.

The following is from an article I posted in March 2016:

Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The earth’s climate is cyclical.  Scientists have found fossils in Greenland of animals from much more temperate climates. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that had nothing to do with SUV’s.  The bottom line is that man is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of the earth’s climate. I believe that we have a responsibility to keep the earth as clean as possible, but we also have a responsibility to develop the earth’s resources to allow all people on the planet to experience freedom and the ability to earn enough to have food and shelter. Redistribution of wealth is not the solution to poverty–freedom is–and that is exactly what the global warming crowd is trying to limit.

I would like to note at this point that at least one generation of school children has been raised on this fake science as if it were fact. Combined with the fact that our children are no longer being taught critical thinking skills, this may be a major problem for the future of our country.

Where Bogus Climate Information Comes From

Please click on this link–  http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

This is the link that will show you the places where those people who want to convince you that the earth is getting warmer have placed their temperature measuring devices. I am not a scientist by any means, but I question the wisdom of measuring temperature right next to the air conditioning vent of a large building. There is also a sensor placed within ten feet or aircraft (which I assume are occasionally started up and moved). Follow the link and enjoy the show.

What The Research Really Shows

Wattsupwiththat posted an article today about some recent climate news. Global warming is simply not living up to the expectations of the computer predictions.

The article states:

A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.

The article explains:

Then, in early 2016, mainstream scientists admitted the climate model trends did not match observations — a coup for scientists like Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger who have been pointing out flaws in model predictions for years.

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data out of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, has testified before Congress on the failure of models to predict recent global warming.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than satellites and weather balloons have observed.

Now, he and Santer seem to be on the same page — the global warming “hiatus” is real and the models didn’t see it coming.

Meanwhile, the climate is always changing. The earth’s climate has been changing since before man got here. The question is how much does the activity of man impact the climate. That is the answer we don’t have. It is always a good idea to clean up the air and water as much as possible. However, it is also a good idea to do anything possible to raise the standard of living in places where industrialization and modern sanitation has not yet taken hold. The idea behind the global warming panic was to shake down industrialized countries to give money to third-world countries run by tyrants. Very little of that money would go toward anything related to climate change and very little of that money would be used to alleviate poverty where it was sent. Now that the scientists have admitted that they don’t know why there is a hiatus in global warming, maybe we can all relax a little and go on with our lives.

Circular Logic

John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article today about the cancelled 2017 Arctic expedition of the University of Manitoba.

The article reports:

The University of Manitoba has canceled its 2017 Arctic expedition because there is too much ice to execute the mission safely. The U of M headlines: “Large Canadian Arctic climate change study cancelled due to climate change.”

So too much ice is the result of climate change? I thought we were concerned about global warming. Generally speaking, global warming does not result in more ice.

After explaining how the extreme ice conditions made the expedition impossible, the University of Manitoba explains:

This experience, and climate change conditions currently affecting Churchill, Man., clearly illustrates that Canada is ill prepared to deal with the realities of climate change.

Someone needs to explain to these scientists that the climate has been changing constantly (and cyclically) since earth began. I refuse to believe climate predictions from people who have been consistently wrong for more than forty years. Does anyone remember ‘the coming ice age‘ headlines of the seventies?

 

 

 

 

Freedom Of Speech In The Classroom?

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about freedom of speech in American classrooms. There is a group of Democratic Representatives that have decided that it is time to destroy books that disagree with what they believe.

The article reports:

Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.

“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.

I would like to know the basis for the Democrat Representatives’ declaration that the authors of this book are anti-science. The authors look pretty well educated in their fields. What is the scientific background of the Representatives?

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is truly amazing. Eventually Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources decides that the problem of not having agreement on global warming can be placed at the feet of the Koch brothers. I guess everyone needs a target to blame.

Much Ado About Nothing

President Trump has doomed the earth to extinction! We have all heard some variation of that chicken-little headline because President Trump has directed the EPA to roll back former President Obama’s hugely expensive Clean Power Plan.

Well, yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the impact of President Trump’s directive.

The chart below is from the article:

The article explains exactly what the chart illustrates:

Take a look at the Clean Power Plan — Obama’s most ambitious climate change effort. Despite the costs of this regulatory monstrosity, the Clean Power Plan would have no discernible impact in global carbon dioxide emissions over the next three decades.

That’s not the conclusion of climate change “deniers.” That’s what the Obama administration’s own Department of Energy said in a report issued in May 2016.

As part of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration provided long-term forecasts of energy-related CO2 emissions, comparing global emissions with the Clean Power Plan, and without it.

What it shows is that with the Clean Power Plan, global carbon emissions would still climb 32% in 2012 and 2040, only slightly below what the increase will be without it.

So why did we cripple our domestic energy production and put thousands of people out of work? Rush Limbaugh has commented many times that the environmental movement is the new home for the socialists and communists of the world. As countries with basic freedoms have become more prosperous, countries that do not have basic property rights have become poorer. Those poorer countries would very much like to find a way to extort money from the richer countries. That is exactly what a worldwide carbon tax would do. How do you implement a worldwide carbon tax? You convince people that wealthy nations are ruining the earth and need to pay a price for it, and you give the money to the tyrants of the world.

Please understand, I am not in favor of pollution. However, I am in favor of balancing the economy and the environment.

The article further points out:

As we noted in this space recently, without any government mandates, energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. fell 12.4% from 2007 to 2015. Overall carbon intensity — a measure of how much CO2 it takes to produce a dollar of GDP — declined an average 1.5% a year since 2005.

These gains are due both to the fracking breakthrough, which unleashed massive supplies of lower-carbon natural gas, and the unending pressure the free market puts on businesses to be more efficient.

This same market-driven decarbonizing trend has been happening around the world.

Between 1990 and 2012, the carbon intensity of developed nations dropped by 33%, and by 25% in developing countries. By 2040, the carbon intensity of developed nations will be cut in half, the report projects, and will drop by almost 40% in developed countries, the Energy Department report shows.

Yet overall energy-related CO2 emissions will still climb by 51% in developing countries, and 8% among industrialized nations, from 2012 to 2040 — even with the Paris agreement.

Why? “Increases in output per capita coupled with population growth overwhelm improvements in energy intensity and carbon intensity,” the report explains.

In other words, barring some miracle scientific breakthrough, the only reliable way to cut global carbon emissions would be to depopulate the planet or kill economic growth.

The global warming panic is nothing more than a stealth attack on our economy and freedom. As I have stated before, the best site on the Internet for good, scientific information on climate change is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that you visit the site when you wonder about the scientific accuracy of whatever current panic attack the environmentalists are having.

Eventually The Truth Comes Out

On Saturday (updated Sunday), The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about new evidence of misconduct by those who are attempting to sell the idea of global warming.

The article reports:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

…But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

Another website, wattsupwiththat, posted the following chart:
The article at wattsupwiththat further reports:

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
I am not a scientist, but I recognize a scam when I see one.
On March 30, 2016, I posted the following (here):

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

I hate to be cynical about this, but it seems as if the expression ‘follow the money’ applies here. One of the power blocs in the United Nations is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Despite the fact that many of the 57 nations in this group are very wealthy due to oil money, many of the people in these countries live in extreme poverty. The OIC looks at the prosperity of western countries and wants their money. They already get a lot of our money because they have oil, but greed is greed. Redistribution of wealth will leave wealthy democracies poorer and enrich dictatorships that are currently poor.

A few years ago, I posted an article about the relationship between property rights and poverty. The article was based on a Townhall.com article by John Stossel. The article included the following:

“”To get an address, somebody’s got to recognize that that’s where you live. That means … you’ve a got mailing address. … When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can’t … specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding.”

“That’s the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, “This is yours.” They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.”

This is the concept the global warming alarmists want to eliminate. We need to make sure that they are not successful.

Science vs. Hype

WattsUpWithThat posted an article this week about a recent study, published in the European Geosciences Union journal The Cryosphere..

The article reports:

The study, published in the European Geosciences Union journal The Cryosphere, suggests Antarctic sea ice is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which in stark contrast has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.

The research, by climate scientists at the University of Reading, estimates the extent of Antarctic summer sea ice is at most 14% smaller now than during the early 1900s.

Jonathan Day, who led the study, said: “The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice.

“We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new.

“If ice levels were as low a century ago as estimated in this research, then a similar increase may have occurred between then and the middle of the century, when previous studies suggest ice levels were far higher.”

The new study published in The Cryosphere is the first to shed light on sea ice extent in the period prior to the 1930s, and suggests the levels in the early 1900s were in fact similar to today, at between 5.3 and 7.4 million square kilometres. Although one region, the Weddell Sea, did have a significantly larger ice cover.

There are a few things to learn from this. First of all, we are not as smart as we think we are and really have no idea what man’s impact on climate is or if man has any impact on climate. Second of all, the global warming industry is about money and control–it really has little to do with global warming. Do you really believe that if the people claiming that global warming was going to kill us all tomorrow believed that global warming was catastrophic,  they would be traveling to their global warming meetings in private jets and living in houses with carbon footprints bigger than that of a small nation?

If you need proof that global warming is hype related to money and control, please read this story. It illustrates one way that Congressmen come to Washington as middle-class citizens and leave as millionaires. The story is a beautiful example of one time the plan to gain instant wealth through legislation didn’t work!

Science For Fun And Profit

The Daily Caller posted a story about climate research at the global warming research center at the London School of Economics.

The article reports:

The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did.

Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were “taken on trust,” according to the report.

…“It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant,” Professor Richard Tol, a climate economics expert from Sussex University whose research was reportedly stolen by CCCEP, told The Daily Mail. “I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.”

Meanwhile, the CCCEP was attempting to get another $5.4 million from the government to pay for operations until 2018.

The article also reports:

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Now think about that for a minute. If the results of the study were predetermined, why did they do the study? Also, what does that tell us about the scientific aspect of the studies on climate control–are those results predetermined also? Even with my limited knowledge of the Scientific Method, I know there is something wrong with reaching the conclusion before you do the research (or without doing the research).

In case you are a new reader of this blog, I would like to recommend wattsupwiththat.com as the best, most honest website on the Internet dealing with climate change.

Time To Rethink The Ethanol Thing

On Friday WattsUpWithThat posted an article about biofuels. It seems that the use of biofuels instead of carbon fuels is not as kind to the environment as originally thought.

The article reports:

Statements about biofuels being carbon neutral should be taken with a grain of salt. This is according to researchers at the University of Michigan Energy Institute after completing a retrospective, national-scale evaluation of the environmental effect of substituting petroleum fuels with biofuels in the US. America’s biofuel use to date has in fact led to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, says lead author John DeCicco in Springer’s journal Climatic Change.

The use of liquid biofuels in the transport sector has expanded over the past decade in response to policies such as the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). These policies are based on the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that only production-related greenhouse gas emissions need to be tallied when comparing them to fossil fuels.

This assumption is embedded in the lifecycle analysis modelling approach used to justify and administer such policies. Simply put, because plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, crops grown for biofuels should absorb the carbon dioxide that comes from burning the fuels they produce. Using this approach, it is often found that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel offer at least modest net greenhouse gas reductions relative to petroleum fuels.

There is also research showing that ethanol damages engines. As the government attempts to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline, the potential damage to car, boat, motorcycle and other engines should be considered. It would also be wise to consider the fact that biofuels are not carbon neutral.

Meanwhile, Power Line reported today that the reports of the ‘warmest month ever’ that periodically show up in the media are not based on sound science.

Power Line reports:

We are living in a relatively cool era. Temperatures today are lower than they have been something like 90% of the time since the last Ice Age ended 12,000 or so years ago. In fact, “ever” means since approximately the 1880s, when thermometer records became widespread. As it happens, that was also around the time when the Little Ice Age ended, so–happily!–the Earth is a bit warmer now than it was then.

One of the many problems with global warming hysteria is that it is based on the surface temperature record since the 1880s, which is deeply flawed when it is not outright falsified by alarmists who control the historical records. This happens often, as we and others have documented.

The article at Power Line explains why the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is using faulty data in its reports:

Actually, the explanation is political. The IPCC was explicitly established by the U.N. for one purpose only, to “study” the impact of human-emitted CO2 on global temperatures. This was for the purpose of justifying government control over industry worldwide. Anyone who is interested in science rather than left-wing politics relies on the satellite data, which are transparent and have not been “adjusted” by political activists.

The United Nations has forgotten that its original mission was to encourage democracy and world peace. It has morphed into an organization run by a cadre of dictators who would like to extort money from countries who have prospered because of their freedom. The climate change information that is coming from the United Nations is part of that effort.

Now The United Nations Wants To Control What We Eat

On June 30th, The Providence Journal posted an article about the United Nations concerns for the heath of the world if people continue to eat meat.

The article reports:

It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment – and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today – and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.

Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherlands’ Utrecht University, led the environment and food report that recommended the meat tax.

“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” said Hajer, who is a member of U.N.’s International Resource Panel, which comprises 34 top scientists and 30 governments. “I think it is extremely urgent.”

First of all, I would like to point out that human beings have canine teeth–they are designed for eating meat. Second of all, I would like to point out that man-caused global warming is a myth. For honest information on global warming see wattsupwiththat.

The United Nations has forgotten its purpose. The United Nations  supposedly originally started to avoid world wars by creating a place for negotiation and dialogue and to encourage the expansion of individual freedom in all countries. However, in recent years, the United Nations has become an organization desiring to form a one-world government and take away individual freedom. Agenda 21 is a prime example of this. If you are unfamiliar with Agenda 21, google it or use the search engine on this website. The United Nations wants to control where you live, how big your house is, how much property you own, and now, how you eat.

The article further reports:

But, governments must soon move to limit major carbon producers, Hajer said. Food companies will naturally be part of that.

The idea of a meat tax has developed over the past 25 years as a “completely obvious” measure to economists and environmentalists, Hajer said, as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.

Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States. For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.

Governments are starting to take notice. China, which consumes half of the world’s pork and more than a quarter of its overall meat, announced new dietary guidelines last week that advise the average citizen to reduce meat consumption by half. That country’s meat consumption has increased nearly five-fold since 1982, even though their population has only increased by 30 percent during that time.

Denmark went a little further in May. The Danish government is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed. Red meat accounts for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and the council argued that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption.

I am very concerned about the world we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. Junk science is not a basis for extorting money from people who produce or eat a product that has fallen out of favor with the elites. My question is simple, “What are they serving at diplomatic dinners at the United Nations?”

 

The Pseudo-Science Of Global Warming

Global temperatures are measured by surface stations. You can learn more about these surface stations here. But the picture below illustrates the problem with relying on the surface stations for exact information:

SurfaceStationsI post this pictures to illustrate the points made in an article recently posted at Investor’s Business Daily. The headline of the story reads, “June Hottest Month On Record? It’s Just One More Overheated Claim.”

The article states:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last week that “above-average temperatures spanned the nation from coast to coast, and 17 states across the West, Great Plains and parts of the Southeast experienced temperatures much above average.”

Well, OK. But what about those places where June was cooler than usual, or was at least nowhere near a record warm month. Real Climate Science points out a few spots where it didn’t get so hot in June and asks “where was this record heat located?”

…Real Climate Science also points out that, “averaged over the whole country, only 3.2% of June days were over 100 F, compared to 11% during June 1933.” Only 17.4% of weather stations reached 100 degrees this June “compared to 57.6% during June 1933.”

One of the points that has to be taken from this is the foolishness of trying to determine an average temperature for a country, let alone an entire planet.

The article cites statements by Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, who explains that because of the complexity of the climate of the earth, “the concept of a global temperature is thermodynamically as well as mathematically impossible to establish.”

As I have previously stated, the global warming hoax is simply designed to take money away from working people and give it to people who would like to increase their own money and power. This was very evident when the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21, 2010, that it would be ending carbon trading. The CCX went out of business because Congress failed to pass cap and trade legislation. A lot of the leading Democrats in Congress were heavily invested in the CCX and lost large amounts of money when it went out of business. This was clearly a situation where Congress had a major conflict of interest. (See story here). On a global scale, one of the goals of the global climate alarmists is to force industrialized countries to pay a carbon tax to less developed countries. Oddly enough, most of the money paid would go to dictatorships where the people live in poverty and the leaders live in luxury. Clearly, global warming is a scam. Conservation and working toward a cleaner environment is not a scam–it is a worthwhile goal. However, we need to be informed and make sure we are supporting a worthwhile goal rather than a scam.

The article concludes:

NOAA would have more credibility if it simply reported that summer had arrived in the Northern Hemisphere in June and reminded Americans, particularly those in regions where June was cooler than usual, that, yes, summer is hot.

As I have previously stated, the best place on the internet for good information on climate change is wattsupwiththat.

 

The Proof Of A Prediction Is Whether Or Not It Comes True

On Sunday, Gateway Pundit posted an article about global warming predictions made by ABC News in 2009. The predictions stated that because of global warming, by 2015 New York City would be under water.

Further predictions included:

…Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015.

Climate change is read–the climate of earth has been changing since long before man arrived on the planet. Greenland used to grow things, there was global warming in the Middle Ages, and according to some scientists, we are entering a mini ice age. The frightening global warming predictions are being made by people who can’t even tell you whether or not to bring your umbrella to work! None of the computer models that predict global warming have proven to be accurate. We need to do what we can to keep the earth clean; however, we don’t have to cripple the earth’s economy to do it.

 

It’s Time To Elect People Who Have Read The U.S. Constitution

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article quoting a letter written by nineteen California legislators to the state attorney general.

The article reports:

California congressmen wrote a letter to state attorney general Kamala Harris claiming the freedom of speech “is not designed to protect fraud and deceit” of the likes being spread by oil company ExxonMobil about global warming.

Nineteen Democratic lawmakers told Harris her “investigation as to whether ExxonMobil lied about the truth of climate change and misled investors does not constitute an effort to silence speech or scientific research.

“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect companies from defrauding the American people or improperly disclosing information to their shareholders,” lawmakers, including California Reps. Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu, wrote to Harris.

So these legislators want the attorney general to decide which speech is protected. Evidently they believe that only some speech is protected by the First Amendment. I think I have heard this story before in Animal Farm where all animals were equal, but some animals were more equal than others.

An Election Promise President Obama Actually Kept

In June 2008, President Obama stated, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Through no fault of his own, he was actually right.

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about sea levels in New York and Washington, D.C. The article contains graphs illustrating the fact that sea levels have declined rather than risen.

The article reports:

Which is then the novelty of the last 6 years of data? Since December 2009, the sea levels have declined in both Washington DC and The Battery NY, -3.3 mm/year in Washington DC and -10.7 mm/year in The Battery NY.

I am not scientific enough to comment on the entire post, but I recommend that if you are scientifically inclined, you follow the link and read the entire article. Meanwhile, how much of global warming had to be disproved before we accept the fact that it is a hoax designed to separate American taxpayers from their money?


Stuck On An Idea That Isn’t True

On Friday, The Daily Caller posted an article about Al Gore’s latest comments on global warming. Any relationship between Al Gore’s comments and actual reality is purely coincidental.

The article reports:

Former Vice President Al Gore told The Hollywood Reporter his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” actually underestimated how serious global warming would be — despite all the patently false predictions he made in the film.

“I wish the film had over-estimated the seriousness of the crisis, but unfortunately it actually underestimated how serious it is,” Gore told THR in an interview Thursday, just days before the 10th anniversary of his film.

The article lists some of the predictions made in the movie that have proven to be false. Here are a few:

Some of his more famous predictions, including that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016, were hilariously incorrect — and, yes, Kilimanjaro still has snow.

…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) data doesn’t even support Gore’s claim. The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”

In 2014, The New American reported some of Al Gore’s other predictions that haven’t happened:

Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014.

…The Danish Meteorological Institute‘s (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014’s summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC’s website points out an ice extent decline rate of “slightly less than the average” for the month of August.

To understand what the hype about global warming and carbon footprints is really about, all you need to do is follow the money. Unfortunately for those who tried to sell the climate change scam to Americans, the money hasn’t been what it was expected to be.

In 2009, The Canada Free Press ran an article about the funding and financial connections found in the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Chicago Climate Exchange was supposed to play a major role in the American economy once Congress passed cap-and-trade legislation that would regulate carbon emissions and grant carbon credits. The legislation did not pass, and the Chicago Climate Exchange closed in 2011. Many Democratic Congressmen lost large amounts of money when the Exchange closed–they had made investments figuring they could pass cap-and-trade legislation. If you follow the link to The Canada Free Press article, you can find out who was in on the scam and how it was supposed to work. There is an article on the closing of the Exchange in The New York Times in January 2011. I can almost guarantee that if a Democratic majority is elected in Congress in the near future we will see the Exchange magically reappear with as much corruption as was involved in its original founding.

The story of the Chicago Climate Exchange is only one example of how Congressmen who do not have principles will make investments that will benefit from legislation they plan to pass. That is not the way our government is supposed to work.

The website that I strongly recommend for accurate, scientific information on climate is wattsupwiththat.com.

Don’t Look For This In The Mainstream Media

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about climate change scientists and the alarmism that seems to follow people who talk about climate change.

That article states:

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Please note that Cristiana Figueres, when talking about the Convention on Climate Change, was not talking about climate–she was talking about economic development. Naomi Klein has written a book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

The article notes:

“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”

The problem with the thinking that free-market capitalism is the cause of poverty is that it ignores some very obvious things and also ignores history. Because of the Charters they carried with them when they settled America, both the Pilgrims and the Jamestown settlers were committed to a communal economy. The land was held and farmed in common–there was not individual ownership and farming of land. That lasted until the first harvest, when the leaders realized that no one was working very hard and, particularly in New England, there was not enough food. When the Pilgrims instituted land ownership and individual farming where farmers sold and bartered crops, the harvest increased noticeably. Free-market capitalism understands some very basic facts about human nature–people work harder when they are rewarded for their work and if people receive benefits for not working hard, they don’t work hard. If people receive benefits for not working at all, they tend not to work.

Global warming or climate change is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth and to bring the governments of the world under the control of the United Nations. Since the United Nations has lost its way and no longer supports freedom, I am not convinced that is a good idea.

Lied To Again

The Daily Signal is reporting that thanks to more government regulations (courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency) a new car will cost you at least $3.800 more (even after fuel economy is considered).

The article reports:

When Congress and the Obama administration passed and implemented extremely strict fuel economy regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed that it would save consumers a few thousand dollars on gas and only add $948 to the price of a new car.

Three teams of independent economists and engineers went up against the EPA’s analysts—finding much larger costs and smaller benefits. The most modest of the independent estimates works out to $3,800 per vehicle, even after the fuel savings are taken into account.

The chart below is included in the article:

CarPricesBig government and government regulations impact all of us.

The article concludes:

In a recently released Heritage Foundation research paper, we’ve compared the recent price trends to the scholarly predictions, and found that if U.S. vehicle prices had followed one of the comparable trends, cars would be between $3,975 and $7,140 cheaper today than they are. This massive expense buys very little change in global warming: less than two hundredths of a degree according to the Obama administration’s own estimate.

Congress should scrap Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards entirely—they cost consumers dearly while having a negligible impact on carbon emissions. Failing that, a new administration can freeze the standards at 2016 levels to prevent the Corporate Average Fuel Economy tax from doubling by 2025, as the Obama administration has planned.

It is time to get back to the concept of laws made by Congress outlined in our Constitution, so that we can hold our lawmakers accountable. The EPA and similar organizations have become the fourth branch of government, and they need to be put out of business.

Committing Economic Suicide Over Questionable Science

The Daily Caller posted an article today about the cost of President Obama’s Paris Global Warming Treaty.

The article reports:

The United Nations Paris agreement to stop dangerous global warming could cost $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists.

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,”calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres.

The article goes on to explain:

Despite relatively high levels of taxpayer support, in 2014 solar and wind power accounted for only 0.4 and 4.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Ironically, solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.

It might be common sense to forget about solar and wind until the technology improves and focus on fracking since that is already getting results.

Meanwhile, in its weekly energy summary, wattsupwiththat reports:

One of the most dramatic statements made by the IPCC appeared in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR-4, 2007) which claimed the glaciers in the Himalaya Mountains will disappear by 2035, depriving hundreds of millions of people their primary source of water, the rivers the run off the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau.

Alarmed, the government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests had its glacial expert, Mr. V.K. Raina, Executive Director General of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) prepare a report based on decades of on-the-ground observations. Fear of the possible melting of the glaciers has been expressed for about 100 years resulting in scientific efforts to recognize and examine the fluctuations at the front-snout of glaciers, starting in the early part of the 20th century, although some studies go back 150 years.

Overall, there is a net decrease in mass balance in the 20th century, though some glaciers are increasing in mass balance. This net decrease in mass balance is within the boundaries of prior interglacial warm periods over the last two million years, the period identified as the Pleistocene (major ice age). According to the report, some glaciologists believe that there may have been as many as 21 glacial cycles during this period.

In short, the net decrease in mass balance appears to be part of a natural cycle, not human caused global warming. Of course, the advance and retreat of Himalayan glaciers need to be monitored, but there is no indication that they will vanish by 2035.

There is no reason for so-called climate experts to take control of the world’s economy in the name of protecting us from global warming. The planet goes through cycles. The planet has always gone through cycles. We are now able to measure and track those cycles. If the numbers were not tampered with, we would find out that the world is not coming to an end due to global warming. As usual, follow the money. If you have not followed the escapades of the global warming people from the beginning, I suggest you begin your research at wattsupwiththat. That is one of the most reliable sources of climate information on the internet.

When Facts Get In The Way

Top Right News posted a story today about the wonderfully warm weather we are having this Christmas. I never thought weather would get political, but that’s where we are now.

The article includes the following quote:

Science advocate Bill Nye explained on Tuesday that many parts of the United States were expected to see record temperatures over the Christmas holiday because of weather patterns associated with climate change.

But Nye chastised meteorologists for refusing to utter the words “climate change” to their viewers. “We have a situation where no one in regular television will say the phrase ‘climate change,’” Nye declared, calling out MSNBC meteorologists by name. “Nobody will mention this phrase. But the world’s getting warmer!”

Facts are inconvenient things. The article also includes the following quote from Real Science:

Christmas Eve 1955 was much warmer. Three fourths of the country was over 60 degrees, and Ashland Kansas,  Geary Oklahoma and Encinal Texas were all over 90 degrees. Fort Lauderdale was 85 degrees. All of the stations below were over 60 degrees on Christmas Eve, 1955.

Last winter, the East Coast had record cold. That was ignored because it was “less than 1% of the Earth.”  But this week, the Eastern US defines the global climate.

In Irving Berlin’s 1954 musical “White Christmas” – the story line was 70 degrees in Vermont on Christmas eve and no snow. That was why they were “Dreaming of a White Christmas”

The article at Top Right News notes that in 1955 the greenhouse gases were 80 percent lower than in 2015. So what caused the warm temperatures then?

Facts are inconvenient things.