Author Archive

Sea levels are NOT rising rapidly, in major blow for environmental activists

beachSEA levels are not rising as fast as experts had feared as the water is being soaked up by the LAND.

Scientists have been analysing satellite images from NASA, which for the first time has allowed experts to identify and quantify how water storage on land has affected the pace in which sea levels are rising.

Rising sea levels are a major argument in environmentalists’ arsenal, with panicked green activists fearing the Earth will drown under water due to global warming.

A study led by the University of California and the space agency itself shows the Earth’s soils across the continents have soaked up and stored 3.2 trillion tons of water in the last decade, slowing the pace of rising sea levels by 20%.

A report published in the journal Science explains a vast amount of water evaporates from the ocean each year and falls on land as either rain or snow.

This water is then returned to the ocean through rivers in a natural system known as the global hydrological cycle.

It has always been known that not all of this water is returned to the ocean due to it being soaked up by the Earth, but scientists had no idea that such a large amount was staying in the land, thus offsetting the damage caused by melting ice caps.

Lead author J.T. Reager of Nasa’s jet propulsion laboratory (JPL) said: “We didn’t realise until now is that over the past decade, changes in the global water cycle more than offset the losses that occurred from groundwater pumping, causing the land to act like a sponge.

“These new data are vital for understanding variations in sea level change.”

University of California’s Jay Famiglietti added: “This is the first study to observe these changing water storage patterns on land and their impact on modulating current rates of sea level rise.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Climate Chaos? UN Says Natural Disasters Caused 70% Fewer Deaths In 2015

droughtEnvironmentalists have warned global warming would mean more people being killed by natural disasters, but new United Nations data shows deaths from natural disasters declined by 70 percent in 2015 relative to the average number of deaths of the previous 10 years.

“The U.N. reports that environmental disasters affected fewer people last year than the average of the 10 years prior,” Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “This, despite 2015 being the ‘warmest year on record’ and the regional impacts of a strong El Nino — which can be both negative and positive in terms of disasters.”

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction reported the number of people affected by natural disasters fell 43 percent when compared to the previous 10-year average. Despite the good news, the United Nations’ press release claimed the data showed the “human costs of the hottest year on record.”

The country most affected by natural disasters was North Korea, which listed more than 18 million people as affected.

“I hesitate to make too much of the U.N. numbers because they are not sufficiently standardized such that appropriate comparisons can be made over time—changing population size, changing population age structure, changing wealth patterns, etc., have a very large impact on the economics of — including the mortality from — environmental disasters,” Knappenberger said. “Investigations which have made effort to control for such changes find that environmental impacts have rapidly declined over the past century.”

The lighter damage was especially evident when considering storms. There were 996 fatalities in recorded storms last year, compared to an annual average of 17,778 from 2005 to 2014, according to preliminary data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).

Deaths from natural disasters sharply declined in the United States. Only 280 Americans were killed by natural disasters in 2015, which is dramatically below the 30-year annual average of 580 deaths.

Much of the decline is due to better forecasting and early warning systems which enable people to take shelter.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

U.S. science teachers cool to global warming theory

classroomSo why do half of adult Americans not believe humans are changing the climate? A Penn State researcher went looking in the nation’s classrooms.

But not at the students. Eric Plutzer asked what their science teachers believe.

Plutzer’s survey of 1,500 middle and high-school science teachers found they are cool to global warming theory.

Specifically:

‚Ä¢ While most do teach about climate change, 30 per cent of teachers in the survey said they emphasize that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes.” This is sharply different from what actual climate scientists say.

• Another 12 per cent downplay the human role, or never mention it at all, the survey found.

Plutzer wondered why this happens and dug deeper.

“It doesn’t seem to be parents or administrators, as very few teachers reported external pressure not to teach climate change,” says the journal Science, which published his study in Friday’s edition.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 6 Comments

NASA say HUMANS DO cause global warming…but shouldn’t its scientists be focused on SPACE

obama nasaThe US space agency said it had “chilled the sceptics” after one of its scientific studies found long-term planetary warming will only happen if external drivers such as greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

Its findings came as NASA was criticised for now appearing to be more concerned with research into climate change than getting into space and understanding the universe.

Commentators say the new NASA budget released by US president Barack Obama this week is focused on climate change research rather than its main mission of space exploration.

The results of a NASA/Duke University study released this week “provides new evidence that natural cycles alone aren’t sufficient to explain the global atmospheric warming observed over the last century,” according to a NASA spokesman.

It is said the study shows, in detail, the reason why global temperatures remain stable in the long run unless they are pushed by outside forces, such as increased greenhouse gases due to humans.

…snip…

Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, said: “While global temperature tends to be stable due to the Planck Response, there are other important, previously less appreciated, mechanisms at work, too.

“These mechanisms include the net release of energy over anomalously cool regions and the transport of energy to continental and polar regions.

“In those regions, the Planck Response overwhelms positive, heat-trapping local energy feedbacks.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Monkey business: Gorilla’s message about global warming was staged

kokoA recent video featuring a gorilla named Koko appearing to use sign language to warn man of the dangers of global warming was staged, and animal communication experts say there is no way a gorilla could comprehend the complexities of global warming.

The video, shown at December’s Paris climate change conference, shows Koko use sign language to say things like “I am gorilla, I am flowers, animals, I am nature… Man Koko love… but man… man stupid… Koko cry, time hurry, fix Earth…”

The video was produced by a French environmental group and the gorilla Foundation, which cares for Koko the gorilla and notes on its website that the video was produced “with a script” and “edited from a number of separate takes, for brevity and continuity.”

Animal communication experts say the video is misleading.

“This group has been really upping the ante for making incredible exaggerated claims for her comprehension,” Barbara King, an anthropology professor at the College of William and Mary and the author of “How Animals Grieve,” told FoxNews.com.

King also worries that the ad, by exposing the idea of ape communication to ridicule, could undermine views about primates’ abilities.

“Koko is fabulous as she is. No one has to exaggerate. Scientists who do that — it hurts our credibility. It really does.”

Although primates like gorillas can learn hundreds of words, there is no good evidence that they can learn grammar, according to Arizona State University Psychology Professor Clive Wynne.

That includes even the simplest grammar like word order, for instance the difference between “dog bites man” and “man bites dog.”

On tests to distinguish terms like those, even one of the world’s smartest apes got the right answer 57 percent of the time ‚Äì barely better than guessing. And that involved overly-generous grading by the trainers, Wynne notes.

But while primates haven’t been able to learn grammar, they can do impressive things once thought impossible.

“Koko shows definite comprehension of spoken English,” King said. Koko knows an impressive 2,000 words and uses them to make requests and respond to questions.

“Koko can also come up with some pretty creative ways of putting two phrases together,” King noted. For example, Koko didn’t know the word for “ring” and reportedly combined two words she knew ‚Äì “finger” and “bracelet” ‚Äì to make her meaning clear.

Primates also show human-like grief, King said.

“There was one gorilla whose long-term mate and friend died in the zoo, and he first tried to revive her, even bringing her favorite food to her and putting it in her hand and poking her,” she said.

“And then at some point he seemed to come to a really stunning realization that his friend was not going to move. I don’t know if that’s a concept of death, but his behavior changed and he let out a very agonizing wail and stopped trying to revive her. Clearly something cognitive and emotional happened to him at that moment.”

But animal experts agree that climate change is way beyond the understanding of gorillas.

“A complex phenomenon like climate change is not understood by many humans, let alone an ape,” Sally Boysen, an Ohio State University psychology professor, told FoxNews.com.

Even if Koko could understand climate change, experts disagree about the effect of climate change on primates. Warming has nearly paused over the last 17 years, and increases in the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere have increased plant growth.

However, Gorillas are threatened by other environmental harms, which have reduced the number of gorillas to just around 100,000. The main causes are slash-and-burn methods to clear African forests for agriculture, killings by hunters, and development in their habitats.

That has left some subspecies like Mountain Gorillas critically endangered with under 1,000 individuals left.

But while primates face serious environmental challenges and have impressive mental abilities compared to other animals, it’s still best not to get global warming advice from a gorilla.

Source

Continue Reading

Audubon goes over the edge

audubonThe January-February 2016 issue of Audubon Magazine  (Figure 1) proclaims “Arctic on the Edge: As global warming opens our most critical bird habitat, the world is closing in.” In reality, the magazine’s writers and editors have gone over the edge, with wildly misleading “reports” on the Arctic. 

The magazine is awash in misstatements of fact and plain ignorance of history, science and culture. It epitomizes the false claims that characterize “news coverage” of “dangerous manmade climate change.” The following analysis corrects only some of the most serious errors, but should raise red flags about most every claim Audubon makes.

The first part of this issue devotes pages to each of the countries surrounding the Arctic Ocean. The Finland page says “storms become more severe” with warming. The writers are either clueless or intentionally misleading; they likely did not take Earth Science or Meteorology and are oblivious of atmospheric fluid dynamics.

The pole to equator temperature difference drives the strength of storms. If there actually is Arctic warming, that temperature difference declines, and storm strength becomes less severe – not more so.

The Norway page describes the Black-legged Kittiwake and speculates that warming in the Barents Sea attracts herring which feed on Kittiwake prey. The authors are clearly unaware that natural warming and cooling cycles have been occurring for centuries. On a map derived from the Norwegian Polar Institute’s examination of ship logs (Figure 2), a green dashed line depicting reduced Nordic Sea ice extent demonstrates extensive warming in the Barents Sea in 1769. During that particular warm period, ocean currents and weather conditions made Svalbard and even parts of Novaya Zemlya ice-free.

The Greenland page purports to show “Greenland Warming.” However, it was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, and abundant new ice formed in Greenland during the past century. Enough snow and ice accumulated on the Greenland Ice Sheet that Glacier Girl, the P-38 airplane that landed there in 1942, was buried in 268 ft of ice before she was recovered in 1992. That’s 268 feet in 50 years, well over 5 feet of ice accumulation a year, much of it during a period when Earth was warming and Greenland was supposedly losing ice.

Audubon’s cover photo features a Russian oil rig amid an ice-covered Arctic Ocean. It is intended to instil fear, by suggesting that a once solidly icy Arctic is melting rapidly. However, history shows that the Nordic ice extent has been decreasing since at least the 1860s, and probably since the depth of the Little Ice Age, around 1690. In fact, historic data (Figure 3), indicate that multi-decadal variability of Nordic Sea extent (some 30-45% more or less ice during each cycle) has been occurring for over 150 years.

Toward the end of the January-February issue is an account of a visit to Wainwright, Alaska, an Inupiat village of about 556 natives, located on the Arctic Ocean in North Slope Borough. The Native Inupiat much prefer to maintain their subsistence culture, which has been their tradition since their ancestors settled nearby about 13,000 years ago.

The caption to the Audubon photograph of the village (Figure 4) emphasizes rising ocean waters. However, most of Alaska has falling sea levels, the result of the isostatic adjustment of northern North America. This rebound effect began with the melting of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet, as Earth emerged from the Wisconsin Ice Age and entered the Holocene between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. The nearest tide gage to Wainwright is Prudhoe Bay, and sea level rise there is very small: 1.20 mm/year +/- 1.99 mm/year (up to 7.9 inches per century) ‚Äì so small that sea levels might actually be falling there, as well, when margin of error is considered.  

The Audubon writers mention “melting permafrost” numerous times, but when the Natives spoke about this in 1979, they clearly did not view it as a problem. In fact, in their own words, recorded in The Inupiat View, the Natives specifically say melt water is scarce in North Slope Borough. What has happened in the years since?

First, the North Slope has a summer, and from early June until mid-September air temperatures average warmer than 32 degrees F. Wainwright’s extreme maximum once reached 80 degrees Fahrenheit! During summer, the soil melts, creating an “active layer.” The surface is not permanently frozen, but is melted part of the year, every year. Whether there actually is problematical “melting permafrost,” as claimed by Audubon, can be determined only by finding the long-term trend in the thickness of the active layer.

Specialists studying this phenomenon publish reports in the Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring Network, in NOAA’s annual Arctic Report Card, and elsewhere. The 2012 Report Card edition had an extensive section on permafrost.  A quote from this edition pours freezing water on Audubon’s “melting permafrost” claim:  “Active-layer thickness on the Alaskan North Slope and in the western Canadian Arctic was relatively stable during 1995-2011,” it notes.

The NOAA Arctic Reports do have a heavy dose of alarmist rhetoric, especially in the boilerplate introductory sections, but the actual measurements and data present nothing that supports the alarmist polemic of the day. The long term pattern shows centuries-long slow warming, with multi-decadal fluctuations; significant or alarming anthropogenic trends are simply not there.

Audubon should stay away from areas where it has no expertise ‚Äì specifically imagined or invented catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Audubon’s equivocal policy on wind power ostensibly calls on wind energy developers to consider planning, siting and operating wind farms to avoid bird carnage; the Society claims to support “strong enforcement” of laws protecting birds and wildlife. On the other hand, the same Audubon policy speaks about “species extinctions and other catastrophic effects of climate change” and “pollution from fossil fuels.”

When read together, this schizophrenic policy clearly puts Audubon on the side of climate alarmism ‚Äì with the loss of birds and bats merely a small price to pay in an effort to “save the planet.”

Another article shows that Audubon’s alarmist climate claims, rather than bird safety, clearly dominate president David Yarnold’s concerns. Beneath a picture of a forest fire, an editorial quotes him: “Climate change is the greatest threat to birds and biodiversity since humans have been on the planet.”

Yarnold’s editorial is rife with  alarmist propaganda: increasing drought (data show drought  decreasing in the United States over the past 110 years in regions where we have temperature and rainfall measurements) … increasing forest fires (not so, according to actual data) …increasing species extinctions  (virtually no extinctions have occurred except on isolated islands where predators were introduced by humans) … and more flooding (there has been nothing outside normal experience).

Audubon needs to concentrate on saving birds and other flying creatures from the very real death machines that kill countless thousands, perhaps millions, of them every year. These killing machines include wind turbines, that chop up raptors, song birds and bats, and heliostats (installations using mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays) that incinerate them.

Bats pollinate crops and consume insects. However, the number of bats killed has been conservatively estimated at 600,000 annually, and may be as high as 900,000.  The Ivanpah solar-to-electrical-energy plant in California’s Mojave Desert actually ignites birds in flight; the dying birds are called “streamers,” because they emit smoke as they fall from the sky. One report estimates that over 100 golden eagles and 300 red tailed hawks are killed yearly by wind turbines at California’s Altamont Pass, but another calculates that millions of birds and bats are killed every year by US wind turbines.

Audubon needs to get some real science in its research and show true empathy for the human-caused deaths that our flying friends face on a daily basis

Robert Endlich served as a weather officer in the US Air Force for 21 Years. He has a BA in geology and an MS in meteorology and is a member of Chi Epsilon Pi, the national Meteorology Honor Society. (A more extensive version of this article can be found on MasterResource.org)

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Profiteers of climate doom

earthA century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.

The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious add-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.

In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – based on actual measurements to date – not much.

The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios,” based on inadequate knowledge coupled with ideological bias. Etatiste (government empowered or paid) politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.

A quarter-century has passed since the panel first predicted how fast the world would warm. Measurements since then show the predictions were much overblown. But don’t take it from us.

Ask any climatologist the following ten killer questions.

1: What is the source of the warming that surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years?

The official theory is that photons interacting with CO2 molecules in the upper air give off heat that warms that air, which in turn warms the lower air, which warms Earth’s surface.

Yet the two satellite datasets show no global warming of the lower air for almost 19 of the 21 years of annual UN global-warming conferences. Even if CO2 had warmed the upper air as predicted (and the satellites show it has not), that warming could not have reached the surface through lower air that has not warmed. Therefore, if the surface has warmed in the past couple of decades, as the surface datasets now pretend, CO2 cannot have been the cause.

In 2006 the late Professor Robert Carter, a down-to-earth geologist who considered global warming a non-problem, wrote in Britain’s Daily Telegraph that in the eight full years 1998-2005 the Hadley Centre’s global temperature dataset showed no global warming at all.

Since then, that dataset (and all the other surface datasets) was recently adjusted upward to create global warming that actual measurements did not show. The Hadley data now indicate a warming trend over those same eight years, equivalent to more than 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) per century.

2: Why, just two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming so far in this century? And why was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference – in a manner calculated to show significant warming – even though the satellite records continue to show little or no warming?

3: Why do all the datasets, surface as well as satellite, show a lot less warming than predicted? Why has the rate of warming over the past quarter century been only one-third to one-half of the average prediction made by the UN’s climate panel in its 1990 First Assessment Report, even after the numerous questionable adjustments to the surface temperature datasets?

fig 1

Figure 1.

The startling temperature clock (Figure 1) shows the UN panel’s 1990 predictions as orange and red zones meeting at the red needle that represents the IPCC’s then average prediction that by now there should have been global warming equivalent to 2.8 degrees C (4.9 degrees F) per century.

But the blue needles, representing the warming reported by the three much-manipulated surface temperature datasets, show little more than half that warming. The green needles, representing the satellite datasets, show only a third of what the UN had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990.

4: Why is the gap between official over-prediction and observed reality getting wider?

An updated temperature clock (Figure 2) shows the global warming that the UN’s panel predicted in its 2001 Third Assessment Report, compared with measured warming from then until 2015. The measured warming rate, represented by the green zone, is manifestly less than the warming rate since 1990, even though CO2 concentration has risen throughout this time.

fig 2

Figure 2

5: Why is the gap widening between warming rates measured by satellite and by surface datasets?

It is legitimate to infer that the surface datasets have been altered to try to bring the reported warming closer to the failed but (for now) still profitable predictions. (That is, the altered datasets still bring profits in the form of money, fame and power to the failed prophets of climate doom.)

6: Why should anyone invest trillions of dollars – to replace fossil fuels with expensive renewable energy – on the basis of official predictions in 1990 and 2001 that differ so greatly from reality?

Plainly, this is not the “settled science” we were told it was.

7: Why has the observed rate of warming, on all datasets, been tumbling for decades notwithstanding predictions that it would at least remain stable?

One-third of all mankind’s supposed warming influence on the climate since 1750 has occurred since the late 1990s, and yet satellites show scarcely a flicker of global warming in almost 19 years.

Likewise, the strength and frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts ‚Äì and the rate of sea level rise ‚Äì are still completely within the realm of natural variability and human experience, even though atmospheric CO2 levels have increased noticeably in recent decades. And that extra carbon dioxide is fertilizing plants, making crops and forests grow faster and better, and “greening” the Earth.

Not only the amount but also the pattern of warming fails to match predictions. To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air. (400 ppm is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.) Yet the UN’s panel said in 2007 that carbon dioxide would warm the upper air six miles above the tropical surface at twice or thrice the surface rate.

That tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” (one of us gave it its name) was supposed to be the undeniable fingerprint of manmade global warming. Its existence would prove manmade warming.

8: So, where is the tropical upper-air hot-spot?                         

Satellites do not show it. Millions of measurements taken by balloon-borne radiosondes do not show it. It is missing. If warming is manmade, there should be a distinct difference between measured surface and upper-air warming rates. It has not been there, for decades.

Similarly, just as official predictions claim CO2-driven warming will be greatest in the upper air, which will in turn warm Earth’s surface, so they also claim that the near-surface air will warm the ocean surface, which will warm the deep oceans ‚Äì and that is where the global warming has been “hiding.”

Yet measurements from more than 3,600 automated buoys throughout the ocean (that dive down a mile and a quarter and take detailed temperature and salinity profiles every ten days) show that the deeper strata are warming faster than the near-surface strata.

9: Why, if CO2-driven warming ought to warm the surface ocean first, is the ocean warming from below? And why has the ocean been warming throughout the eleven full years of the ARGO dataset at a rate equivalent to only 1 degree every 430 years?

As NASA thermal engineer Hal Doiron bluntly puts it: “When I look at the ocean, I see one of the largest heat-sinks in the solar system. While the ocean endures, there can’t be much manmade global warming.” And he had to get his heat calculations right or astronauts died.

Believers have silenced serious and legitimate scientific questions such as these, by unleashing an organized, well-funded, remarkably vicious campaign of personal vilification against anyone who dares to ask any question, however polite or justifiable, about the Party Line. Most scientists, politicians and journalists have learned that they will have a much quieter life if they just drift along with what most scientists privately concede is sheer exaggeration.

Believers also insist there is a “consensus” that manmade global warming is likely to prove dangerous.

10: Given that the authors of the largest-ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers found that only 64 of 11,944 papers (0.5% of the total) actually said their authors agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade ‚Äì on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?

The “97% consensus” is a pure fabrication, used to justify harmful and even lethal public policies.

Millions die worldwide every year because they do not have cheap, clean, continuous, low-tech, coal-fired electricity, to replace the wood, grass and animal dung fires they must use to cook their food and heat their homes. Given the growing and flagrant discrepancies between prediction and observation that we have revealed here for the first time, the moral case for defunding the profiteers of climate doom and redeploying the money to give coal-fired light and heat to the world’s poorest people is overwhelming.

We are killing millions of parents and children today, based on a scientifically baseless goal of saving thousands who are not at risk “the day after tomorrow.”

____________

Christopher Monckton was an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. Willie Soon is a solar physicist and climate scientist in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. David Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.

Continue Reading

Book Review – Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

scientistsThis book by climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer is a tour-de-force on the scientific debate about global warming. The book is relatively short, just 101 pages divided into seven chapters. Each chapter leads off with a summary of key findings, and each chapter section is supported by many references to the scientific literature.

The book is published by the Heartland Institute. You can download the entire book as a PDF file (7.8Mb) for free here, or buy a hard copy from the Heartland Store ($14.95).

Many books and papers about global warming contain many, sometimes confusing, graphs. Not this one. Some readers may be happy to know that there are only three graphs in the whole book. The authors get right to the point with their succinct, easy-to-read explanations.

Here is a brief summary, key findings of each chapter, and my comments:

Chapter 1: No Consensus:

“The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a ‘scientific consensus’ in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading.”

This chapter examines each major paper that claims consensus and exposes its flaws. This chapter also provides evidence for lack of consensus.

Chapter 2: Why Scientists Disagree:
The key points provide the major reasons for disagreement:

“Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines.”

“Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models.”

“The United Nations’ Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.”

“Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.”

Chapter 3: Scientific method versus Political science:

In this chapter the authors contrast the proper methods of scientific investigation with what goes on in climate science.

“The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.”

“The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability.” (The IPCC has never presented any physical evidence to refute the null hypothesis.)

“In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.”

Chapter 4: Flawed Projections:

This chapter examines the climate modeling used by the IPCC and shows how all their predictions (projections) have been wrong.

Chapter 5: False Postulates:

This chapter shows that modern warming is neither unprecedented nor unnatural. Rather, the following statements are supported by observation evidence.

“Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979‚Äì2000) lay outside normal natural variability.”

“The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.”

“Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not have forced temperatures to rise.”

“Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

“A warming of 2¬∞C or more during the twenty-first century would probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”

Chapter 6: Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence:

This chapter debunks scary climate claims.

Chapter 7: Policy Implications:

The authors recommend: “Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,
policymakers should seek out advice from independent, non-government organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest.”
“Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face.”

The book concludes with this:

Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.”

The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941,

“It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true.” (Waddington, 1941).

This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming.

I highly recommend this book for those who want to know the real story of global warming, and I recommend it especially for those who believe the IPCC and government propaganda.

Source

Continue Reading 3 Comments

Supreme Court sounds death knell for Obama’s Clean Power Plan

coal fired plantVowing to keep fighting, the Obama Administration was dealt a devastating blow when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday that his signature Clean Power Plan would be ‘put on hold’ as lawsuits move forward. The Clean Power Plan has become an enormous part of Obama’s “climate legacy” and also a way to circumvent both chambers of a Republican-controlled congress.

The ongoing challenge to the Clean Power Plan will be whether Obama acted within his constitutional powers or if he, and by extension the EPA, bypassed congress to roll out a bevy of onerous regulations.

It all began when Obama failed to get a climate bill passed in the first two years of his presidency when he controlled both chambers of Congress. Not able to write laws himself, he then used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do what even Democrats refused to do: create and implement a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. Because of the ruling, the justices (or at least five of them) believe opponents of this plan had made strong arguments against the rules, and issued a stay on the plan.

The Clean Power Plan targets CO2 emissions from existing power plants, requiring them to cut them by one-third by 2030. Each state must submit an ‘action’ plan by September on how they will comply with the plan. The EPA’s plan mainly targets coal-fired power plants, and hundreds of them have already been shuttered due to the new regulations.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has sent a sharp rebuke to the EPA. In late June 2015, the Supreme Court told the EPA it had failed to consider the costs of certain regulations, which were doing ‘more harm than good.’ In that 5-4 vote ruling, the Court said the EPA failed to take costs into account when it imposed new regulations curbing the emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, which forced the closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants due to costly new standards.

As noted by the energy think-tank Institute for Energy Research, it’s no longer cost-effective to build a new coal-fired plant in the U.S. To replace the plants already closed due to EPA’s regulations, “new [power plants] will cost the nation and thus taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.” Meanwhile, both China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at breakneck speed.

Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington D.C. refused to put the plan on hold, or issue a “stay.” The appeals court is “not likely to issue a ruling on the legality of the plan until months after it hears oral arguments begin on June 2.” There are 27 states plus numerous industry groups and organizations challenging the legality of the plan. The Supreme Court’s temporary ‘stay’ prevents the EPA from implementing the Clean Power Plan, at least until the lawsuit makes its way up the legal food chain.

With control of both chambers of congress, Democrats refused to take up the climate issue in the first two years of Obama’s presidency, having just won a bitter battle over Obamacare. Democrats lost control of the house in 2010 in what the president termed an “electoral shellacking,” but Obama was already figuring out ways to get around the Congress. Enter the Clean Power Plan, a Gordian knot of rules and regulations that targets CO2 emissions and enforced by the EPA.

Only congress has the power to write new laws, but the EPA can write new regulations. Under the auspices of cleaner air, the EPA rolled out the Clean Power Plan, specifically targeting coal-fired power plants’ CO2 emissions. Critics say that Obama’s inability to work with congress, even when he controlled both chambers, plays an enormous role in his “shift to regulations.” While the number of executive actions is on par with former presidents, the scope of those actions are much larger, sweeping, and if the Supreme Court’s recent ruling is a bellwether of things to come, unconstitutional.

Sen. James Inhofe (R) said, “The only way he was going to be able to fulfill this [climate] legacy was through regulation.” Most of the Republicans running for president have vowed to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan as the costs don’t outweigh the damage it would do to the economy. Even the EPA has admitted it would only avert warming .01 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The regulations would also raise energy prices on oil, natural gas, while favoring government-subsidized renewables, which can’t compete with cheap, abundant fossil fuels.

Gina McCarthy told The Hill that she thinks Obama was “frustrated in the first term. I think he went into the second term determined to not be frustrated,” she added. “He was determined to look at what tools and authorities Congress gave us that we could now use to move forward. … That’s where we focused our entire effort.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Obama vows to press ahead on Clean Power Plan after setback

power plantThe administration of President Barack Obama is vowing to press ahead with efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions after a divided Supreme Court put his signature plan to address climate change on hold until after legal challenges are resolved.

Tuesday’s surprising move by the court is a blow to Obama and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents, who call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By issuing the temporary freeze, a 5-4 majority of the justices signaled that opponents made strong arguments against the rules. The high court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request for delay.

The administration’s plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration’s plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gives the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration will continue to “take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”

A federal appeals court in Washington last month refused to put the plan on hold. That lower court is not likely to issue a ruling on the legality of the plan until months after it hears oral arguments begin on June 2.

Any decision will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, meaning resolution of the legal fight is not likely to happen until after Obama leaves office.

Compliance with the new rules isn’t required until 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

The Supreme Court Just Delivered A Crippling Blow To Obama’s Global Warming Agenda

supremes bldgThe U.S. Supreme Court just delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama’s global warming agenda by halting the implementation of a key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on carbon dioxide emissions.

The court won’t allow the EPA to implement its so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. This is a big win for the 29 states suing the federal government to stop a rule expected to cripple the coal industry.

“Five justices of the Supreme Court agreed with North Dakota and other parties that EPA’s regulation would impose massive irreparable harms on North Dakota and the rest of the country and that there was a substantial likelihood EPA was acting unlawfully,” Paul Seby, an attorney with law firm Greenberg Traurig representing the state of North Dakota, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

States asked the Supreme Court to halt implementation of the CPP after a lower court rejected their appeal in January. Now, Morrisey and the Obama administration will make their oral arguments on the merits of the law in front of federal judges in June.

“Make no mistake ‚Äì this is a great victory for West Virginia,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s leading the states against the EPA, in a statement on the announcement.

Morrisey argues the CPP amounts to “double regulating” by the EPA, since coal-fired power plants — the main target of the rule — are already being regulated under another provision of the Clean Air Act. States also argue the CPP is in effect a federal takeover of their energy policies.

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.

This is the second major EPA regulation to be held up by the courts in recent months. Last year, federal judges issued a stay on an agency rule redefining “waters of the United States” — this sparked backlash from nearly every industry from farmers to energy producers.

But defeating the CPP in court may not be as easy as states think, since the Obama administration will likely argue striking down these rules would go against international commitments made by the U.S. in Paris last year.

In December, the U.S. joined nearly 200 countries in pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming. Obama promised to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

The Obama administration, however, may have problems of its own because it has not gotten the agreement ratified by the Senate — a key requirement for a legally binding treaty. This has only added to the confusion of whether or not the United Nations Paris deal is legally a treaty or not.

“This will be a fatal blow to the president’s climate agenda,” Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, told TheDCNF.

“This shows just how far the Obama administration has gone — they went too far,” Pyle said.

Source

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

power linesIn a major setback for President Obama‘s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the Supreme Court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.

Read rest…

Continue Reading