Author Archive

John Kerry: Bar Global Warming Skeptics From Elected Office

kerrySecretary of State John Kerry says that global warming skeptics should be disqualified from “high public office.” By all means, Secretary Kerry, let’s allow you to unilaterally set the eligibility requirements for elected officials. We’ll just turn it all over to you and your astute judgment.

Here’s the gaseous statement that elicited our playground response, made Wednesday by Kerry from his Climate and Clean Energy Investment Forum, as recorded by Talk Radio News Service:

“But when I hear a United States senator say, ‘I’m not a scientist so I can’t make a judgment,’ or a candidate for president for that matter, I’m absolutely astounded. I mean, it’s incomprehensible that a grownup who has been to high school and college in the United States of America disqualifies themselves because they’re not a scientist when they’ve learned that the Earth rotates on its axis, but they’re not a scientist; where they’ve learned that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and it does so 24 hours a day; and you can run the list of things that we know science tells us happens, and we accept it every single day.

“And to suggest that when more than 6,000-plus peer-reviewed studies of the world’s best scientists all lay out that this is happening and mankind is contributing to it, it seems to me that they disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements.”

As is often said at children’s parks all over the country, two can play this game. So we propose here that no climate change alarmist or uncritical believer in the man-made global warming story should hold high, medium or even low public office. It makes sense. Almost all of those who meet these descriptions are either: 1) political opportunists who are simply saying the right things to a voting bloc or some other group whose support they’re courting, or 2) the sort of folks who haven’t given the issue enough thought, in most cases because they don’t want to.

Spare us the nonsense about “6,000-plus peer reviewed studies” and the new perennial favorite “97% of scientists say man is warming the planet.” The first is either a poorly done study or con job, and the second is … either a poorly done study or con job.

Actually, we don’t mind if those who believe in man-made global warming hold office, as long as they came by their views honestly. What we do mind is believers using office to hector us all incessantly about our prosperous lifestyles, and enact policies that won’t change Earth’s temperature one bit but sure will overwhelm developed economies. The rest of us shouldn’t have to pay the price of their opinions.

Source

Continue Reading 12 Comments

US Opposition To Climate Finance Stalls UN Climate Talks

Bonn plenaryNegotiations on the Paris climate change agreement’s second draft slipped behind closed doors on Wednesday in Bonn, Germany. The US reiterated their long-standing position that public funds were expected to be a small portion of the $100 billion that the developed world is required to provide annually starting 2020. The US also asked all countries to contribute to the climate funds. This implied that emerging economies should also contribute to the climate funds, which under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) only developed countries are obliged to provide so far. This was opposed by negotiators from developing countries. –Nitin Sethi, Business Standard, 22 October 2015

Developing countries, led by Africa and China, nearly walked out of the UN’s climate talks in Bonn, Germany, on Monday, as the rift widened between the rich and poor nations over who should bear the larger financial responsibility to implement measures to curb climate change. A key concern was the wording on US$100 billion in finance that the developed world had promised to mobilise by 2020 to help poorer nations make the shift to less-polluting energy industries and adapt to the unavoidable effects of global warming, such as a rise in the sea level. —New Era News, 22 October 2015

Frustration ran high Wednesday at the snail’s pace of talks for a climate rescue pact, with three days left for diplomats to craft a blueprint for a year-end UN summit. With an eye firmly on the clock, diplomats in Bonn despaired at the mountain of work they face after an acrimonious start on Monday cost them more than a day of negotiating time. “I am, to be honest, very concerned,” said climate envoy Laurence Tubiana of France, which will host a November 30-December 11 UN summit tasked with inking a 195-nation pact to rein in global warming. “I don’t think this way of working is going to bring us where we need to be by the end of the week and to stand a chance of success in Paris.” –Mariette Le Roux, AFP, 21 October 2015

Joby Warrick of The Washington Post asks a strange question: If it’s President Obama’s mission to reduce carbon emissions, why is the federal government allowing coal to be mined on federal land and exported? The answer is obvious and hidden in plain sight in the graphics package that accompanies Warrick’s story: Increasing world demand for electricity. According to the World Coal Association, there are more than 2,300 coal fired power plants planned or under construction worldwide. They will provide electricity access to millions of people, greatly improving their lives. These plants will be built and burn coal no matter what coal opponents do. –Sean Hackbarth, US Chamber of Commerce, 16 October 2015

The Global Warming Policy Foundation welcomes the acknowledgement by Professor Colin Prentice, a leading UK climate scientist at the Grantham Institute, that the thrust of the GWPF’s latest report on CO2 is correct and a well-established scientific fact. Last week, the GWPF published a report by Dr Indur Goklany which highlights the many benefits of carbon dioxide for the environment and human health. Professor Prentice, AXA Chair in Biosphere and Climate Impacts at the Grantham Institute, also confirms that the many benefits of CO2 documented in the GWPF report “are indeed ‘good news’.” —Global Warming Policy Foundation, 21 October 2015

Continue Reading 5 Comments

Study shows climate change made Calif. drought less likely to occur

jerry brownA new peer-reviewed study refutes Gov. Jerry Brown’s assertion that global warming is behind California’s drought, indicating that climate change neither makes droughts more likely to occur nor exacerbates them. The study, published this week in the Journal of Climate, shows that the “net effect of climate change” has made California’s agriculture drought “less likely” to occur and that the “current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture” has not been exacerbated by long-term climate changes. This is another stinging indictment that Gov. Brown’s belief that global warming is causing California’s drought is bordering on wish fulfillment.

As first reported here, two earlier studies also show that natural variability, and not global warming, are behind California’s four-year-long drought. An untimely combination of natural events is occurring, but unfortunately for Brown, they have nothing to do with global warming.

This hasn’t stopped Gov. Brown from blaming the drought, and wildfires, on climate change and making it one of his key talking points during press events and educational summits. More puzzling, Brown’s drought statements have gotten more forceful and extreme, even as the science is telling a far different story. Even the NY Times jumped on the bandwagon, quoting one climate scientist who said global warming has made the drought even worse, but admitting that without climate change, it would be a “fairly bad drought no matter what.”

This most recent study looked at how global radiative forcing (the difference between how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and radiated back to space.) influences long-term climate change in California, specifically on its drought. Using observations and computer models, the simulations show that increased “radiative forcing since the late 19th Century induces both increased annual precipitation and increased surface temperature over California.” This, they write, is consistent with observed long-term changes (what is actually measured) and previous computer model studies (what is expected to happen).

What the authors found was “no material difference in the frequency of droughts” defined using various, multiple indicators of “precipitation and near-surface (10 cm) soil moisture.” That’s because shallow soil moisture is more responsive to “increased evaporation driven by warming,” which makes up for the “increase in the precipitation.” Conversely, when using deep soil (~1 meter), “droughts become less frequent” because deep soil moisture is more responsive to “increased precipitation.”

Put simply, the study shows how different land surfaces and depths respond to climate changes, which is most pertinent for “near-surface moisture exchange and for root zone moisture availability.” Moisture availability for roots is the most important as the deep layer determines “moisture availability for plants, trees, and many crops.” In the end, it shows that “climate change has made agricultural drought less likely, and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture has not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.”

This should come as good news to Gov. Brown, who fundamentally believes that climate change is causing the severe drought in his state, even though historical records indicate that long-running droughts have occurred in California for millennia. The last multi-year drought happened in 1976, except climatologists blamed that drought, and the subsequent wildfires, on global cooling, not global warming.

The current drought, though, has been made worse by one thing that nature has little control over: man-made interference in the state’s poorly regulated water system that favors agriculture over availability. Another factor is the much-hyped delta smelt, a tiny fish that environmentalists claimed was endangered and successfully had it listed on the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Since that time, many scientists have concluded that listing the delta smelt was premature and not based on factual evidence.

According to Examiner.com’s Lorraine Yapps Cohen, “Legislation that diverted water into San Francisco Bay was intended to protect the delta smelt mini fish from water pumps.” Because environmentalists were able to get the smelt listed as an endangered species, millions of gallons of agricultural water are dumped into the ocean, in a misguided attempt to save a fish at the expense of people’s livelihoods.

This new study was led by Linyin Cheng of the University of Colorado/Boulder and published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society. Other authors listed are from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences/Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Boulder, and the University of California/Irvine.

Source

Continue Reading 4 Comments

The Only Global Warming Chart You Need from Now On

When I make charts and graphs, I generally make it a practice to scale the vertical axis of a chart from zero (0) to the upper bound of the range. Compressing a chart’s vertical axis can be grossly misleading. For example, the usual chart the climatistas display of ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide levels looks like this:

CO1-1 copy

Oooh—that looks scary! Look how fast CO2 is rising! We’re galloping toward the all-important doubling of CO2, after which the world will come to an end.

Here’s the chart I typically use when displaying the same data, but with the vertical axis starting at zero, and indications of the bounds of pre-industrial CO2 and where the level of a doubling will be:

CO2-2 copy

Now that doesn’t look as scary, does it? No wonder the climatistas compress the vertical axis to make it look scarier.

Likewise, the typical chart of the global average temperature is usually displayed this way:

Global 1 copy

Whoa! We’re all gonna fry!

But what if you display the same data with the axis starting not just from zero, but from the lower bound of the actual experienced temperature range of the earth? I had never thought of this until an acquaintance sent it along today:

Global 2 copy

A little hard to get worked up about this, isn’t it? In fact you can barely spot the warming. No wonder you need a college education to believe in the alarmist version of climate change. No wonder the data (click here for original NASA data if you want to replicate it yourself) is never displayed this way in any of the official climate reports.

If this chart were published on the front page of newspapers the climate change crusaders would be out of business instantly.

Source

Continue Reading 103 Comments

No, Greenies, Exxon Did Not Hide ‘The Truth’ About Global Warming

exxonThis column is sponsored by my kind friends at ExxonMobil: the Gaia-raping, children-of-the-future-murderers you can trust!

No, of course it isn’t really and that’s my only serious beef with ExxonMobil. It ought to support its media defenders but it doesn’t.

So what if it’s a big oil company? Big oil companies make the world go round.

So what if its annual revenues, if expressed in GDP, would make it one of the world’s 30 largest companies? That’s capitalism.

But there’s one thing about ExxonMobil I find hard to excuse. And that’s the way that instead of trying to defend the values of industrial civilization which have made it so rich and powerful, it has instead all too often squandered its PR, CSR and research budgets not rewarding its friends but giving succour to its enemies.

Sure for a period it supported the Competitive Enterprise Institute to the modest tune of around $300,000 a year. (Not a lot when your annual profits can be as much as $40 billion). But the money it has given to liberal causes vastly outweighs anything it has given to free market ones: for example the $100 million (yes that’s million, not thousand) it donated to Stanford in 2002 to help launch its Global Climate and Energy Project.

Some might call this ‘investment in the future’. I’d call it greenwashing. Or, worse than that, Danegeld.

It’s a form of protection money paid to the green Mafia to ensure they go easy on your main business. Except they don’t. Just like the Vikings, just like the mobsters, when you bribe them to stay away they only keep coming back for more.

This is the background context against we should judge the outrageous and iniquitous proposals by various green activists that ExxonMobil should face prosecution on RICO charges for having knowingly concealed “the truth” about climate change.

These activists include Sharon Eubanks, a former US Department of Justice attorney who once helped bring a similar case against Big Tobacco; House Democrats Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) 14% and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) 12%; Canadian eco-loon Bill McKibben (who talks, with characteristic wry understatement, of Exxon’s “sheer, profound, and ‚Äì I think ‚Äì unparalleled evil”); and, of course, Rhode Island senator Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 4%, another attorney determined to use lawfare to shut down the debate on climate change once and for all.

Their claims are based on two articles which appeared in the liberal media and which ‚Äì at least in the authors’ perfervid imaginations ‚Äì showed Exxon ignoring its scientists in the 70s, 80s and 90s and setting out deliberately to conceal “the truth” about global warming.

Well I’ve read the articles ‚Äì one at the Inside Climate News website, the other at the LA Times ‚Äì and both are a classic case of what you might call “tell not show.”

That is, it is clear from their accusatory tone (“What Exxon knew about Earth’s melting Arctic”; “top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions”) that the authors believe Exxon was guilty of something seriously amiss. But in vain do you search the body of the text for any damning evidence that might justify all this righteous rage. In fact if anything, Exxon emerges from this non-scandal rather well: socially responsible; mindful of due diligence; properly concerned about the security and future of its core business and of the needs of its shareholders; keen to keep abreast of the latest science.

The story goes like this: from the late 70s to the mid 80s, Exxon dedicated a chunk of its then-annual $300 million research budget looking into the effects of CO2 and the possible risks of man-made global warming.

“Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” said one of its technical experts in 1978.

“There are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered” an in house corporate primer said in 1982. “Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.”

“Models are controversial,” as their head of theoretical sciences was honest enough to put it in a May 1980 status report on Exxon’s climate modelling programme. “Therefore, there are research opportunities for us.”

All this is no more than you would have expected scientists in that field to say in that particular era, as man-made-global-warming theory was becoming increasingly fashionable. By raising these issues, they were simply doing their job. Note, however, the caution of their phrasing. “Present thinking holds”; “might”; “potentially”; “might not be.” The science wasn’t certain and neither were the scientists: they were merely raising Exxon’s awareness of possible future scenarios.

What’s more, even though this fashionable new theory was detrimental to Exxon’s business model, Exxon still ‚Äì to its enormous moral credit ‚Äì chose to publish its research anyway in a series of papers and monographs.

Then in the mid-Eighties, Exxon began changing its tune. Its discretionary budget had been hit by the collapsing oil price and it had, perhaps, begun to recognise that the science on global warming was being manipulated by hucksters like NASA’s James Hansen and climate activist Senator Tim Wirth and that fossil fuel producers were now their public enemy number one ‚Äì for reasons more to do with green ideology than science.

In 1997, Exxon’s chairman and CEO Lee Raymond was among business leaders who argued successfully against America’s adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

He said:

“Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in the 21st century and beyond. We need to understand the issue better and fortunately, we have time. It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”

Does any of that statement strike you as crackpot or extreme or parti-pris?

Rather, I’d suggest, it accords much more closely with what we now know about climate change than anything Exxon’s scientists were saying in the early 80s. Indeed, if Exxon had chosen to act on some of the more extreme scenarios painted by the in-house experts, they would not only now be looking very silly but they’d also be out of business. Exxon, let it be stressed, were quite right to be cautious on catastrophic man-made global warming theory. This was never a cover up. This was a company responding sensibly and proportionately to the evidence available at the time ‚Äì and taking a stance which has subsequently been vindicated by observed reality.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

British Steel’s Green Death

steel's deathThe loss of so many jobs in the UK steel industry in such a short period of time is nothing short of a tragedy. British steelmakers pay nearly twice as much for their electricity as their German and French rivals. Dealing with this would require the UK government to row back on the green policies that slowly ratcheted up energy bills for British businesses. A couple of years ago, I asked the head of a large US fund management company for his opinion on the biggest risk Europe faced. I expected him to say Greece, or the euro, or something about our ageing populations. But he instantly alighted on European energy policy, labelling it “nuts”. Those workers in Scunthorpe and Redcar who have recently been laid off would likely agree. –Ben Wright, The Daily Telegraph, 20 October 2015

R.I.P. the British steel industry, once the mighty engine of this country’s industrial base. Over the past week, the blast furnaces and coke ovens at Redcar have been closed, with a loss of more than 2,000 jobs. Now Tata Steel is to cut almost half its workforce of 4,000 at its Scunthorpe plant, and there is similar bad news to come for its workforce in Scotland and Wales. The fact that this coincides with the state visit this week of the Chinese President Xi Jinping will lead many to say we should use the opportunity to complain to the leader of the world’s most populous nation about its saturation of the global market with ever-increasing volumes of steel. This would be futile. Worse, it would be missing the most important point. We have done this to ourselves: or, more precisely, it is British government which has been driving the final nail into the coffin of our own steel industry. –Dominic Lawson, Daily Mail, 19 October 2015

Energy costs alone represent up to 40% of the total costs of a steel plant in Europe, significantly more than in the USA, Russia, the Middle East or China. This is driving global steel investment outside the EU, where there are no such targets or green taxation to reduce CO2 emissions. The European steel industry employs 335,000 people. ArcelorMittal Europe estimates that their European steelmaking operations are at a $1 billion energy cost disadvantage compared with their counterparts in the USA. Aditya Mittal, its CEO, has recently warned that the cost of implementing the EU’s 2030 climate targets unilaterally would make European steelmaking unviable. He estimates that the additional costs for the steel sector between 2020 and 2030 would be around ‚Ǩ58 billion ($73.76 bn) of which ArcelorMittal would have to bear ‚Ǩ20 billion, or an average of ‚Ǩ2 billion a year, far exceeding ArcelorMittal’s European profits. While global steel output is increasing, European steel production is in steep decline and continues to lose competitiveness. The EU’s share of global steel production has more than halved in recent years, falling from 22% in 2001 to 10% in 2013. –Benny Peiser, Testimony to the US Senate, Washington DC, 2 December 2014

Another 2,000 lost jobs are collateral damage in the war on carbon dioxide. Pin the blame on David Cameron’s climate policy. Belatedly recognizing what an economy-killer the carbon-price floor is, Mr. Cameron’s government last year capped the additional amount emitters would have to pay at ¬£18 per metric ton of emissions at least until 2020. That’s progress, but not nearly enough to save jobs. A better idea would be to scrap Britain’s war on carbon entirely. As the science surrounding climate change becomes ever more contentious—and as green industries chronically fall short of the job creation and growth they promise—the costs of anticarbon policies grow and grow, not least for those 2,000 workers at Redcar. –Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, 6 October 2015

Karl-Ulrich K√∂hler, the European head of the Indian industry giants Tata Steel, predicts an exodus of the European steel industry if the EU emissions trade proposals are implement. “The proposals represent a risk for the steel production in Europe.” This model would be leading to a shrinking process in the industry. After all, all competitors in Asia and America would enjoy much better conditions. “When I talk about emissions trading in Europe before the Tata board in India, it is very difficult for the colleagues there to understand why Europe’s politicians undermine the competitiveness of their steelmakers”, says K√∂hler. –Carsten Dierig, Die Welt, 29 July 2015

The Global Warming Policy Forum is calling on the Government to scrap Britain’s unilateral Carbon Floor Price which is contributing to the crisis of UK steel and other energy intensive industries. The GWPF has been consistently warning about the rising policy cost of electricity prices which are expected to increase by 47% by 2020 for large industrial energy consumers. The UK’s extra large users of electricity are already paying nearly twice as much for power as the EU average. The Government should consider scrapping the Carbon Price Floor that is hitting UK manufacturers. They also need to bear down on the growing costs of renewable energy subsidies. —Global Warming Policy Forum

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Expert: Increased methane gas plumes are not linked to global warming

Figure 1.)  Offshore Washington / Oregon seafloor bottom topography (bathymetry).Figure 1.) Offshore Washington / Oregon seafloor bottom topography (bathymetry).As the Paris Climate Talks begin, the mainstream media has ramped up output of alarmist man-made global warming articles, this time focusing on increased methane gas plumes. Specifically, methane gas bubbling up from the seabed at several locations off the coast of Washington state. Methane gas plumes that they say are the result of man-made atmospheric global warming and indicative of a pending disaster.

Here’s what we’re told:

Human CO2 emissions have warmed the atmosphere, which has acted to warm mid-ocean depth levels in localized areas off the coast of Washington. This warmed seawater has heated, and therefore destabilized, selective and underlying seafloor methane-rich geological rock layers. These destabilized methane-rich geological rock layers are now emitting methane gas into the overlying ocean and are indicative of an impending worldwide catastrophic methane release. Methane gas is a so-called greenhouse gas with a potency 23 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Scary stuff!

Here is what the media is not telling you: natural methane gas has been seeping from seafloor locations off the coast of Washington state for thousands of years; the methane gas seeps mentioned in the recent alarmist articles are located along known geological fault trends; offshore Washington fault trends are known “natural” methane emitters; one the world’s most well-documented / famous deep-ocean heat and fluid pulses occurred from a fault zone off the Washington coast in 1986; and that recent regional Pacific Ocean warming is related a to geological heat-flow-induced El Niño, not man-made global warming (see references at end).

So are we on the verge of a worldwide catastrophic methane emission disaster as per these national media reports, or is there a local, geological explanation to recently observed methane gas emissions from seafloor locations off the coast of Washington state?

Here are the facts without the hysteria:

Let’s begin by taking a moment to review the image atop this article (Figure 1 – click to enlarge) that shows the topography of the seafloor off the coast of Washington in the greater region of methane gas bubble emissions. The prominent black lines in the deep ocean on the left / west side of the image are major seafloor geological faults. It is important to note that these fault escarpments (very steep banks) form two completely straight lines that are at right angles to each other.

This relationship shows that the faults are related and generated from the same geological force. When powerful planetary forces push on rock layers, they break / fault in predictable linear crossing patterns. That’s exactly what has occurred in this region of offshore Washington. These faults are part of the very well-known and major Juan De Fuca Rift / Fault System which is associated with the large tectonic Pacific / North America Plate boundary.

Next let’s look at the map of the offshore Washington sea bottom methane bubble locations (Figure 2 – click to enlarge).

Figure 2.) Map showing locations of the 168 bubble plumes used in the study.Figure 2.) Map showing locations of the 168 bubble plumes used in the study.

Takes a moment to let your eyes adjust, for once you study the pattern of the methane emission bubble locations you will notice there is a distinct linear red dot (new methane release) pattern, a distinct linear green dot pattern (known from literature), and that the two linear trends are at right angles to each other. Figure 3 (click to enlarge) is demarcated to clearly show these two linear trends of methane gas bubble locations.

Figure 3.)  Methane gas bubble location with linear trends highlighted, and an interesting parallel trend to the north.Figure 3.) Methane gas bubble location with linear trends highlighted, and an interesting parallel trend to the north.

To further illustrate the similarity of these two maps, known faults, and methane bubbles, Figure 4 (click to enlarge) places the maps side by side. You will notice that the linear trend direction and the angle the trends intersect are identical. This shows that the methane bubble locations lie along known active fault lines, and in are the result of the same geological forces that created the Juan De Fuca faults. This has important geological implications.

Figure 4.)   Matching straight line trends  of the known Juan De Fuca Rift System faults and methane gas bubble locations (red and green dots), and an interesting parallel trend to the north along the coastline.Figure 4.) Matching straight line trends of the known Juan De Fuca Rift System faults and methane gas bubble locations (red and green dots), and an interesting parallel trend to the north along the coastline.

It indicates that the root cause of the increased methane gas bubbles is from the heat and fluid flowing up the fault trends and NOT from atmospheric warming of a localized region off the Washington coast. This means the source of the methane bubbles may or may not be unstable methane rich and shallow seafloor rock layers. In fact, it is more likely to be methane gas brought up along the faults that are tapping super-deep natural methane pockets. This is the known and proven process behind methane bubbles / plumes along the Juan De Fuca Ridge.

If this was the only piece of significant geological information, it would still be prudent for the media to present this information to the public so they would know other (and more likely) non-global warming explanations were possible. Indeed, there is actually even more pertinent geological information just by doing a simple Google search.

Some might argue that since the Juan De Fuca is 250 miles east of the methane gas bubble locations, hasn’t the geology changed? No. Upon review of the fault maps for regions just onshore from the methane gas plumes, the trends, angles, and reasons for faulting are again very similar to the trends discussed above.

Still, other geological information can be obtained by reviewing this previous Climate Change Dispatch post concerning a large deep-ocean heat and fluid plume along the Cleft Segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge fault system discovered in 1986. This mega-plume event was so significant it spawned the formation an entirely new branch of the United States Geological Survey. This group was tasked with studying the impact of heat and fluid emissions (liquid methane and CO2) from deep-ocean faults and hydrothermal vents. Also, numerous research articles cite methane emissions from faults and hydrothermal vents along the Juan de Fuca Ridge.

Climate scientists and politicians who strongly favor the theory of man-made global warming are now saying the debate is over. They say there is no credible evidence showing anything but a warmed atmosphere is about to create all sorts of climate-related disasters, including massive ocean methane emissions. Here we show that a very brief review of offshore Washington methane gas bubbles shows natural geological forces at play, and has nothing to do with climate change.

Is all this geological evidence absolute proof that geological forces are controlling the methane gas bubbles? Of course not. Nothing in science is in absolutes. That is how science is supposed to work. You present all the pertinent information, then considerate it, test it openly and without restraint, reproduce it, and allow others to review your work. A more responsible media article would have, or at least should have, presented the geological backbone behind these increased methane plumes.

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 41 years and who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate.

REFERENCES

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/12/09/warmer-pacific-ocean-could-release-millions-of-tons-of-seafloor-methane/

https://books.google.com/books?id=xrHyCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=fuca+ridge+co2+and+methane’&source=bl&ots=E-T2v-qucl&sig=3sKyqRJQYrO36qyzIh3j0v94SaY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAGoVChMI7t-ggKrPyAIVSZSICh2x4wy3#v=onepage&q=fuca%20ridge%20co2%20and%20methane’&f=false

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/30/5/407.abstract

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/1999/pacific/abstracts/0682g.htm

http://www.ocean.washington.edu/story/Warmer+Pacific+ocean

http://www.washington.edu/news/2015/10/14/bubble-plumes-off-washington-oregon-suggest-warmer-ocean-may-be-releasing-frozen-methane/

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/earthquakes-and-faults

http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/expedition8/

Continue Reading

Coal Company Faces $5,000 Fine For Displaying ‘Fire Obama’ Signs

fire obamaThe coal company Murray Energy agreed to pay a $5,000 fine for failing to disclose it funded anti-Obama signs during the 2012 election cycle, according to a decision by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The FEC ruled Friday that Murray Energy will be fined for not disclosing payments for signs saying “STOP the WAR on COAL — FIRE OBAMA” in the months leading up to the 2012 election. The FEC investigation found that Murray Energy had paid $22,000 for anti-Obama signs, but did not include a disclaimer on them as required by federal election laws.

Murray energy argued it didn’t know it had to disclose paying for the signs, adding that the signs could “reasonably be read to primarily advocate a policy result longtime publicized” by the company. Murray also argued it stopped distributing the signs once a complaint against them was filed, and the company noted it hadn’t included a disclaimer because other similar signs did not have one.

The FEC didn’t buy Murray Energy’s arguments, finding that the company should have disclosed the spending to the commission and included disclaimers on its signs. The FEC determined the signs were meant to swing votes to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 election.

“Because Murray Energy’s ‘STOP the WAR on COAL ‚Äì FIRE OBAMA’ signs are public communications that contain express advocacy, they required a disclaimer,” FEC attorneys wrote in their legal filing based on a complaint brought by an Ohio liberal group.

Murray Energy’s founder and president has been a vocal critic of the Obama administration’s coal policies. Murray has accused Obama of waging a “war on coal” and has sued the EPA over power plant regulations.

“President Barack Obama, his appointed cabinet cronies, and his supporters in the U. S. House and Senate are rapidly accelerating their attacks on our jobs; and nothing has been enacted to even slow them down, let alone stop them,” Murray told an Ohio University crowd in 2013. “Mr. Obama has totally usurped the legislative branch of our federal government in his radical agenda.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Fanatics Want To Draft Americans To Fight This Dumb War

protest climateThe political left is ready to go to war, but not against any real threat. It wants to fight global warming — and of course that will require Americans to make sacrifices that just happen to align with the left’s objectives.

Al Gore popularized the phrase “fighting global warming” to underscore what he thinks is the seriousness of the matter. Though profoundly childish, the expression caught on and apparently inspired a Seattle-based writer to lay out in the Atlantic a plan for war.

According to Venkatesh Rao, “solving global warming” is going to be “like mobilizing for war.” And of course, war requires us to give up some things in the name of the effort.

“If emissions targets still remain out of reach, some growth must be temporarily sacrificed,” Rao argues in the Atlantic’s science — “science”? — section.

“In other words, we are contemplating the sorts of austerities associated with wartime economies.”

Rao says that “for ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel.”

At the same time, businesses might need to rethink “entire supply chains, as high-emissions sectors become unviable under new emissions regimes.”

In this wartime, Rao is also demanding trust in “academic and energy-sector public institutions” as well as in “the integrity and declared intentions of institutions” that understand “the intricacies” of climate science.

No thanks. We’ve seen too much corruption in the academic institutions and political bodies that are squawking the loudest and longest about the dangers of CO2 emissions. Maybe Rao has never heard of the ClimateGate scandal, the broken climate models or the moneyed influence — also known as the government — that have fueled the global-warming hysterics.

Rao has not jumped out there alone with his strategy for war. He’s merely a representative of what the political left is asking for in the “fight” against climate change. The fight, however, isn’t against climate change or global warming or carbon-dioxide emissions. It’s against free-market economies and the prosperity they produce. This is what the left ultimately wants to destroy. The climate-change scare is merely a vehicle.

In unguarded moments, the “fighters” admit this. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, conceded earlier this year 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.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say

brownThe ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.

The wilderness fire was “a real wake-up call” to reduce the carbon pollution “that is in many respects driving all of this,” he said.

“The fires are changing…. The way this fire performed, it’s not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds.”

“It’s a new normal,” he said in August. “California is burning.”

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.

But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year’s wildfires and global warming, or support Brown’s assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.

University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in “noble-cause corruption.”

Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.

“That is the nature of politics,” Pielke said, “but sometimes the science really has to matter.”

Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development.

Public attention should be focused on understanding fire risk, controlling development and making existing homes safer with fire-rated roofs and ember-resistant vents, said Richard Halsey, who founded the Chaparral Institute in San Diego.

Otherwise, he said, “the houses will keep burning down and people will keep dying.”

“I don’t believe the climate change discussion is helpful,” Halsey said.

Brown does not contend that climate change alone is making California’s fires worse, said Nancy Vogel, spokeswoman for the governor’s Natural Resources Agency. But she said addressing fires in the same breath as global warming “broadens the discussion and encourages us to think about the future.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments

India plans to buy coal mines in South Africa

coal 2India is talking to South Africa to buy coal mines there to feed its expanding steel industry, Coal Secretary Anil Swarup said, adding that New Delhi also hopes to stop imports of coal used to generate power in three years as domestic output jumps.

After years of poor production crippling power supply, state-run Coal India is boosting output at a record pace to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s goal of connecting to the grid millions of Indians who still make do with kerosene lamps.

But India, which wants to triple its steel capacity to 300 million tonnes by 2025, does not have enough reserves of coking or steel making coal, prompting Coal India to look at assets abroad, Swarup told the Reuters Global Commodities Summit on Monday.

“They are presently in negotiations with people in South Africa,” Swarup said. “We imported around 80-90 million tonnes of coking coal last fiscal year and if that is the amount that can come through a mine owned by Coal India, it would consider it.”

Swarup declined to give any investment figure but said money was not an issue for Coal India, which had cash and bank balance of more than $8 billion for the year ended March 31.

Overall coal imports into India, the world’s third-largest buyer, fell for the third straight month in September in a country used to seeing shiploads coming in as new power plants started.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Academic Stalinism Still Thriving

cartoon-gw-heresy-lgThere are many opinionated people on each side of the political spectrum, including me, but I haven’t heard of any conservatives trying to muzzle leftists. Liberals on the other hand? Ha.

Man-made global warming liberals ridicule skeptics as corrupt or brain-dead deniers, and their advocate in chief, President Obama, habitually derides conservatives for rejecting his hysterical narrative on climate change.

Don’t assume they do this solely for political advantage. It can be far more serious than that.

A claque of 20 climate scientists, in an open letter, urged Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to use the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to criminally investigate “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”

Knowingly deceived? That’s rich, coming from a barely disguised political movement tainted by well-documented fraud and corruption.

I’m no scientist, but it is remarkable to me that the scientists and politicians most adamantly demanding cloture on global warming debate violate the very essence of science in their premature certitude. Doesn’t science involve open-mindedness and liberal inquiry, even into questions that may seem to be settled?

But in the case of climate change, the matter is hardly settled, and it’s ironic that proponents point to skeptics’ alleged corruption as their motivation for denying the science. There is sick money, not to mention enormous peer pressure, behind the climate change agenda (you’d better believe it’s an agenda) and chilling any dissent. To wit: One of the principals behind the open letter is Jagadish Shukla, a George Mason University professor who reportedly receives an annual salary exceeding $250,000, in addition to multiples of that amount from government climate grants paid to his nonprofit entity.

The case for catastrophic man-made global warming is tenuous at best; there are many scientists (though perhaps not so credentialed in the field as Dr. Albert Einstein Gore) who reject the apocalyptic claims. Even if the case were compelling, none of the alarmists has ever explained how their draconian proposals would make a significant difference in stemming the tide. But there is no such uncertainty about the economic devastation their rash of “solutions” would cause.

If history has taught us anything, it is that science is not a matter of consensus and that so-called consensus has been wrong so often that it’s amazing these charlatans have the audacity to keep puffing their chests. Every other day, we see a new story debunking some long-held scientific “truth.”

Let’s face it. Far too many leftists are not just totalitarian in their ideology; they would also impose their ideas through totalitarian means, giving rise to the obvious inference that totalitarian ideology leads to totalitarianism in practice — and history bears this out, as well.

It’s inconceivable that well-respected universities have such dangerous crackpots on their payroll — and that they are not even considered crackpots, much less dangerous, by their brethren. It just doesn’t get much scarier and more anti-American than trying to criminalize dissent.

This Stalinist academic mindset far transcends just climate change, as you surely know. For all their cheap talk of diversity, academic leftists are just not that into academic diversity. Remember when universities encouraged open-mindedness and freedom of inquiry into a broad range of ideas?

The Cornell University newspaper disclosed that a stunning 96 percent of the political money donated by faculty members in the past four years went to Democrats. What possible excuse could an institution of higher learning have for such oppressive uniformity of thought?

Simple. “Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs when hiring,” says Cornell government professor Andrew Little, would “almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality or other dimensions of diversity.” In other words, conservatives are anti-intellectual rubes.

Perhaps by “general quality,” Little means such things as professors who would reject the latest campus craze over “microaggressions,” which deems innocuous questions such as asking where someone is from and harmless statements such as calling America “the land of opportunity” prohibitively offensive on campus.

English professor Kenneth McClane sheds further light on Cornell’s conceit: “It is not surprising that faculty at Cornell find the anti-scientific rhetoric of many in the Republican Party to be troublesome. Many of us here are scientists. We believe in global warming, since we believe what the research tells us.”

But the winning quote is from professor Richard Bensel, who said, “Cornell does not have to be a banquet that offers every viewpoint.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading 2 Comments