Author Archive

Pope Francis, Fossil Fuels Won’t Cause Armageddon

francisIn an historic event next week, Pope Francis will make his first visit to the United States. It is expected to generate as much political interest as it will religious concerns. On Thursday, he will address a joint session of Congress, and on Friday he will speak to the United Nations General Assembly. He is widely expected to focus on climate change, a topic on which he shares much political ground with President Obama.

This will not be the first time Pope Francis has ventured into the global warming debate. The June 2015 release of his encyclical “Laudato si” marked his initial foray into the discussion. Therein, Pope Francis echoed President Obama’s tune, claiming there exists “solid scientific consensus” that human activities are causing a “disturbing warming” of the climate, which left unchecked will result in a type of planetary Armageddon manifested by escalating temperatures, melting polar ice caps, rising seas, more frequent and more severe weather, ecosystem degradation, and plant and animal extinctions, all of which he claimed will severely affect humanity.

Given that this was the pope’s stated position on global warming a mere three months ago, look for a familiar refrain to accompany his remarks in Washington and New York next week. He will likely repeat a challenge first issued in his June encyclical, which called for humanity to “recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming,” which he believes is “aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels.”

The Consensus Isn’t

But are the pope’s concerns over potential global warming based upon the best available science? Or are they significantly overinflated? Is the biosphere rapidly spiraling downward toward planetary Armageddon? Or is it marching forward toward biospheric rejuvenation? Is limiting fossil-fuel use a policy prescription panacea? Or is it a recipe for social and economic disorder and regress?

With respect to the science, those who promulgate a fear of planetary Armageddon often conveniently fail to disclose that literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to their view of Earth’s climatic future. As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which this vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for nearly two decades now. That the Earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the assertion that debate on this topic is “settled.”

Numerous other problems with the apocalyptic vision of our future climate have been filling the pages of peer-reviewed science journals for many years now, evidenced most forcefully by the work of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which has highlighted the results of thousands of scientific studies challenging the alarmist and model-based vision of the planet’s future. This large and well-substantiated alternative viewpoint contends that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions will have a much smaller, if not negligible, impact on future climate, while generating several biospheric benefits.

Global Warming Could Be Good

Concerning such benefits, it is a well-established fact that atmospheric CO2 is the major building block of nearly all life, as it is used by plants in the process of photosynthesis to construct their tissues and grow. As numerous scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow. They produce greater amounts of biomass, become more efficient in using water, and are better able to cope with environmental stresses such as pollution, drought, salinity, and high temperatures.

The implications of these benefits to society are enormous. One study, for example, calculated that over the 50-year period of 1961 to 2010, the direct monetary benefits atmospheric CO2 enrichment conferred on global crop production amounted to a staggering $3.2 trillion. Projecting this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion in crop production benefits between now and 2050.

By ignoring these realities, policy prescriptions calling for a reduction in fossil-fuel use are found—on this basis alone—to be ill-advised. Yet there are still other important reasons to reject them.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 4 Comments

Liberal Pundits Freak at ‘Climate Denier’ Murdoch’s National Geographic Takeover

murdochLiberal journalists and pundits were losing control over the Murdoch family buying another prestigious media property, this time the National Geographic brand.

Xeni Jordin at Boing Boing freaked out over a “climate change denier” like Rupert Murdoch taking over a science-promoting property:

So Rupert Murdoch will be to some large extent controlling a $1 billion organization whose stated mission includes giving grants to scientists.

Rupert Murdoch is a raging asshole, but he is also a very much on-the-record climate change denier. A climate change denier with now even more power and influence over science grants in the United States.

Murdoch recently tweeted he’s a skeptic, not a denier. NPR media reporter David Folkenflik seemed to be channeling the Boing Boing panic in his Wednesday night report on All Things Considered. James Murdoch suggested no raging right-wing takeover to panic the eco-panic movement:

DAVID FOLKENFLIK:  Fox News employees prominent conservative commentators who are outspoken critics of the scientific establishment and even question climate change. James Murdoch is the CEO of 21st Century Fox, and his family controls the publicly traded company. So I asked him, how would the National Geographic titles be affected by their new majority owners?

JAMES MURDOCH: Well, first of all, it won’t be. We are a large and diverse media company around the world with lots of different outlets and lots of different creators and voices and journalists in various parts. They don’t always agree on things.

FOLKENFLIK: Murdoch says 21st Century Fox likes to invest in brands that echo across borders and that the digital age requires unifying National Geographic’s titles across all platforms.

MURDOCH: The value of this brand comes from its integrity and, fundamentally, it’s authenticity with its customers, and you would never do anything with it that presupposed changing any of that.

It was interesting that NPR’s Folkenflik also interviewed National Geographic CEO Gary Knell, and never mentioned his last job…as CEO of NPR.

Jack Mirkinson at Salon expressed the traditional left-wing view that the nonprofit media in America isn’t at all the kind of socialist infrastructure they desire:

National Geographic may be sacrificing its non-profit status, but Wednesday’s deal partially cemented what had already been put in place.

Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take anything away from how unsettling it feels to see a stalwart brand like National Geographic go down such a blatantly commercial path. It has whiffs of the creepiness that surrounded the announcement that HBO will now be the primary home for “Sesame Street.” Both events highlighted the deplorable lack of a non-profit media infrastructure in the United States.

America spends a fraction of the money other industrialized countries do on public media. Networks like the BBC or CBC are far from perfect, but they have a commitment to public service broadcasting that puts American networks to shame. PBS, a mere minnow in this universe, still produces programs on art, science and history that would never make it onto a broadcast network. If you want anything beyond weather reports, top 40 and horrible people discussing sports, public radio is pretty much the only game in town.

Of course, public media in and of itself is not the answer. The news that PBS or NPR produce, for instance, is often as bland and corporate-friendly as the news on any of its rivals, and public broadcasters are often subject to government pressure.

[Hat tip: CO2Maker]

Read more

Continue Reading 4 Comments

Warmist journalists drown in untruths about sinking islands

kivalina penninsulakivalina penninsulaIt’s the story that never dies, no matter how often we show that most coral Pacific Islands are not drowning but growing or stable.

Channel 9 now pushes the hoax scare:

The effects of climate change on the tiny Alaskan town of Kivalina, which sits on a barrier island fronting the Chukchi Sea, are so bad that even the dead are leaving town.

Situated 130km north of Anchorage, Kivalina, which sits barely three metres above sea level, diminishes with every storm that hits… Kivalina has become a cause celebre in Barack Obama’s attempts to combat climate change…

Meanwhile in the Pacific, the residents of places like the Maldives, Kirabati, and the Marshall Islands also face maritime oblivion, prompting the first trickle of what will surely become a deluge of climate refugees.

Watts Up With That explains why the Kivalina story is pure bull, and has more to do with the nature of barrier islands and poorly designed sea walls:

The fact remains, however, that just as with Shishmaref and Newtok, the cause of the problems are human actions, although they have nothing to do with CO2. All three villages are in ridiculously unstable, shifting, dangerous locations for the same reason—they were rounded up by the BIA and forced to settle there.

As for the Pacific islands, how often does the truth need to be told before journalists stop ignoring it? The truth is that most have been growing in size or stayed stable:

New Zealand coastal geomorphologist Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland’s School of Environment, and colleagues in Australia and Fiji, …  found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century…

Their analysis, which now extends to more than 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, indicates that about 80 percent of the islands have remained stable or increased in size (roughly 40 percent in each category). Only 20 percent have shown the net reduction that’s widely assumed to be a typical island’s fate when sea level rises.

Some islands grew by as much as 14 acres (5.6 hectares) in a single decade, and Tuvalu’s main atoll, Funafuti—33 islands distributed around the rim of a large lagoon—has gained 75 acres (32 hectares) of land during the past 115 years.

As for Kiribati, the big problem is not global warming but over-crowding and thoughtless development:

But 2,000 miles to the west in South Tarawa, Kiribati’s narrow, six-square-mile capital island crowded with 50,000 people, the picture is much darker. Over the past half-century, residents of the 15 other Gilbert Islands have flocked there in search of jobs and better schools for their children… To minimize flooding, they built poorly designed seawalls that regularly collapse. Meanwhile, the government increased South Tarawa’s area by 19 percent over 30 years by building causeways between islets and creating new land over the reef with lagoon sand poured behind seawalls. The widespread erosion and flooding that resulted “is primarily due to [local] human activities,” which unless stopped will “increase erosion and susceptibility of the reef islands to anticipated sea-level rise,” one study concluded.

Global warming seems to give journalists licence to suppress the truth and even tell outright untruths.


Continue Reading 1 Comment

New studies & data reveal ‘global warming’ NOT behind California drought

noaa chartThe media is once again attempting to portray the current California drought as historically unprecedented. See: Californian water source at 500-year low: “We should be prepared for this type of snow drought to occur much more frequently because of rising temperatures,” lead author Valerie Trouet, a professor at the University of Arizona, said in a statement. “Anthropogenic” ‚Äì- or manmade ‚Äì- global warming “is making the drought more severe,” she added. 

But recent peer-reviewed studies and historical data refute these drought claims.

Two new studies show that global warming is not behind California drought ‚Äì there is a gigantic warm blob in the Pacific Ocean that is fueling California’s four-year-long drought, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Two new studies released in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters”, explain how this large expanse of warm ocean water is affecting California’s weather as well as the East Coast’s past two brutal winters. Read more here.

Other studies counter the notion that California is experiencing unprecedented drought.

AMS Journal study finds California drought is ‘not unprecedented’ over past 440 years: 9 other droughts as bad or worse ‚Äì Published in American Meteorological Society journal ‚Äì Study: ‘An analysis of the October 2013‚ÄìSeptember 2014 precipitation in the western United States and in particular over the California-Nevada region suggests this anomalously dry season, while extreme, is not unprecedented in comparison with the ~120-year long instrumental record of water year (WY, October‚ÄìSeptember) totals, and in comparison with a 407-year WY precipitation reconstruction back to 1571. Over this longer period nine other years are known or estimated to have been nearly as dry or drier than WY 2014. The three-year deficit for WY’s 2012‚Äì2014, which in the California-Nevada region exceeded the annual mean precipitation, is more extreme but also not unprecedented, occurring three other times over the past ~ 440 years in the reconstruction.’

NOAA Study: Causes of Calif. drought are natural, not man-made ‚Äì Natural weather patterns and climate variability, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought that’s parching California, says a study out today from federal scientists. “It’s important to note that California’s drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state,” said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report, “Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought,” was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say ‚Äì ‘The state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began’ ‚Äì Scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began. Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.’

E&E News on 2012 U.S. drought: ‘For the scientists who take the long view of history, it’s merely a climatological blip’ — 1930s ‘Dust Bowl & 1988 both eclipse 2012 drought, scientists say’ ‚Äì ‘Scientists say [2012] drought is practically embryonic compared with severity & extent of others in America’s past…The Dust Bowl held on for as many as 8 years in some parts of Great Plains, with successive dry spells hitting in 1934, 1936 & 1939-1940. The multiyear drought of 1950s began in SW but eventually spread to cover 10 states before it ebbed in 1957. The current drought, in contrast, is just about 2 months old’

In addition, many other peer-‘reviewed studies and data refute the notion of unprecedented drought in California or elsewhere.

Continue Reading…

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Elon Musk wants to nuke Mars to make it liveable

nuclear gone badElon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors, wants to nuke the polar ice caps on Mars to speed up terraforming the planet, part of his vision to see a human colony on its blood-red landscape. Musk made the remarks on ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ this past Wednesday, prompting Colbert to call his guest a ‘supervillain.’ Nuking Mars’ poles, Musk said, would release lots of trapped CO2, methane, and other so-called greenhouse gases stored in the ice, much like here on Earth.

And since Musk foresees people living along the equator of Mars, the radioactive blast would not affect them or any undiscovered life that might be buried beneath the soil. Once the gases are released into the planet’s already thin atmosphere, Mars would presumably warm up. But unlike most of his ideas, this one fails on just about every scientific principle (Didn’t he read the book The Martian?).

According to ZME Science, Mars simply isn’t a suitable planet for terraforming of any kind. That’s because its atmosphere is very thin, roughly “1% as thick as the Earth’s,” and “solar winds are constantly stripping it even further.” And aside from simply warming up the planet, there are other issues as well. The first being that Mars has no magnetic field.

The magnetic field is what is generated by a planet’s core, and unlike the Earth’s, the Martian core is “geologically dead” as its “core solidified a long time ago.” Our core is what keeps radiation from the cosmos, and especially our sun, from radiating all life out of existence. Also, the planet’s core generates a gravitational field, and the “gravity on Mars is .38 that of Earth,” far too low to keep its atmosphere from flittering out into space.

ZME also reports that Mars has “no plate tectonics to recycle carbon and water and rebuild eroded land.” It also has “no large moon to stabilize the axial tilt and provide tides” and has a “much more elliptical orbit, which means much more erratic climate.” Mars has a “much higher rate of impacts due to its proximity to Jupiter and the asteroid belt” as well as “no mountain chains to break up atmospheric currents and release precipitation.”

The surface of Mars is also covered in toxic perchlorates (salts derived from perchloric acid), which are used in fertilizers and making rocket fuel, but pose a serious health hazard to humans. also writes that “any humans exploring Mars will find it hard to avoid the finest of dust particles” as it gets into “everything…certainly into your habitat.”

Barring someway you could rid the entire surface of Mars of this chemical, ZME writes the “asymmetry between hemispheres” means there would be “all land on one side and all ocean on the other.” But since the planet has only a negligible amount of water (compared to Earth) stored at its poles, melting the ice caps on each end would create a toxic brew of water, radiation, and chemicals that would occupy only one hemisphere of the planet.

Musk’s vision of terraforming Mars dates back to 2001, when he conceptualized a “project to land a miniature experimental greenhouse on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian” soil. He called it “Martian Oasis.” In 2002, he founded SpaceX with the long-term goal of creating a “spacefaring civilization.”

In 2011, Musk said in a Wall Street Journal interview that he plans to send humans to Mars within 10-20 years. And according to his biography by Ashlee Vance, he plans to have a colony of 80,000 people by 2040. So it would seem nuking Mars into an even more inhospitable planet to attain that goal is currently within his scope. Supervillain or not, though, Elon Musk wants to see people on Mars, whether it’s practical or not.


Continue Reading 9 Comments

False Alarm: Southern Ocean Still Soaking Up CO2

Southern Ocean CO2 absorptionThe Southern Ocean has recovered its ability to suck vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, overturning fears the natural “sink” had stalled with dire consequences for future climate change. Climate scientists had feared the uptake of carbon dioxide by the Southern Ocean had slowed in what was feared to be a “feedback” response to human ­activity. New research published today in the journal Science reveals that rather than stalling, the amount of CO2 being ­absorbed by the Southern Ocean was on the rise again. –Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 11 September 2015

GWPF science spokesman David Whitehouse said the recovery of the Southern Ocean carbon sink “could be yet another explanation for the surface temperature hiatus”. He said the research was “another alarmist claim removed by science, showing that the ‘settled science’ isn’t settled at all. The fact is that the current models do not fit the observations, so there we have a vital part of future climate prediction shown to be not predictable,” Dr Whitehouse said. “The closer you look at widely held certainties, the more complex and less understood they become — that’s the science of a complicated earth.” –Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 11 September 2015

It [is] not the first time that lengthier observations have led to the demise of a short-term climate scare. The fact that researchers now acknowledge they cannot predict future trends indicates that they don’t fully understand the underlying physics and mechanisms. ‚ÄìBenny Peiser, The Australian, 11 September 2015

Radiocarbon dating, which is used to calculate the age of certain organic materials, has been found to be unreliable, and sometimes wildly so – a discovery that could upset previous studies on climate change, scientists from China and Germany said in a new paper. Their recent analysis of sediment from the largest freshwater lake in northeast China showed that its carbon clock stopped ticking as early as 30,000 years ago, or nearly half as long as was hitherto thought. The discovery that it is unreliable could put some in a quandary. For instance, remnants of organic matter formerly held up as solid evidence of the most recent, large-scale global warming event some 40,000 years ago may actually date back far earlier to a previous ice age. –Stephen Chen, South China Morning Post, 10 September4 2015

The secretary of state for energy and climate change has refused permission for a 194-turbine wind farm off the Dorset coast, citing negative landscape and heritage impacts as key reasons for her refusal. A decision letter issued today said that Amber Rudd had refused development consent for the Navitus Bay Wind Park, which would have comprised up to 194 wind turbines with an installed capacity of up to 970MW. The refusal was in line with a recommendation from the Planning Inspectorate. –Michael Donnelly, Planning Resource, 11 September 2015

A state senator announced Thursday that she’s abandoning a second Democratic climate change proposal amid reluctance from California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown. Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, said she would withdraw a vote on her bill, SB32, which calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Instead, she will try to rally support for passage next year. In the final week of the legislative session, Democrats were already forced to drop a mandate to cut oil use from their climate change proposal amid fierce opposition from business groups and oil companies. A scaled-down version of the proposal to increase renewable energy use to 50 percent has yet to be voted on. —KCRA News, 10 September 2015

When David Cameron’s Conservative party rolled its way through elections this spring, we surmised that the new government, unencumbered by the demands of coalition politics, might be capable of kick-starting British shale production. But the Conservative party isn’t the only one touting the potential benefits of exploiting Britain’s estimated 1.3 quadrillion cubic feet of shale gas. In what can only be read as a boon to fracking’s political clout, Labour’s shadow energy minister has cautioned greens against their opposition. The UK has the shale reserves, it has the environmental, economic, and strategic incentives to tap it, and now, it seems, it has the political will necessary to overcome the local intransigence that has so far forestalled any UK shale boom. Will it be able to follow America’s lead? —The American Interest, 10 September 2015

Continue Reading 24 Comments

Global warming and climate change: Separating truth from fiction

earth sun risingWe have been conditioned with the belief that human activities are increasing the incidence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is the prime cause behind global warming and climate change. We are also led to believe that science is predicting that the consequences of this will be catastrophic to the earth and threaten our very existence.

Most of what we read within the mainstream media today, and hear from politicians, has the above assumptions embedded within the various narratives. Government policy towards carbon emissions and renewable energies reflects these beliefs, as hard cast scientific and moral truths.

The public is continually told that the vast majority of the world’s “scientists” are in general agreement about man-made global warming being the cause of climate change, and the potential damage it will do to the earth. However, the reality is that there may actually not be more than a couple of hundred people in the world who really understand the science of climate change, and are experienced and qualified enough to make a valid scientific opinion.

The public are confused more when proponents from both sides of the debate put their views forward using statistics, information, and arguments that are convincing. Many of these stalwarts on both sides make a living through the speakers’ circuits, turning the global warming and climate change debate into an entertainment spectacle. What makes this even more sinister is the vested interests some of these parties represent.

Climate change models are built upon limited sets of assumptions which make them far too simplistic for the task of making accurate predictions about global warming. There is no generally agreed theory that explains global warming and climate change in existence today.

No model can predict changes in temperature and lay out climate change scenarios with any degree of accuracy. However the earth has warmed up much less than what most global warming models had predicted.

The opinion of Nobel Prize winner James Lovelock, the creator of the GAIA hypothesis, reflects the above. He was quoted as saying, “The problem is that we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books ‚Äì mine included ‚Äì because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.”

Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring also predicted that all the birds would be killed through the use of DDT during the 1950s and 60s ‚Äì a prophecy that never happened.

Alarmism clouds scientific judgement and this is very much the case in the global warming and climate change debate.

Global warming and climate change cannot be considered a ‘settled science’, as it is portrayed today. The truths about the matter are still yet to be understood.

First it must be understood that global warming and climate change are not interchangeable terms. Global warming concerns the rise in average temperatures across the globe. Is this really occurring? And, how much is humanity actually responsible for this phenomenon?

These are very interesting scientific questions where there is a diverse range of scientific opinion today. We still require answers to tackle the second part of the equation, climate change.

We know that climate change is occurring on a continuous basis. We also know that climate change also changes habitats. How we tackle climate change depends upon answering questions about global warming.

However, climate change is not just an earthly phenomenon, it is an interplanetary one. Climate change may have more to do with solar energy, than with man-made CO2 emissions. This is only an observation, but if this observation has some validity, then the whole ‘science of climate change’ is about to enter a new paradigm of explanation in the next few years, just as quantum replaced Newtonian physics concepts just a century ago.

The evolution of science is not being factored into the global warming debate, and this is the biggest mistake being made at the moment by global warming proponents.

If humankind is not influencing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions, then the real issues at hand are completely different. The issue is not about abating global warming, but more about the changing habitats and environment humankind faces in the future.

The destruction of the forests, animal species going extinct, the creation and growth of unsustainable cities, water management and the pollution of the earth’s oceans, and the application of non-renewable energies, and not to forget poverty, migration, and population growth, are the real issues that must be engaged by humanity. Humankind must learn how to adapt to a continually changing environment. This means both natural and human induced changes. This is where the real crises exist.

Climate change will destroy some societies on one hand, but nurture others on the other hand.

We have to learn to understand how the earth is a cradle for humankind. And then importantly, how we must exist within this cradle, in a coexisting manner.

Charles Darwin’s message was not about survival of the fittest, but one of co-existence. Darwin’s hinted the solution in the concluding paragraph of his The Origin of Species where he said: “It is interesting, a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborate forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

Carbon emission controls and other political solutions will not solve any of our real problems.

Some Inconvenient Truths

We don’t really understand the science of climate change, and can’t even say for certain whether the world is going through a period of global warming due to the multitude of factors and influences involved.

Over the last decade or so, the influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on global temperatures is just coming to light. The PDO is a cycle of different sea circulation patterns that changes over a 30-year period. A number of scientists believe that this PDO phenomenon is vital to our understanding of global warming and climate change, although we are still in our early years of understanding how the phenomenon really works. According to Dr Roy Spencer, the PDO phenomenon can be used to explain Artic ice melting over the last 30 years. The PDO phenomenon can also explain why Antarctic ice is actually increasing.

Some scientists are even claiming the world is heading into another ice age right at this moment.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) only exists within the earth’s atmosphere in trace amounts, at around 380ppm. It is an important nutrient for flora, a building block for all life on earth. CO2 being an invisible gas will not hold onto and trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, which primarily evaporates from the oceans and is responsible for both reflecting and trapping heat within the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, and higher concentrations are actually beneficial to plant life on this planet.

The global warming issue is full of opinions, as we don’t know the facts today.

The Fallacy of Control

We also live with the fallacy that humankind has the power to fix any global warming problem. This is in the light of the success the world had in limiting chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants and aerosols, in eliminating the hole in the ozone layer back in the 1980s. This belief that we as humans can control the environment is arrogance in the extreme.

The proponents of global warming would have the world belief that it controls its own destiny in terms of being able to control the environment. Is this living in true reality?

When we connect morality with truth, inquisitions, purges, and clampdowns on the unbelievers usually occur. This is where some global warming proponents can take us back to the ‘dark ages’ of science and understanding, to where the earth was once flat.

Perhaps the last words of this article should be left to the Canadian limnologist David Schindler, who said: “To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace.”


Continue Reading

Harvard Alum Prove They Are as Irrelevant as Global Warming

cartoon-gw fairyA new survey of Harvard business alumni is exhibit Number One on why our ruling elite just can’t manage to understand the gravity of the crisis that this country is facing.

The study of 2,716 Harvard Business School graduates, some of the most powerful people in the U.S economy, shows that by a large margin they think the worst thing that faces this country economically is “rising income inequality”.

“A total of two-thirds said the top priority should be addressing rising inequality, middle-class stagnation, rising poverty or limited economic mobility,” reports the Market

The article says that by a wide margin, the graduates believe that while things are getting better, it is only the top one percent who are benefiting.

They ranked slow GDP growth as third, as if a growing economy is an after-effect rather than the cause of wealth creation.

The income equality myth is most maddening because as our friend at Political Calculations has pointed out previously, wages have stayed remarkably stable over the last 40 years. The thing that has changed is the composition of households— which conveniently is how social scientists (or is that socialist scientists?) measure income inequality. With more single parent households— encouraged by the mostly liberal elite— of course income by household is going to be dropping at the lower end of the scale.

“In short” says PC, “it’s those social processes, which have driven demographic changes within U.S. households, that are almost exclusively behind the observed increase in family and household income inequality observed in the U.S. since the 1960s.”

Just like Global Warming, Income Inequality is one of those things that the elite like to TALK about, but nothing they propose will address the cause, because the cause is imaginary.

The part in the survey about today’s economic policies benefiting the top one percent may be true, but it’s only because THESE yahoos are the top one percent.

Just who are these people, these graduates from Harvard Business School?

Read rest…

Continue Reading 4 Comments

Why El Niños originate from geologic, not atmospheric, sources

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has just made it official: this year’s emerging 2015 El Ni√±o is identical to the 1998 El Ni√±o. These two El Ni√±os have remarkably similar Sea Surface Height Anomalies (Figure 1), Shallow Sea Surface Temperature maps, and most importantly the exact same deep ocean fixed / non-moving heat source point (Figure 1.).

Figure 1.)  Sea Surface Height maps comparing the 1998 and 2015 El Nino's. Sea surface height is used by NASA as an excellent proxy for sea surface temperature.Figure 1.) Sea Surface Height maps comparing the 1998 and 2015 El Niños. Sea surface height is used by NASA as an excellent proxy for sea surface temperature.

Even more telling, it can now be confidently stated that every single El Niño in recorded history has had the same exact deep ocean fixed / non-moving heat source point! The implications of this fact are profound, because it strongly suggests, if not proves that all El Niños have been generated / fueled by deep ocean geological heat flow and NOT atmospheric warming. This contention fits very well into Plate Climatology Theory, which states that fixed / non-moving geological deep ocean heat sources drive many climate patterns and climate related events including the generation of El Niños.

Climate scientists, especially those favoring the theory of man-made global warming, are at a loss to explain the striking similarity between the 1998 and 2015 El Ni√±os. Their problem can be boiled down to this: “Climate Change” should equal a changing climate, not identical climate.

Stated another way, they have contended in no uncertain terms that: man-made CO2 has risen catastrophically in recent years, the newly “adjusted” atmospheric temperature data properly reflects a warming atmosphere, ocean current patterns have been altered by the atmosphere, and that ocean temperatures have been altered by atmospheric changes. None of this explains why the 1998 and 2015 El Ni√±os are so similar. If the atmosphere has radically changed these El Ni√±os should be different, not absolutely identical.

In an attempt to somehow explain this giant disconnect, climate scientists have been furiously modifying their computer-generated climate models. To date the updated climate models have failed to spit out a believable explanation for this disconnect. Why? Their computer models utilize historical and current day atmospheric El Ni√±o data. This atmospheric data is an “effect” of, and not the “cause” of El Ni√±os.

Climate scientists should be modeling the true cause of El Niño generation: heat flow from geological forces. Heat flow from deep ocean geological forces acts to alter the overlying ocean temperatures, currents, and chemistry. These changes in ocean parameters then act to change the atmosphere in complex ways. So modeling these complex and interacting atmospheric changes will not spit out a believable answer about what generates El Niños.

Data confirming the contention that deep ocean geologic heat flow forces drive / generate El Niños is diverse, compelling, and accurate:

  • Fixed / non-moving heat sources are associated with fixed geological features such as volcanoes, faults, and hydrothermal vents. Conversely fixed / non-moving heat sources are not associated with ever changing atmospheric or ocean currents.
  • All El Ni√±os have originated at the same deep ocean fixed heat point source located east of the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island area. Recent deep-ocean temperature data from publications by Kessler et al proves that such a hot spot exists in this area. Additionally, very new data from a National Science Foundation-funded ESA Satellite study shows that thousands of heretofore unrecognized seamounts (deep-ocean volcanoes) have been identified in the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island area.
  • The geology of deep ocean regions in the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Islands area is known to be complex and active deep-ocean geological region. In fact it is one of the most complex and unique deep-ocean areas on earth. It is known to emit huge amounts of heat energy into the overlying ocean.
  • The shape of El Ni√±o sea surface temperature anomalies are unique / one of a kind.
  • The El Ni√±o sea surface temperature anomalies have “linear” and “intense” boundaries inferring that the energy source is not moving and very powerful.
  • The fixed heat source point nature and lateral distribution outline of deep-ocean geological hydrothermal vents are a very good mini-analogy of the larger El Ni√±os.
  • The fixed heat point source nature of large atmospheric continental / land volcanic eruptions is a fair analogue of El Ni√±os.
  • El Ni√±os do not occur in an atmospherically predictable fashion. Changes in the atmospheric temperatures do not correspond with El Ni√±o occurrences.
  • El Ni√±o-like events do not occur elsewhere in Pacific. Why? If they are atmospheric in origin, there should at least be other mini-El Ni√±os. There are none.
  • La Ninas originate from same point source as El Ni√±os.
  • Atmospherically based El Ni√±o prediction models consistently fail, likely because they are modelling the “effects” of geologically warmed oceans and not the “cause” of the El Ni√±os.
  • Historical records indicate that the first “recorded” El Ni√±o occurred in 1525 as observed by Spanish explorers. Other studies suggest strong ancient El Ni√±os ended Peruvian civilizations. The main point here is that strong El Ni√±os are natural, and that they are not increasing in relationship to man-made atmospheric global warming as contended by many climate scientists.

The heat point source for El Ni√±os hasn’t changed in many years, and for that matter neither has the insistence of many climate scientists that El Ni√±o occurrences and similarities are driven by the atmosphere. It’s clearly time to consider changing this paradigm.

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.


Continue Reading 5 Comments

Cracking Up: UK Greens Fracture Over Fracking

loving the planetA high-profile Scottish environmental campaigner has given his backing to fracking as long as safeguards are in place and key conditions are met. In a significant intervention that will help to undermine opposition to the energy source, Robin Harper, the first Green MSP and now the chairman of a major environmental trust, said that he would be prepared to give his cautious backing if it could be proved that it was an improvement on the burning of coal and oil. His comments will be a major setback for anti-fracking campaigners, who have argued that anything other than a complete ban would damage the environment. Mr Harper’s powerful green credentials mean that they will not be able to dismiss his views easily. –Hamish Macdonell, The Times, 10 September 2015

Environmentalists should keep cool heads over fracking, says Friends of the Earth’s former climate campaigner. Bryony Worthington – now Labour shadow energy minister – says fracking will create less CO2 than compressing gas in Qatar and shipping it to Britain. Baroness Worthington’s intervention may prove significant. She is a professional climate and energy analyst, and one of the architects of the UK’s radical Climate Change Act. “We have to be realistic,” she told BBC News. “We are going to be using gas for a long time because of the huge role it plays for heating homes and for industry. –Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 10 September 2015

Can the green lobby win the shale argument over environmental objections? I don’t think it can. 10 or 20 years ago it could have won, when governments were willing to burn billions, but the economic climate has changed, we’re facing the biggest crisis in decades. No government in the world would give up this shale opportunity, not even the British government, which is very green indeed. I don’t think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to shale. People will realize that this energy is far less impacting on environments than most other forms of energy. ‚ÄìBenny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 25 October 2011

Anti-fracking protesters could be viewed as potential extremists under the government’s new counter-terrorism strategy, police have told teachers. The bizarre advice was offered during a training session as part of the Prevent strategy, which aims to stop youngsters being brainwashed by Islamic extremists. The group of 100 teachers were told that people campaigning against fracking in their local area could be regarded as having extreme views. They were also warned that environmental activists and anti-capitalists could be deemed a threat, with the Green MP Caroline Lucas given as an example. –Eleanor Hardin, Daily Mail, 5 September 2015

Despite facing opposition on numerous fronts, the development of a regulatory regime to promote the exploration of shale gas in the UK has continued apace following David Cameron’s comments earlier this year that the UK was “going all out for shale”. The UK government has reiterated the national need to develop the UK’s shale gas resources to improve the country’s energy security and transition to a low-carbon economy. The passing of the Act and introduction of measures to fast-track shale gas planning applications confirm the UK government’s commitment to the development of the UK’s indigenous shale gas resources.  Industry will certainly welcome these initiatives as developers remain keen to accelerate the rate of progress of exploratory fracking in the UK. —Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Enery Legal Blog, 8 September 2015

In our forthcoming book, The Price of Oil, we argue that although oil has experienced an extraordinary price increase over the past few decades, a turning point has now been reached where scarcity, uncertain supply and high prices will be replaced by abundance, undisturbed availability and suppressed price levels in the decades to come. We note that practically all energy forecasting organizations are predicting an expanding fossil fuel future for decades to come, with oil continuing to play a key part in satisfying the world’s energy needs. Moreover, the oil industry’s investment behavior exhibits unbelief in deep climate policy within the foreseeable future. The stranded asset phenomenon may come to apply in the main to expensive, subsidized renewables if these attitudes prevail and become instrumental in policy evolution. Despite the difficulties in predicting what might transpire, history and current behavior point to no more than a superficial climate policy in the foreseeable future, with our projected revolutions proceeding by and large unhampered. We deem that the great ambitions of the Paris climate meeting in December 2015 are very unlikely to be fulfilled. –Roberto F. Aguilera and Marian Radetzki, Global Warming Policy Forum, 10 September 2015

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Climate stalemate at Pacific leaders forum

Members of Pacific Island ForumMembers of Pacific Island ForumTHE Pacific Islands Forum failed come up with a united climate change stance on temperature warming to take to UN talks in Paris this December.

CLIMATE change was the main hot-button issue for the 16 leaders at the retreat in Port Moresby on Thursday.

Small island nations facing rising seas argued desperately for the forum to back restricting global warming to 1.5 degrees or risk their survival.

But Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his New Zealand counterpart John Key favoured a two degree warming limit.

They refused to give ground during the “robust” discussions at the nine-hour meeting. Mr Abbott said Australia and NZ had made no additional commitments on climate change but insisted they had a “good story” to tell on mitigation efforts.

“We can be constructive global citizens when it comes to climate change without clobbering our economy,” he told reporters.

His government has announced a carbon emissions reduction target of 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, while NZ’s target is a cut of 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Both targets have been criticised for lacking ambition.

Read rest…

Continue Reading 4 Comments

The EPA Assaults the Private Sector – and the Environment

animas riverThere are few things more dangerous to private enterprise than government bureaucrats with time on their hands. And since most bureaucrats have no legitimate reason for being – they have lots and lots of time on their hands.

In 2009, the federal government had at least 2,748,978 employees ‚Äì and 97.6% of civilian federal employees were in the executive branch (and do you think that tally has ticked up a bit during the Barack Obama Administration?) These are the departments, agencies, commissions and boards populated by people who do very little but promulgate and impose regulations ‚Äì and enforce them.

But government doesn’t even enforce their own rules well. Because in addition to being boorish and overbearing, unilateral and tyrannical ‚Äì government is unavoidably, inherently incompetent. Because of (at least) two immutable rules of human nature ‚Äì the Wallet Rule and the Yellow Pages Rule.

The Wallet Rule: “You go out on a Friday night with your wallet. You go out the following Friday night with my wallet. On which Friday night are you going to have more fun?” Obviously you will have more fun with my wallet than yours ‚Äì because at the end of the revelry you care what your wallet looks like. My wallet? You don’t care quite so much. Government is always using other peoples’ wallets ‚Äì and the Friday night party never, ever ends.

The Wallet Rule is a key component of the Yellow Pages Rule: “If you can find it in the Yellow Pages (or on ‚Äì the government shouldn’t be doing it.” Private businesses are operating on their own wallets ‚Äì so they will do everything better, more wisely and more prudentially than government. Including monitoring their own adherence to governments’ ridiculous regulations.

To wit: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In early August, the EPA begrudgingly admitted they spilled three million gallons of toxic bright orange mess into Colorado’s Animas River. Why was there such a huge accumulated reserve of such nastiness for the EPA to spill? Because the EPA mandates it be collected ‚Äì and the mining company was in successful compliance. If the mining company had committed the spill, they would be fined ‚Äì by the EPA. Likely to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. Is the EPA subject to similar fines? Of course not.

But that was a one time assault on the environment ‚Äì an accidental one-off. The EPA is usually much more careful, right? Of course not.

In Greensboro (Georgia), EPA-funded contractors grading a toxic 19th-century cotton mill site struck a water main, sending the deadly sediment into a nearby creek. Though that accident took place five months ago, the hazard continues as heavy storms  one hit the area Tuesday  wash more soil into the creek.

The sediment flows carry dangerous mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium downstream to Lake Oconee and then to the Oconee River  home to many federally and state protected species.

Lead in the soil at the project site is 20,000 times higher than federal levels established for drinking water, said microbiologist Dave Lewis, who was a top-level scientist during 31 years at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Then there are the “green” “energy” sources ‚Äì which the EPA oversees. These fuels are supposed to revolutionize how we power our lives ‚Äì and treat the environment. And they have. We get much less energy (much more expensively) ‚Äì and it is all much worse for the environment.

Manufacturing and disposing of solar panels is an environmental nightmare mess. Manufacturing ethanol uses more fossil fuel than using fossil fuel does ‚Äì and burning food for fuel creates global food shortages. Wind farms kill thousands and thousands of birds a year. Oh ‚Äì so do solar panel farms.

Does the EPA fine these inherent, perpetual environmental offenders? Of course not ‚Äì it grants blanket, serial, rolling waivers. And why would the government fine them ‚Äì when it funds them? In just one instance, to the tune of $80 billion in the 2009 “Stimulus.”

The EPA creates way too manyway too expensive regulations. It is grossly incompetent at enforcing them ‚Äì and crony-selective in how it does so. The private sector, conversely, creates more and more for all of us ‚Äì in ever cleaner and cleaner fashion. Right up until the EPA gets involved ‚Äì and time and again mucks it all up. Yet another example of the Watchers being far worse for us than the Watched.


Continue Reading