Chris Essex: Believing In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, And Climate Models

logoA GWPF talk by Dr Christopher Essex – Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario (Canada) in London, 12 February 2015

Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties.

Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two.

But even if you don’t have some spare afternoons to solve problems that have stymied the best minds in history, this talk will cure computer cachet even for laymen, putting climate models into theirs proper perspective.

For full lecture click here

Continue Reading

China’s Coal Trends: Myth & Reality

China’s march towards coal continued in 2014 as shown by data from the latest report from China’s National Energy Administration. Despite additions of substantial wind, solar, and nuclear capacity, when properly adjusted for capacity factor (the amount of annual energy produced per unit of capacity) to reflect production capability, the amount of new coal energy added to the China grid last year exceeded new solar energy by 17 times, new wind energy by more than 4 times, and even new hydro by more than 3 times. And, despite having more than 30 new nuclear reactors under construction, China’s new nuclear capability was still a fraction of new coal energy. — Armond Cohen, Clean Air Task Force, 18 February 2015


The basic coal math in Cohen’s piece is a sobering reminder that the fossil age is not ending any time soon. Unfortunately, I don’t share Cohen’s optimism about prospects for the deployment of CCS at a scale the climate would notice, mainly because there’s no incentive for China to pay the additional cost, no sign (unless you can identify one?) that developed countries will be willing to cover the difference and little evidence that the world is serious about a much more ambitious push on large-scale demonstration of integrated systems for capturing and storing CO2. –Andrew Revkin, International New York Times, 18 February 2015

One of the biggest miscalculations that the global warming alarmists have made is claiming that global CO2 emissions must reach their peak by 2020 and then begin falling rapidly. If they don’t, there will be no chance of reaching the 2¬∞C maximum warming target. Planetary catastrophe will ensue, the alarmists claim. British energy behemoth BP has just released its BP Energy Outlook 2035, and it states in no uncertain terms that there is no chance of CO2 emissions beginning their decline by 2035, let alone 2020.  The BP Report shows strong growth in renewable energy, but it will be only about 8% of global energy supply by 2035. That’s light year’s away from the UN’s 50% target. Obviously, no one except a few token countries are taking renewable energies seriously. –Pierre Goselin, No Tricks Zone, 18 February 2015

chart 2

We project that by 2035 China becomes the world’s largest energy importer, overtaking Europe, as import dependence rises from 15% to 23%. China’s energy production rises by 47% while consumption grows by 60%. China’s fossil fuel output continues to rise with increases in natural gas (+200%) and coal (+19%) more than offsetting declines in oil (-3%). China’s CO2 emissions increase by 37% and by 2035 will account for 30% of world total with per capita emissions surpassing the OECD by the end of the Outlook. —BP Energy Outlook 2035

India’s energy production rises by 117% to 2035 while consumption grows by 128%. India’s energy mix evolves very slowly over the next 22 years with fossil fuels accounting for 87% of demand in 2035, compared to a global average of 81%. This is down from 92% today. Oil remains the dominant fuel (36%) followed by gas (30%) and coal (21%). CO2 emissions from energy consumption increase by 115%. —BP Energy Outlook 2035

American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked. —Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), 12 February 2015

Continue Reading

Drought and predictions of doom for the Southwest

droughtTony Davis has another climate scare story in the Arizona Daily Star: “Study: Worst SW drought in 1,000 years coming.” We should expect more stories like this because polling shows that “global warming” is not of great concern among the public, but many interests such as the money-grubbing IPCC, the EPA, and alternative energy companies depend on maintaining the myth of CO2-caused global warming. Tony writes: “Due to human-caused global warming, this region and the Great Plains are likely to experience droughts from 2050 to 2100 that are worse than the ‘megadroughts’ that lasted up to 60 years in the Southwest in pre-Medieval times, the study said.”

You can read the full study here. If you do, you will find that the study is based on failed computer models, statistical inference, and manipulation of data.

Bob Tisdale has some comments about this paper at the WattsUpWithThat blog. The thing about Bob is that he has this nasty habit of comparing computer model predictions against actual observational data.

Below, I show one of Bob’s graphs. This graph compares June-July-August precipitation data from 1979-2014 for both climate models (red) and observations (blue).


There are two things to notice about this graph. First, the models have always predicted that there would be twice as much precipitation than has actually occurred. Therefore a “modeled drought” might just be the model’s approach toward reality. Second, all the models show a slight decreasing trend in precipitation when in reality there has been a slight increasing trend in precipitation.

The drought scare seems to be a persistent theme. Back in August, Tony had another drought scare story featuring some of the same researchers (see: Megadrought and the Arizona Daily Star). In that previous story the researchers had this disclaimer:

“An obvious limitation of our work is that it is ‘blind’ to certain aspects of dynamically-driven changes in prolonged drought risk. For instance, changes in the magnitude, frequency, or teleconnection patterns of El Nino and La Nina (e.g., Coats et al. 2013) may alter the statistics of interannual variability in ways that are not captured by our simple models. Further, megadrought statistics over the last millennium may be forcing-dependent, as suggested by Cook et al. (2004), for instance, which shows that megadroughts were more common during the medieval climate era of 850-1200 CE. Another very serious limitation is imposed by the reliability of the models themselves to make realistic predictions of changes in climatological precipitation for the end of the 21st century.”

One other thing, both Tony Davis and the study authors claim “human-caused global warming.” Yet, to my knowledge, no one has presented any physical evidence to support the contention that our carbon dioxide emissions are a significant factor.

In a previous article, I show, with observational evidence, that the much touted enhanced greenhouse effect from our carbon dioxide emissions does not exist, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect .


Continue Reading

1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos to Discuss Global Warming

private jetsA squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.


Continue Reading

Train derailment fuels debate over Keystone, oil pipeline safety

spillThe derailment of a train in West Virginia that sent flames soaring and at least some of the 3 million gallons of crude oil onboard into a Kanawha River tributary has prompted a renewed call for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as a safer alternative to rail transportation.

Daniel Kish, an Institute for Energy Research vice president, said Wednesday that trains remain a safe way to move oil and that the U.S. rail industry has met the demands of the recent domestic-energy boom. 

But he said underground pipelines are safer. 

“Any time you make more trips — whether it’s trains, trucks or buses — accidents increase,” he said. “I’m not trying to scare people. But the records show that if you move more stuff there will be more problems.”

Kish pointed to a State Department environmental-impact study that shows the number of stations for loading and unloading oil across Canada and the United States increased roughly 10-fold over the past four years. “I’m not opposed to these things being built,” Kish said. “But I have to say to myself: ‘The fewer the number, the safer the transportation, which leads me to the pipeline being built.’ “

The effort to complete the 1,700-mile-long pipeline, which would carry Canadian crude oil to Gulf Coast refineries, started six years ago and has become one of the country’s most politically charged issues.

Congress approved legislation this month to complete the XL pipeline extension, from Canada to Nebraska, after Republicans took control of the Senate in January. Republicans and other supporters argue the pipeline will create tens of thousands of new jobs and reduce the country’s dependency on foreign oil. However, President Obama has vowed to veto the bipartisan-backed bill, as long as the State Department is still conducting its own review of the TransCanada Corp. application.

Pipeline critics argue that drilling for crude in Canada’s tar sands will emit too much greenhouse gas and contribute to global warming. While supporters say pipelines are safer, critics say neither mode of transportation is safe. 

“We’ve had 6,000 pipeline blowouts or leaks over just the past two decades,” said Bob Deans, with the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

In addition to the accident Monday in southern West Virginia, two other major rail incidents have occurred in the U.S. in roughly the past 15 months — a train collision in Casselton, N.D., in December 2013, and an April 2014 derailment in Lynchburg, Va.

No deaths were reported in any of the three accidents. However, 47 people were killed in a July 2013 derailment in the Canadian town of Lac-Megantic.

All four trains were carrying crude oil from the Plains States’ oil rich Bakken shelf. Crude from there also will go the Gulf Coast refineries if the pipeline is completed.

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, a co-sponsor of the Keystone XL bill, and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who also backed the bill, declined to comment on whether the accident impacts the Keystone debate. 

The accident occurred during a heavy snowstorm, igniting at least 14 tankers and burning down a house.

In addition, hundreds of families were evacuated and nearby water treatment plants were temporarily closed, prompting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to issue a state of emergency.

One person was treated for potential inhalation issues, but no other injuries were reported, according to a news release from CSX, the train company.

The company and the Federal Railroad Administration are assisting in the National Transportation Safety Board investigation.

“This accident is another reminder of the need to improve the safety of transporting hazardous materials by rail,” said acting agency Chairman Christopher Hart. “If we identify any new safety concerns as a result of this derailment, the board will act expeditiously to issue new safety recommendations.”

Meanwhile, the Transportation Department is weighing tougher safety regulations for rail shipments of crude, which can ignite and result in huge fireballs.

But the three recent accidents in the U.S. all involved tank cars that already meet a higher safety standard than what federal law requires — leading some to suggest even tougher requirements that industry representatives say would be prohibitively costly.


Continue Reading

Drowning in An Ocean of Misinformation?

Making waves out of nothingMaking waves out of nothing at all.The oceans are dying, says . . . just about everyone. Well at least the New York Times, which reported last month that “Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study Says.” And the Times never makes any factual mistakes; I checked to make sure this story wasn’t from Gail Collins.

But to my amazement, there’s a broad study out in the latest issue of BioScience, a premier journal in the Oxford University family, written by eight scientists from universities on several continents, that bravely takes issue with the conventional wisdom. “Reconsidering Ocean Calamities” argues that there is an “absence of robust evidence” for many of the most common claims about ocean perils. Even though the article is written in the usual dry and technical language of scientific journal articles, it is not hard to make out that the authors think a lot of the popular claims, such as ocean acidification, are exaggerated or badly overestimated. It takes direct aim at some of the leading catastrophist journal articles:

However, an analysis of some of the calamities reported in doom and gloom media accounts (e.g., table 1) shows some—at times, severe—disconnect with actual observations. For instance, there is no evidence that ocean acidification has killed jellyfish predators, nor that jellyfish are taking over the ocean, and predictions that the killer algae, Caulerpa taxifolia, was going to devastate the Mediterranean ecosystem have not been realized, despite claims to the contrary from the media (table 1). It may be, therefore, that some of the calamities composing the syndrome of collapse of coastal ecosystems may not be as severe as is portrayed in some accounts. . .

[W]e contend that the marine research community may not have remained sufficiently skeptical in sending and receiving information on the problems caused by human pressures in the ocean and that there is a need to revisit the process by which potential or isolated problems escalate to the status of ocean calamities. . .

The authors walk through a number of purported ocean calamities, debunking or qualifying them one by one. Of special note is their argument about ocean acidification from CO2:

[T]here have been a few claims for already realized impacts of ocean acidification on calcifiers, such as a decline in the number of oysters on the West Coast of North America (Barton et al. 2012) and in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011). However, the link between these declines and ocean acidification through anthropogenic CO2 is unclear. Corrosive waters affecting oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon coast were associated with upwelling (Barton et al. 2012), not anthropogenic CO2. The decline in pH affecting oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011) was not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 but was likely attributable to excess respiration associated with eutrophication. Therefore, there is, as yet, no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the level of pH change that would prompt such impacts.

Ditto for coral bleaching:

[D]espite the strong mechanistic or physiological basis for a role of warming in coral bleaching and coral growth, a robust demonstration of a direct causal link between global warming and global coral bleaching over decadal time scales has not yet been produced.

They don’t hold back with their closing arguments:

[O]nce hypothetical problems have risen to the status of calamities in the literature, they seem to become self-perpetuating. Indeed, the marine research community seems much better endowed with the capacity to add new calamities to the list than they are to remove them following critical scrutiny. As an example, the newest calamity extends the problem of the expansion of coastal hypoxia to a concept of global ocean deoxygenation (Keeling et al. 2010). The possible explanation that the list of calamities only experiences growth because all calamities are real is inconsistent with the examples provided above that some of them may not withstand close scrutiny. The alternative explanation is that there are flaws in the processes in place to sanction scientific evidence, such as organized skepticism, that need to be addressed to help weed out robust from weak cases for ocean calamities. . .

The rise of ocean calamities has generated a worldview in which a host of ecological syndromes resulting from human-driven pressures is leading to the collapse of the ocean. The addition of new problems, such as new invasive species, ocean acidification and deoxygenation, or the perils from plastic pollution, to the litany validates and strengthens this worldview, forming a more compelling case for action to reduce human pressures. Although reducing human pressures on the marine environment is a positive outcome, this may provide a motivation to inadvertently—or, in worst cases, deliberately—fall into the white hat bias, defined as “bias leading to distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends” (Cope and Allison 2009, p. 84). Clearly, no righteous end justifies the perpetuation of scientific bias. . .

Most important, we should remain skeptical and, in exerting organized skepticism, will ensure a depiction of global ocean problems devoid of unsupported claims and statements, which will help organize management and policy options targeting the most pressing problems to limit the deterioration and to provide effective stewardship of the oceans.

I sure hope all of the authors of this paper have tenure.


Continue Reading

The EPA’s Ozone Nightmare

skiesPutting aside its insane attack on carbon dioxide, declaring the most essential gas on Earth, other than oxygen, a “pollutant”, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in trying to further regulate ozone for no apparent reason other than its incessant attack on the economy.

In late January on behalf of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Dr. Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D, filed his testimony on the proposed national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The EPA wants to lower the current ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of 70 to 65 ppb, and even as low as 60 ppb.

“After promulgation of the current ozone standards in 2008,” Dr. Cohen noted, “EPA two years later called a temporary halt to the nationwide implementation of the standard in response to the severe recession prevailing at the time.”

In other words, it was deemed bad for the economy. “Now, EPA is proposing a new, more stringent standard even before the current standard has been fully implemented and even though, according to the EPA’s own data, ozone concentrations have declined by 33 percent since 1980.”

According to Wikipedia: “Ozone is a powerful oxidant (far more so than dioxygen) and has many industrial and consumer applications related to oxidation. This same high oxidizing potential, however, causes ozone to damage mucous and respiratory tissues in animals, and also tissues in plants, above concentrations of about 100 ppb. This makes ozone a potent respiratory hazard and pollutant near ground level. However, the so-called ozone layer (a portion of the stratosphere with a higher concentration of ozone, from two to eight ppm) is beneficial, preventing damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth’s surface, to the benefit of both plants and animals.”

So, yes, reducing ozone in the ground level atmosphere does have health benefits, but the EPA doesn’t just enforce the Clean Air Act, it also seeks to reinterpret and use it in every way possible to harm the economy.

As Dr. Cohen pointed out, “the Clean Air Act requires EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to produce an evaluation of the adverse effects, including economic impact, of obtaining and maintaining a tighter standard. Despite repeated requests from Congress, (the Committee) has not produced the legally required evaluation. By ignoring this statutory mandate, and moving ahead with its ozone rulemaking, EPA is showing contempt for the rule of law and for the taxpayers who provide the agency’s funding.”

Since President Obama took office in 2009 he has used the EPA as one of his primary tools to harm the U.S. economy. In a Feb 2 Daily Caller article, Michael Bastasch reported that “Tens of thousands of coal mine and power plant workers have lost their jobs under President Obama, and more layoffs could be on the way as the administration continues to pile on tens of billions of dollars in regulatory costs.”

The American Coal Council’s CEO Betsy Monseu also testified regarding the proposed ozone standards, noting that the increased reductions would affect power plants, industrial plants, auto, agriculture, commercial and residential buildings, and more.

Citing a study undertaken for the National Association of Manufacturers, “a 60 ppb ozone standard would result in a GDP reduction of $270 billion per year, a loss of up to 2.9 million jobs equivalents annually, and a reduction of $1,570 in average annual household consumption. Electricity costs could increase up to 23% and natural gas cost by up to 52% over the period to 2040.”

In a rational society, imposing such job losses and increased costs when the problem is already being solved would make no sense, but we all live in Obama’s society these days and that means increasing ozone standards only make sense if you want to harm the economy in every way possible.


Continue Reading

Health Care or Climate Change?

hospitalClick image for more informationCCD Editor’s Note: If you see a striking similarity to what is happening in the United States to what the status quo is in Canada, you’d be right on the money. The Obama administration has made it clear the Number One threat facing the United States is climate change, not terrorism, not our flailing socialistic healthcare system, not even ISIS. Donna Laframboise describes how her government is giving short shrift to Canada’s citizenry and prioritizing climate change over people’s lives.

* * * * *

I reside in Ontario ‚Äì Canada’s most populous province. The 13.5 million people who live here comprise 38.5 percent of this nation’s population.

Last week, a hospital social worker advised me that Ontario hospitals are in “crisis.” Large numbers of in-patients are elderly people who should be in nursing homes, but the nursing homes are already full, with waiting lists three to five years long.

As a result, an elderly relative of mine is going to be transferred to the only nursing home bed available. It’s located 140 kilometers (90 miles) distant from his home, in a community of less than 1,000 people.

That relative knows no one in the community in which he will spend an unknown number of months waiting for a nursing home bed closer to home. In order for his geographically nearest relations to visit him, they will need to drive 2+ hours in each direction. It is possible he will breathe his last in that remote facility.

Yet the same week I learned how ill-equipped we are to care for our aging population, my provincial government launched a 45-day public review period connected to a new climate change discussion paper. The government web page begins thus:

Climate change is the defining issue of our time.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is engaging the people, businesses and communities of Ontario in a dialogue on climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering strong economic growth.

That feedback will help inform a strategy and action plan to be announced later this year. [bold added]

We have a severe health care crisis on our hands. Here and now, involving some of society’s most vulnerable members. But rather than focusing on that crisis, my government thinks climate change is the defining issue of our time.

My government is going to develop an action plan. It’s going to distribute glossy publications, hold press conferences, and draft new laws and regulations that will, no doubt, lead to the disappearance of even more manufacturing jobs. Then it’s going to pat itself on the back and preen about how green it is.

All in anticipation of a hypothetical climate crisis that is unlikely to seriously effect anyone in this province for decades to come.

The money that will be lavished on this file won’t do a thing to alleviate our nursing home shortage. Nor will it make any difference to the climate. We 13 million people represent less than one quarter of one percent of the world’s population. Every one of us could drastically curb our CO2 emissions by turning off our heat in this sub-zero weather and never using a car again ‚Äì but it still wouldn’t matter.

I want my government to concentrate on things for which it is directly responsible. After it has addressed the nursing home shortage, balanced the budget, and vanquished our $300 billion debt, I might not mind so much if it turns its attention to climate change.

Until then, how dare it behave as if a hypothetical threat is more important than the well-being of my elderly relative.

A government that has already declared climate change to be the defining issue is unlikely to be receptive to public input that thinks otherwise. Nevertheless, Ontario residents have until March 29th to submit comments online here about what should be done about climate change (full details here).

Make no mistake. Green activists will express their point-of-view during this process. If the rest of us remain silent, our government will find it easy to pretend our perspective doesn’t exist.


Continue Reading

Climate Skeptic: Obama’s ‘Weather Witches…Trying to Legislate What Pagans Do’

witchClimate Depot Publisher Marc Morano tells MRCTV that the Obama administration’s “weather witches” are trying to mandate the types of rituals used by Pagans to try to control the climate.

The Obama administration’s tactics mirror those of Pagans who would call on “weather witches” to try to prevent bad weather, Morano explains:

“This harkens back, and I’m actually doing research on this ‚Äì they’re called ‘Weather Witches’ ‚Äì at Pagan festivals, weather witches are brought out to keep bad storms away. They’re actually brought out to stop the tornadoes, to stop a thunderstorm that might ruin the festival.

“The White House is now spinning that kind of language: Barbara Boxer, people in the Senate, Sen. Whitehouse from Rhode Island ‚Äì they’re arguing a carbon tax could help prevent tornadoes, in this case in Oklahoma. They’re turning into weather witches and they’re trying to legislate what Pagans do at their festivals to keep bad weather away.”

By believing it can prevent bad weather via regulation, the administration has plunged the U.S. into “an age of modern witchcraft and astrology,” Morano says ‚Äì adding that incidents of severe weather aren’t even on the rise:

“They think they can stop future hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and droughts by EPA climate regs and U.N. treaties. It’s truly an age of modern witchcraft and astrology.”

“We are the first generation, outside of the Pagan rituals and the weather witches, who actually think we can do something about the weather. And, they’re hyping every bad storm that happens. First of all, on every metric, on 50-100 year time-scales, extreme weather is either declining or showing no trend.

“And that includes floods on over a hundred years, droughts ‚Äì droughts are actually declining on 60-year trends ‚Äì tornadoes, big tornadoes, F3 and larger, are down since the 1950’s, and hurricanes, we’re on the longest period of no category 3 or larger hurricane hitting the U.S., in nine or ten years.”

<iframe title=”MRC TV video player” width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watch full interview with Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano here.


Continue Reading

Bill Nye Pleads With MSNBC: More Climate Hysteria, Please!

Fist bumpClimate change enthusiast Bill Nye appeared on MSNBC, Monday, to lobby the network for more global warming cheerleading and the importance of linking all weather events to the phenomena. Talking to Joy Reid about the cold and snow hitting much of the country, he implored, “…Just say the word climate change. Just, like, ‘It could be climate change. It’s a possible connection to climate change. Is this evidence of climate change?'” 

Nye demanded, “Could you just toss that in now and then?” A compliant Reid agreed: “Absolutely. I would like to toss that in every single time.” Nye then stated the obvious: “MSNBC is, in many ways, regarded as a progressive station.” He spoke to the few conservatives watching MSNBC: “We need you.” 

<iframe title=”MRC TV video player” width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nye quickly turned insulting, “But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we’re not going to reach a consensus. We are not going to make progress.” 

Before fist bumping Reid goodbye, Nye reiterated the need to make every other word “climate change”: 

BILL NYE: Just talk about it…If we were talking about it, we’d raise awareness and get to work and I, as a guy born in the U.S, would like the U.S. to be leading this effort. It’s President’s Day.

The genesis of the segment on Monday was a Time magazine article slamming Pat Sajak for dismissing the winter storms as “weather.” The Time headline dismissed, “Wheel of Fortune Host Tweets About Climate Change Again.” (Of course, climate change activists are not often derided as mere celebrities. James Cameron has been a frequent guest on the network. He’s not derided as the “Titanic director.”) 

On January 26, Nye connected the storms in Boston on climate change and sneered, “I know there will be certain viewers who will become unglued.”         

A transcript of the February 16 Reid Report segment is below: 


JOY REID: Why should we care that it is cold in the winter? Well, for one thing the unusual nature of some of these temperatures does raise, or should raise, questions about climate change. And joining me here on set is Bill Nye the Science Guy, one of my favorite people, period. But favorite people to talk about this. So, Bill, there’s a helpful description from someone named Eliana Dockterman in Time magazine that sort of teases the difference between climate change and weather. She says, “Cold snaps do not change the overall trajectory of our warming planet. While weather is what changes in the atmosphere day to day, climate is how the atmosphere behaves over a long period of time.” So, when it’s cold, should we then say, “Oh, no problem. Don’t worry about climate change.” 

BILL NYE: No, no. Let’s not confuse or interchange climate change with global warming. Global warming ‚Äì The world is getting warmer. There is more carbon monoxide holding in more heat. So when the climate changes, some places get colder. And the thing that’s really consistent with climate change models is this variance where it’s cold, it’s warm, it’s cold, it’s warm. And so I was in Wyoming last week and it was 50 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s very unusual. So what I would hope for, my dream, Joy, is that you all, you and the news business would just say the word climate change. Just, like, “It could be climate change. It’s a possible connection to climate change. Is this evidence of climate change?” Could you just toss that in now and then? 

JOY REID: Absolutely. I would like to toss that in every single time. Because I’m of the mind, Bill Nye the Science Guy, that, you know, I grew up in Denver, Colorado. I went to school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I have lived in New York. I’ve lived in places where it’s cold all the time. 

NYE: Yes, yes. 

REID: But when you see extremes of cold, when you’re breaking, I’m counting one, two, three, four, five records from Little Rock to Flint, Michigan, to Redding, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. 

NYE: Louisville, Kentucky. 

REID: We’re breaking 100-year-old records in cold. Is there not enough attention that people are paying to what we are doing to the planet and how it’s impacting our daily lives? 

NYE: No, there isn’t enough attention being paid. But I’ll go on to say if the ocean, this mythic thing, the noreaster, if the oceans just ever so slightly warmer, it snows more. There’s more moisture in the atmosphere, just for example. Yesterday, everyone was so excited about thunder snow, this is where you had atmospheric conditions. So, the gradient, the difference between the bottom of the top of the atmosphere was so strong that it was lightning and thunder during a snowstorm. Oooh. It’s cool. It’s cold. The other thing I would say, MSNBC is, in many ways, regarded as a progressive station, as opposed to a conservative ‚Äì I say station — news organization. I will say to the conservatives, we need you. This is to say, we can’t have everybody be a progressive, liberal bleeding heart and so on and so on. We need people on both sides. But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we’re not going to reach a consensus. We are not going to make progress.

REID: Yeah. 

NYE: And I get a sense that if I can use the term “they” know this because they say repeatedly “Well, I’m not a scientist so therefor I can’t have an opinion on this.” But you’re a human running around in Boston or Louisville and you can look at the graphs as much as anybody. The world’s climate is changing.

REID: Yeah. 

NYE: And along with that, apparently, is this extraordinary winter event. See, I have got to tell you the hot weather events like we had in Texas in 2012, those are now statistically connected to climate change. You know, any one event is hard to do when you’re talking about — 

REID: It’s the cumulative effect. 

NYE: Yeah, yeah. I bet you in coming years, people will be able to tie events like this mathematically to the bigger picture. So, we need you, you guys Just say it could be climate change, possible connection. Just once in awhile. 

REID: Yeah. And I think the bigger picture meaning we’re not pursuing aggressively the policies that could do something about it. 

NYE: Can I throw in one more thing? 

REID: Quickly. One more thing. Yes. 

NYE: People always say to me, “What can I do about climate? What can I do about climate change?” Just talk about it. 

REID: Yeah. 

NYE: If we were talking about it, we’d raise awareness and get to work and I, as a guy born in the U.S, would like the U.S. to be leading this effort. It’s President’s day. Let’s go. Let’s lead. 

REID: Amen. Fist bump. [The two fist bump.] Bill Nye the Science Guy. 


See also (h/t Climate Depot):


Continue Reading

Green Activists Growing Security Threat To Canada, Police Warns

CartoonThe Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation. –Shawn McCarthy, The Globe and Mail, 17 February 2015

Environmental groups in Canada have expressed concern over the nation’s new anti-terrorism laws, after a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reportedly made specific mention of the dangers of green activism. The report, obtained by Greenpeace, said “anti-petrol” environmental advocacy groups pose a threat to Canadian security. — 9 News, 18 February 2015

The Government has so far banned 13 foreign activists of Greenpeace International from entering India including nine from the UK, three from the USA and an Australian national. These activists have been blacklisted as their activities were found to be in violation of visa rules and they were found to be training, motivating and organising Greenpeace India’s activists to create field level protests near thermal plant and coal mine locations, apart from other activities that would damage India’s energy security interests, Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA) has told the Delhi High Court. —The New Indian Express, 18 February 2015

British energy giant BP has estimated that strong demand from Asia will spur steady growth in energy demand over the next two decades despite ongoing oil price volatility. Global energy demand was expected to rise an average of 1.4 percent annually over the next 20 years, or a total of 37 percent from 2013 to 2035, BP said in its Energy Outlook 2035 report released on Tuesday. The report also considered global CO2 emissions to 2035 based on its projections of energy markets and seen against a backdrop of national carbon-related policies. Its projection showed emissions rising by 1 percent a year to 2035, or by 25 percent over the period. —Deutsche Welle, 18 February 2015

The EU Commissioners discussion paper gives a good preview of what we can expect from the ‘Energy Union Framework Strategy’ which is scheduled to be adopted and published by the EU Commission on 25 February. Reading the paper, it is clear that a more appropriate name for this key EU project would be ‘Energy and Climate Union’ or even ‘Climate and Energy Union’. Because the bottom-line of ‘why Europe needs an Energy Union’ is climate, says the EU Commission: ‘Europe has no choice: if it continues on the present path, the unavoidable  challenge of shifting to a low-carbon economy will be made harder by the  economic, social and environmental costs of having fragmented national energy markets. The Energy Union is the EU’s answer to this challenge.’Alice Stollmeyer, 5 February 2015

So, what is “The Way Forward” in the EU Commission’s view? These are actually the most interesting paragraphs in the leaked discussion paper. The ‘energy security’ dimensions that need to be worked on read more like a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with respect to well-known, persistent but often latent issues, than a real actionable strategy. It begs the question of why something will get done this time, given these issues have persisted for at least a decade. –Roman Kilisek, The Energy Collective, 18 February 2015

The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky ‚Äì has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. For the past 5 days, solar activity has been very low and one measure of solar activity ‚Äì its X-ray output ‚Äì has basically flatlined in recent days. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase. –Paul Dorian, Vencore Weather 17 February 2015

Continue Reading

Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered ‘weakest solar cycle in a century’

The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system. And Ol’ Sol is not taking the insult lightly. Vencore Weather reports:

For the past 5 days, solar activity has been very low and one measure of solar activity – its X-ray output – has basically flatlined in recent days (plot below courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center). Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.


We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.


There are several possible consequences to the solar quiet. The first is counterintuitive:

By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (#10) []. In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.

Our dependence on electronic devices is such that extreme solar events could have serious consequences.  However, it is the likely impact on atmospheric temperatures that threatens the “consensus” on global warming:

…if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.

It is common sense to believe that the sun has more influence on global temperatures than a trace gas. With a 17 year “pause” in the predicted outcomes of an increase in atmospheric CO2, warmists face more and more awkward questions. If temperatures actually decline as a result of an expected decrease in solar activity, at some point the game will be up, and the billions of dollars a year squandered on climate modeling that doesn’t predict what happens will have to dry up.


Continue Reading