John Kerry lashes out at climate change skeptics, ‘dirty energy’

JohnKerrySecretary of State John Kerry, speaking yesterday at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council, criticized Florida Governor Rick Scott’s (R) administration for allegedly banning the term climate change from all communications. Scott has publicly denied claims that any phrases were forbidden by his administration.

Kerry said, “Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say ‘climate change.’ Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.”

But according to an article first published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014, “The ’97 percent’ figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.”

“In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

“Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, Professor David R. Legates and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found ‘only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse’ the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.” You can access the full article here.

Kerry has previously stated that climate change is as “big a threat as terrorism, poverty, and weapons of mass destruction,” and has been considered by some to be a “champion of combating climate change.”

Kerry’s remarks are part of a growing trend among Democrats in the run-up to the 2016 elections to silence climate change scientists and members of Congress who are skeptical of global warming. There is also a new climate change denier website where citizens are urged to contact and harass Senators and House Representatives who don’t follow the climate change narrative.

The actual host for the site is Organizing for America, a group with close ties to the White House, and who have contributed heavily to Democratic priorities in order “to mobilize support behind the president’s agenda.”

According to Kerry, politicians who don’t follow the global warming narrative, “will not be remembered favorably by future generations.” He also said:

“If we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning. Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure, but as a collective moral failure of historic consequence. And they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn.”

Mimicking Obama’s recent comments about the Keystone Pipeline carrying “dirty oil,” Kerry urged the country to transition away from “dirty sources of energy.” The Keystone XL pipeline, which needs the State Department’s approval to be built across international borders, awaits Kerry’s decision.

Once made, its ultimate fate resides with the President, who vetoed bipartisan legislation on February 24, 2015, that would have begun construction of the pipeline.

Kerry also commended Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” for lowering carbon dioxide emissions, which the Daily Caller noted as “praise that may be misplaced.”

Government data shows that U.S. emissions began to fall in 2007,” and Obama’s Climate Plan wasn’t announced until summer 2013.


Continue Reading

Electric Lemons

tesla roadsterFor years, the Obama administration has pumped billions into the development and subsidy of electric vehicles, but e-cars show little sign of catching on. Currently, just one in a thousand Americans own a plug-in electric car, and most of those reside in California, the epicenter of green energy boondoggles.

Now comes proof that many electric cars lose 70% of their value after just three years of ownership. According to a recent report, the resale value of the 2012 Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, the most popular plug-in electric cars, has fallen by 72% and 69%, respectively. Conventional vehicles do better. The resale value of the Chevy Cruze and Nissan Versa, similar sized, gasoline-powered cars, fall by an average of 54% and 50% after three years. Larger gasoline-powered cars hold even more of their value. After three years, the full-size 268-HP Toyota Avalon in good condition goes for $19,471, a loss of just 35%.

Worse yet, it’s possible that electric car values will fall even faster as they approach the point when they need a replacement battery. How much will that battery cost? According to a GM spokesman, the Volt’s 8-year/100,000-mile warranty covers battery repair or replacement, but after that, “it’s hard for us to tell you exactly what that cost would be.” For the Leaf, the battery is warranted against capacity loss for 6 years or 60,000 miles. Nissan has announced that the Leaf’s replacement battery cost will be $5,500, plus installation and tax.

The resale value of the three-year-old Leaf and Volt are now around $10,000 and $13,000, respectively. After six to eight years, when their battery warranties expire, the potential need of a replacement battery will probably detract further from their resale value. It is possible that a six- to eight-year-old electric vehicle will have relatively little resale value.

At least for the gasoline-powered Cruze and Versa, the resale value is a known quantity. The value of the 2011 Cruze LS in good condition, with standard features, now over four and a half years old, is $9,545. For a similar 2011 Versa, the resale value is $7,006. At six to eight years, those values will be less, but the cars should still be drivable. Without a costly battery replacement or repair, the Leaf and Volt may not.

The calculation of resale values is not rocket science. It was known from the beginning that plug-in electrics would require battery replacement or repair. It was known that the cost of this replacement or repair would significantly impact resale values. To date, Obama has spent an estimated $6.5 billion to $10 billion funding “advanced vehicles.” So why did the administration spend so much taxpayer money to subsidize the development and sale of cars that lose so much of their value after just a few years?

More important, what have the rest of us, the approximately 99.9% (245,754,000 of the 246 million Americans over 18) who have not purchased an electric car, gotten out of our “investment” in green vehicles?

Green advocates argue that plug-in electrics help cut carbon emissions and thereby reduce global warming. The Chevy Volt came on the market in late 2010, followed by the Nissan Leaf and the costly Tesla Model S (from $69,900). Since then, approximately 260,000 plug-in electrics have been sold in the U.S. There has been no measurable impact on global warming. If anything, global temperatures have fallen since 2010.

The lesson of the green car debacle is that government intrusion in markets never works. The free market always does a better job of deciding what works and what doesn’t. That is because the free market embodies the combined judgment of hundreds of millions of consumers, each with skin in the game, all motivated by their true interests and choosing freely among available alternatives. Government, once it has attained the size and power of Washington as it is, has no direct interest in acting in the best interests of its citizens. It always acts in its own interest. 

It is ironic that Obama just last week announced a proposal that would extend the “fiduciary” standard to financial advisors of retirement assets when his own oversight of taxpayer money has been so lax. If the administration’s electric vehicle “investment” had been held to the fiduciary standard, requiring that taxpayer money be spent in the best interest of each individual taxpayer, nothing would have been spent on the subsidy of electric vehicles, and that would have been the appropriate action.

Underlying the sheer waste of taxpayer money is an even greater problem. There is nothing in the United States Constitution granting the federal government the right to seize taxpayer funds and use them to subsidize purchases by private citizens at the expense of others. The federal subsidy of $7,500 for each plug-in electric sold makes a mockery of the Constitution, since funds are seized from taxpayers and redistributed to others for a purely private purchase. Had anything of the sort been proposed at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Framers would have snorted “theft” and shouted the proposal down.

It is becoming painfully obvious that Obama’s “investment” in green cars is a ghastly failure that has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and, at the same time, encouraged others to purchase cars that lose most of their value after three years. It’s too late to expect a reversal or even a slight change of policy.

Maybe the next president can start afresh, admit that electric vehicles need to compete in the marketplace, restore constitutional governance, and remove the hands of government from the car industry. For now, we’re stuck with electric lemons on the road ‚Äì along with the one we have in the White House.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books on American politics and culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Continue Reading

The U.S. Has Too Much Oil And Nowhere To Put It

oil 2As oil prices have crashed, from more than $100 a barrel last summer to below $50 now, big trading companies are storing their crude in hopes of selling it for higher prices down the road. With U.S. production continuing to expand, that’s led to the fastest increase in U.S. oil inventories on record. For most of this year, the U.S. has added almost 1 million barrels a day to its stash of crude supplies. As of March 11, nationwide stocks were at 449 million barrels, by far the most ever. Oil investors appear to be coming around to the notion that a lack of storage capacity could lead to another price crash. –Matthew Philips, Bloomberg, 12 March 2015

A recent rebound in oil prices is built on flimsy foundations, the International Energy Agency warned Friday, with another sharp fall possible and few signs that cheap fuel was giving growth a real boost. —AFP, 13 March 2015

Japan is continuing to re-embrace coal to make up for its lack of nuclear energy, with plans for another power station released Thursday bringing the number of new coal-fired plants announced this year to seven. Before the nuclear accident in March 2011, the environment ministry had essentially blocked the building of new coal-power stations through tighter environmental assessments as Japan sought to meet ambitious greenhouse-gas reduction goals that have since been scrapped. –Mari Iwata, The Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2015

Headaches surrounding the permitting process mean Cuadrilla has not fracked a well since 2011. It is not just uncertainty over policy that is casting a shadow over UK shale ‚Äì explorers must also contend with the grim reality of the European gas market. Demand across the continent has fallen to levels not seen since the 1990s, sending prices in February ‚Äì traditionally the coldest month of the year ‚Äì to record lows. Therefore, even if companies succeed in getting gas out of the ground in significant quantities, will anyone be prepared to pay the price needed to make the process commercial? —Interfax Natural Gas Daily, 13 March 2015

Global emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide did not rise last year for the first time in 40 years without the presence of an economic crisis. “This is a real surprise. We have never seen this before,” said IEA chief economist, Fatih Birol, named recently as the agency’s next executive director. –Pilita Clark, Financial Times, 13 March 2015

Many investors are attracted to “green” investments by the promise of good returns allied with care for the environment. But there are growing fears that some are being sucked into unsuitable schemes. –Kate Palmer, The Daily Telegraph, 12 March 2015

Continue Reading

President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL pipeline only serves his political objectives

pipelinePresident Barack Obama vetoed legislation that would have greenlighted the Keystone XL pipeline, linking Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Senate lacks the votes to override Obama’s veto. Yet Keystone isn’t dead. Both Democrats and Republicans have an interest in keeping this political football in play.

Someday, we hope, the pipeline will be built. But that day won’t come any time soon — and perhaps never during Obama’s dwindling presidency.

In his veto message, Obama asserted that he hasn’t decided whether Keystone should be built or not. Obama said he was using his veto pen — for only the third time — mainly to preserve the executive branch’s jurisdiction over cross-border projects such as Keystone.

That’s just an excuse. Obama has been “reviewing” this project ever since he took office. The president has put a brick on it to serve his political objectives:

Keystone has come to symbolize a long and mighty struggle between environmentalists and the oil industry. Obama’s blockage of the project panders to his liberal base. Specifically, he’s pandering to Democratic donor Tom Steyer, a wealthy hedge-fund operator who has put his fortune behind stopping Keystone.

Keeping Keystone as a whipping boy for global warming suits a “green” president who, paradoxically, has watched domestic oil and gas production expand aggressively during his time in office. Offshore drilling? OK, says a White House eager to rev up the economy. Fracking? Bring it on.

But one more pipeline? In a nation crisscrossed with what the industry says are 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines? Oh, no. That would contribute to climate change by … moving a fossil fuel to refineries and markets.

Republicans in Congress benefit from this farce because it allows them to boast that they want to put more Americans to work. And don’t think they aren’t milking this dispute for political contributions.

In any rational assessment, Keystone wins on the merits. It would create jobs and improve efficiency in markets that sort out global supply of, and demand for, petroleum products.

Note, too, that Keystone wouldn’t cost the public purse a penny: A Canadian company, TransCanada, would foot the entire $8 billion tab. The project also promotes public safety. Moving oil by pipeline is much safer than by rail, the main alternative.

And, one way or another, this oil will join the global supply. Exporting it is a Canadian government priority. We appreciate the opponents’ sentiment that oil projects consume investment dollars that could go toward making solar, wind and other sustainable energy systems more practical and economical. But stopping Keystone wouldn’t keep this oil from eventually being consumed.

Best of all for a GOP weary of internal bickering, this project has unified the party — and even has attracted some of the president’s allies. The bill that Obama vetoed had passed with more than two dozen Democratic votes in the House and nine in the Senate. Two Democratic governors supported it. Trade unions closely tied to the Democratic Party sided with the Republicans, because building the pipeline would mean more work for their members.

No wonder Republicans have vowed to keep Keystone alive. It’s a winner for them. Watch for a vote to override Obama’s veto (although, barring some dramatic change among Democrats, it is destined to fall short).

We expect the project proposal to join the attempted repeal of Obamacare as a hardy political perennial: GOP leaders will attach Keystone to must-pass legislation. They will continue to stress how they are bringing forward a bipartisan, pro-growth measure that Obama nevertheless refuses to sign.

The shame of it for Democrats who wind up paying a political price for Obama’s veto is that, on this issue, the Republicans are right.

Keystone might not be the biggest, best infrastructure project ever. But it deserves to be built, and promptly.


Continue Reading

ed Cruz Unhappy with NASA’s New Focus on Global Warming

shuttleAs chairman of the Senate Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee, Texas Republican Ted Cruz is on a mission — to get NASA back on course regarding it’s original focus, space, and less on what many view as pseudo-science: global warming research.

According to this National Journal report, “The Republican lawmaker argues that the Obama administration is wrongfully neglecting the country’s space exploration operations—like potential missions to Mars and beyond—in favor of global-warming research.”

Now, Cruz is asking NASA’s administrator, Charles Bolden, if he agrees.

“I’d like to start by asking a general question,” said Cruz on Thursday during a subcommittee hearing on the president’s $18.5 billion budget request for NASA for fiscal 2016, which allocates considerable funding for Earth- and ocean-science projects. “In your judgment, what is the core mission of NASA?”

Bolden said he’d been contemplating that mission over the past few days, and had read over the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. “Our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate, explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place,” he said, adding that the study of aeronautics is important as well.

Cruz didn’t seem pleased with the “Earth environment” part of Bolden’s answer. “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space,” he said. “That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country … and you know that I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.”

Cruz isn’t pleased that Earth sciences funding is up 41% since 2009, “while funding for exploration and space operations” is down 7.6%. Cruz considers the latter “the core function of NASA,” per the same report.

“In my judgment, this does not represent a fair or appropriate allocation of resources, that it is shifting resources away from the core functions of NASA to other functions,” Cruz said. “Do you share that assessment?”

Bolden, who decides how to allocate NASA’s annual budget, did not. That dip in space exploration funding? That was kind of the whole point. “Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in your chart,” he said. “I will say one thing—it is interesting to note that there is a decrease in exploration and human spaceflight when, in fact, that was somewhat intentional because we were trying to get the cost of exploration down as we reach farther out into the solar system.”

Bolden said the now-defunct space shuttles cost NASA $2 billion a year to maintain whether they flew or not. Today, NASA has a $6.6 billion contract with private companies Boeing and SpaceX that will provide for 16 human spaceflights over a span of three to four years.

“So I think the decrease is actually a little bit of what we’re trying to do to get the cost of flying humans into space down,” he told Cruz. “That’s what’s driving the market, is reducing launch costs.”


Continue Reading

Conflict Experts Dispute Impact Of Global Warming On National Security

cartoonGlobal conflict experts say the Obama administration’s recent focus on climate change as a national security threat may be misguided. “The link between global warming and national security needs is tenuous at best, though the Arctic might be an exception, if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin continues his revanchist ways,” Harvard psychology professor and best-selling author Steven Pinker said in a recent e-mail interview. “Most wars have nothing to do with climate, and vice versa.” –David O. Williams, Real Vail, 11 March 2015

One of Wall Street’s most successful hedge fund managers is once again wading into the climate change debate. His conclusion: It’s not as big of a problem as some suggest. –Stephen Gandel, Forbes, 11 March 2015 

This essay is not about the science of climate change, it’s about what the data say on their own. In particular, we think it is important to distinguish the level of worry you might have from looking at this chart, versus the level of worry you might have from complex climate models. Yes, over the last 135 years the Earth has warmed, but not nearly to the danger point and if we continue at this pace (the crux of the issue) it won’t become scary until more than 500 years from now. That’s quite a different message from what we’ve read in the articles accompanying the original version of this chart. –Clifford Asness & Aaron Brown, Stumbling On Truth, 10 March 2015

You have to be very careful with averages, they are not as simple as you might think. That thought was uppermost in my mind when I was reading a recent paper in Nature Climate Change. It had been written up by the Press Association (PA) and repeated by the Guardian, I guess that its multitude of environmental reporters-editors-heads had the day off. –Dr David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 12 March 2015

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change () recently circulated an email breathlessly titled, “Governments on Track to Reaching Paris  2015 Universal Climate Agreement — Negotiating Text Officially Published.” This text agreed to for negotiation by the federal government includes a remarkable proposal. Buried deep inside, it proposes an “International Climate Justice Tribunal in order to oversee, control and sanction the fulfilment [sic] of and compliance with the obligations of Annex I and Annex II Parties under this agreement and the [1992 UNFCCC climate treaty].” Translated, this means that even if the Obama administration refuses to call the Paris agreement a treaty, as it already telegraphed its position: A new climate court would hold us to its terms — even the terms of a prior, “voluntary” agreement. –Chris Horner, The Washington Times, 8 March 2015

Continue Reading

ASU prof ‘shocked’ to be target of Dems’ climate probe

ballingASU Prof Robert BallingAn Arizona State University scientist said he is “shocked” to be among seven researchers at the center of a probe by an Arizona congressman over funding for their climate-change research.

U.S. Rep. Ra√∫l Grijalva, D-Ariz., wrote letters to seven universities last month, saying he has concerns about issues of potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources related to climate research. The issues were raised in a New York Times article.

Grijalva is seeking records on external funding going to Robert Balling Jr., a professor in ASU’s School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning. The request also seeks drafts of any testimony Balling prepared for a government body or agency and correspondence surrounding his testimony and funding dating back to 2007.

The congressman sent the letters in his role as the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources. He wrote in the Feb. 24 letters that “my colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.”

Balling, in an interview with The Arizona Republic, said there is “absolutely no truth” to the suggestion he failed to disclose funding sources.

“I have zero concerns,” he said. “I know what’s there.”

ASU President Michael Crow, in a written response to Grijalva last week, said the university will comply with the public-records request. However, Crow said he has “personal concerns” about the manner in which Grijalva is proceeding.

“I strongly urge you and your colleagues to be aware of and to consider the principals of academic freedom as you continue your pursuit of documents and information from universities and individual faculty members,” Crow wrote in the letter.

Crow said the university’s policy on academic freedom gives researchers the right to search for truth and knowledge without obstruction or restraint.

The American Meteorological Society has also weighed in with a letter to Grijalva. Singling out specific researchers based on a perspective they have expressed “sends a chilling message to all academic researchers,” the society said.

The records request is the latest controversy to erupt in the contentious field of climate change. Climate scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been criticized recently over allegations he accepted grants from fossil-fuel companies and didn’t disclose all the corporate funding.

Soon has called the attacks a “shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writing.”

The same week Grijalva’s letter went out, three other Democratic senators sent letters to 100 fossil-fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations. The letters sought to determine whether they are funding climate-change studies and whether the funded scientists failed to disclose their funding sources in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.

Grijalva’s letter went to scientists at the University of Delaware, the University of Alabama, Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Colorado and Pepperdine University, as well as ASU.

The ASU letter says that, according to a 2012 news article and other sources, Balling as recently as 2012 was receiving $1,000 monthly from the Heartland Institute, “a group funded in part by Altria and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that once proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax — despite Balling’s claims that he had not been involved with the organization since 2008.”

Balling said the claim keeps resurfacing but is false. He said that around 2008 he went to New York City for a meeting with the Heartland Institute and received an honorarium of $1,000.

“I’ve never seen a dime (from them) since,” he said.

Balling, 62, has worked at ASU for 30 years. He has written four books on climate change. His 1992 book, “The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality,” explored the position that global warming will be moderate rather than catastrophic.

“Any time you write an argument against the popular vision, you are branded,” he said.

In the past, while he was director of the Laboratory of Climatology at ASU, funding sources included money from fossil-fuel companies, among other sources, Balling said. He added that he properly disclosed the funding and that researchers often seek funding from a variety of sources.

Since 2004, he has been involved in and now runs a master’s degree program in geographic-information systems at ASU, which he describes as a “breath of fresh air” compared to tense climatology meetings.

A spokesman for Grijalva directed questions to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which issued a statement that the committee continues to pursue information that sheds light on financial conflicts of interest in the preparation of testimony and policy recommendations to lawmakers.

“We look forward to productive conversations with the recipients of our letters about getting the information we need. … We have every expectation of full and fair disclosure,” the statement said.

Balling said the committee is welcome to any documents he has.

“It’s a free country, if these guys want to investigate it. I would freely release anything I have. But they better get ready to be bored because there’s not much to see.”


Continue Reading

I Deny I’m a Denier

sajak(h/t Climate Depot) I consider myself to be a skeptic in the matter of man-made global warming. I’m not a denier; I’m not smart enough to be that certain. But, as with a lot of things in life, I’m skeptical. (And see what they did there? By labeling skeptics as deniers, they equate us with Holocaust Deniers. Pretty clever, huh?) Every now and then, I’ll use my Twitter account to send out a tweet poking fun at climate alarmists (see what I did there?). And, while most Twitter users understand the humor, there are those who get very, very angry.

First, they pointedly remind me that I’m not a scientist. That’s very helpful, because sometimes I confuse being a TV game show host with being a scientist. (It’s always embarrassing when I show up for a taping in a white lab coat.) Actually, that’s not the first thing they do; the bulk of them usually start with obscene name-calling.

There are two favorites, but Ricochet’s Code of Conduct forbids my being any more specific on the matter. Finally, most of them tell me that they don’t care what such an idiot who hosts such an idiotic program for idiotic viewers thinks about something that 90% (or 94% or 97%) of climate scientists agree on. Of course, the fact that they read my tweet, became agitated by it, and responded to it demonstrates that they truly do care. I find that rather odd, because I’m not sure why anyone would particularly care about any beliefs—or non-beliefs—held by a quasi-celebrity, especially one who doesn’t use his television forum to proselytize (as some are wont to do).

I’m also often reminded by my global warming (climate change?) Twitter buddies that climate is not weather. The fact that it’s extraordinarily cold in particular areas at particular times does not negate their argument. The climate—hockey stick and all—will doom us if we do not act quickly and drastically. I find the climate vs. weather argument interesting because weather events can only prove their point; they cannot disprove it. The historically calm Gulf hurricane period since Katrina—despite predictions of increasingly strong and devastating storms—can be explained away. However, it’s a safe bet that, had the last decade been marked by more violent activity, it would have been more evidence that The End Days were near. Snowless winters in England are a sign of the climate changing times, but when the snow and ice return…well, it’s weather, not climate.

So here we are. The science is settled. Extreme weather of any kind confirms it. Weather that seems to fly in the face of predictions is irrelevant. So how can one possibly deny all that? I can’t, because I’m not a scientist. But can’t I be just the teeniest bit skeptical?


Continue Reading

Latest consequence of ‘global warming’

iceRemember the ‘melting polar ice caps” and poor polar bears drifting out to sea on remnants of the vanishing ice? Tell it to residents of Cape Cod. Watts Up With That reports:

CBS Boston has published a story with photographs of giant Icebergs washing ashore at Cape Cod, many of them metres thick.

According to CBS Boston;

WBZ-TV Chief Meteorologist Eric Fisher says this could be a “once-in-a-generation” event due to the extraordinary amount of ice on the Massachusetts Bay. Fisher says the ice won’t be around for long.

There have been several remarkable images left from the record-setting winter, including the nearly frozen waves captured off the coast of Nantucket last month.

Yet John F. Kerry ‚Äì from Massachusetts — keeps calling global warming our primary national security challenge.


Continue Reading

New Reports: There Is No Global Warming

goreThe liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.

They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”

Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?

Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.

But how much has the world really warmed?

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.

But that’s just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.

According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.

That’s three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.

So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?

Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

temperaturesHardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

Al Gore could not have been more wrong.

icecapHowever, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.

For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.

The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ‘97% Consensus’ Claims.”

Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.

A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .

  • Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”
  • Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.
  • Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).

It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.

Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going? (Click Here to Read a Controversial Report on This Topic.)

Continue Reading