Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...

[Mark]

Russian Media Take Climate Cue From Skeptical Putin

Wildfires crackled across Siberia this summer, turning skies ochre and sending up enough smoke from burning pines to blot out satellite views of the 400-mile-long Lake Baikal.

To many climate scientists, the worsening fires are a consequence of Siberia getting hotter, the carbon unleashed from its burning forests and tundra only adding to man-made fossil fuel emissions. Siberia's wildfire season has lengthened in recent years and the 2015 blazes were among the biggest yet, caking the lake, the "Pearl of Siberia", in ash and scorching the surrounding permafrost.

But the Russian public heard little mention of climate change, because media coverage across state-controlled television stations and print media all but ignored it. On national TV, the villains were locals who routinely but carelessly burn off tall grasses every year, and the sometimes incompetent crews struggling to put the fires out.

While Western media have examined the role of rising temperatures and drought in this year's record wildfires in North America, Russian media continue to pay little attention to an issue that animates so much of the world.

The indifference reflects widespread public doubt that human activities play a significant role in global warming, a tone set by President Vladimir Putin, who has offered only vague and modest pledges of emissions cuts ahead of December's U.N. climate summit in Paris.

Russia's official view appears to have changed little since 2003, when Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians "spend less on fur coats" while "agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that".

The president believes that "there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia," says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. "That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general."

And with Russian media focused on the economic squeeze at home and events in Ukraine and Syria abroad, the absence of a robust media conversation on climate change means his scepticism goes largely unchallenged.

"It is difficult to spend editorial resources on things that are now a low priority in the midst of the economic crisis," says Galina Timchenko, former editor-in-chief of the successful news site Lenta.ru. Timchenko now runs Meduza, a popular site that covers Russian news but devotes little space to climate issues.

"Unfortunately climate change is not very interesting to the public," she says.

"EXTENSIVE WORK"

Putin's scepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his staff "did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate", said Andrey Illarionov, Putin's senior economic adviser at the time and now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.

"We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited," he said. "It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded."

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

That opinion endures. During a trip to the Arctic in 2010, Putin acknowledged that "the climate is changing", but restated his doubt that human activity was the cause.

His trip was to inspect the retreat of the polar ice cap, something that promises to make the Arctic ocean and northern Siberia more accessible to exploration and production of the oil that Russia, the world's leading producer, depends on for export earnings.

Marianna Poberezhskaya, author of the academic work "Communicating Climate Change in Russia", characterized media coverage in Russia as "climate silence", broken only by the airing of official doubts about any human impact on global temperatures.

"Russian mass media repeat the same mistake that Western journalists used to make: the false balance, where the idea of the human effect on climate change is presented along with skeptics' point of view," she said.

Russian school teaching also appears to lag behind the rapidly expanding science on climate change.

Randomly sampled geography textbooks make no mention of human impact on the climate, and one college-level text states that climate changes are caused mainly by solar activity, the movement of the planet's crust and volcanoes.

"I see what they have abroad on the problem of climate change," says Asya Korolkova, 15, who studies high school biology in Moscow. "People there talk about it a lot; you can feel it's a serious problem. We don't have that here."

DECREASE IS AN INCREASE

Environmentalists say that attitude is also reflected in Russia's pledge for December's global summit, one that received little media coverage at home.

In suggesting a reduction in its emissions to "70 to 75 percent" of 1990 levels by 2030, Moscow is actually proposing an increase from 2012 levels. Russian emissions are currently far below the levels produced by obsolescent ex-Soviet smokestack industries in 1990.

Even that offer is hedged. Russia has said reaching the target will require generous accounting for the role Russia's forests play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Some observers do see signs of a slight softening in Moscow's position in the face of a series of weather disasters, from drought and searing summer fires in 2010 to raging floods in Sochi on the Black Sea last year.

Natural resources minister Sergei Donskoy has said extreme weather could cut Russia's economic output by 1-2 percent every year for the next 15 years, adding that "this has to be taken into account when determining the policy and measures in the field of adaptation to climate change".

The business newspaper Kommersant, owned by wealthy businessman Alisher Usmanov, is, like some other Russian media, taking some interest in those economic consequences, though it also did not discuss the possibility that climate change might have contributed to the Siberian fires.

"I write about what needs to be done to change production and consumption practices - the human effect on the climate is a given for us," said Kommersant journalist Alexey Shapovalov.

But for all that, there is no sign of public pressure on authorities to do more, let alone of Putin relaxing Russia's hard line ahead of the Paris talks.

"This subject has failed to become a priority," says Konstantin Simonov, the founder of a non-governmental oil and gas research fund who often appears on Russian media.

"Russia's attitude will most likely be something like this: Guys, you put economic pressure on us, introduced sanctions. Do you expect us to be holier than the Pope about the issue you're pushing through and take a load of responsibilities?"

The answer, he says, will be: "No."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/29/world/europe/29reuters-climatechange-summit-russia-media.html?_r=0

[Mark]

MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL

Antarctica is growing not shrinking, the latest satellite records show.

You might think this would be great news for all those scientists who have been warning us over the last few years about the impending horrors of “man-made global warming” but in fact they are not happy about it, not one bit.

Here for example is Dr Jay Zwally, the lead author of this week’s surprising Nasa study that confirms that the Antarctic is gaining far more ice than it is losing.

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out. It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

Does that sound to you like a neutral scientific opinion? Do you sense any relief at the good news that the climate apocalypse of melting ice caps and rising sea levels may not be quite so imminent after all? No, me neither.

Rather it reminds me of the disappointment of Harold Camping, the notorious American evangelist who solemnly warned his listeners that the world was going to end on September 6, 1994.

When that didn’t happen he decided Judgment Day had been postponed to May 21, 2011, and subsequently to October 21 of the same year. Still the world survived and Camping (and the poor fools who believed him) was left with egg all over his face.

Just like all those climate doomsayers who have been making such a big deal of our supposedly disappearing polar ice caps. If the climate alarmists weren’t such a devious bunch I would almost feel sorry for them.

But they are dishonest and they don’t play fair. Not so long ago some supposed climate expert reported me to Australia’s press complaints commission because I’d dared to suggest that the Antarctic ice mass was increasing not decreasing.

As it turns out I was right but this angry alarmist was not going to let a few facts get in the way of his doomsday narrative.

That is because along with the polar bears, the glaciers, the drowning Pacific islands, the rising sea levels and so on the Antarctic has become one of the main characters in the great global warming scare story.

The supposedly disappearing ice was part of the regular drip-drip-drip of bad news that the alarmists so desperately need in order to persuade the public that “climate change” is real and urgent and that only the most radical solutions can save us from its horrors.

But the Antarctic has always been a bit of a problem for the alarmists. Unlike with the floating ice caps around the North Pole, which really did look for a time like they were vanishing (though they have since staged a recovery), the evidence for Antarctic ice loss has never been strong.

That is because the area is so vast and inhospitable it is hard to be sure what is really going on there. Sure there is the odd lonely outpost like the British Antarctic Survey’s Halley VI Research Station on the Brunt Ice Shelf.

But that still leaves most of the continent’s 5,500,000 square miles (about a third bigger than the whole of Europe) unexplored – and with temperatures that can drop as low as -89.6C, with an average winter temperature of around -49C this is clearly not the kind of place where you could ever maintain a comprehensive network of weather stations.

All the scare stories you have ever read about the Antarctic concern one of the few relatively accessible parts: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

This has indeed been breaking off in large chunks, which alarmist scientists and newspapers have claimed makes it a dread harbinger of man-made global warming.

Or at least they did until last year when the University of Texas discovered that the more likely cause of this melt, which has been going on for 20,000 years by the way, was the geothermal heat from all the volcanoes sitting underneath it.

That is by no means the only setback alarmist scientists have experienced there recently. In the Christmas of 2013 an Australian climate change expedition came unstuck when their research ship was trapped in ice they had not been expecting because they believed so faithfully in “global warming”. This latest research from Nasa is a bigger blow to their cause.

And we know it is accurate because it uses altimetry data from satellites to gauge changes in the size of the Antarctic land mass.

What this shows is that between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82billion tons a year.

Not only that but according to the same study, it has led to a reduction in the sea level rise of about 0.23mm a year. Does that sound to you like a continent shrinking because of global warming? Of course not.

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the bleeding obvious. In fact all you need to do is read this newspaper, which has been arguing as much for years.

Scientists such as Zwally may refer to us as “climate deniers” but who are the real deniers here: those who look at the hard evidence or those who want to go on scaremongering regardless of what the data shows?

REST + PHOTOS: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

[Mark]

Congressman demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’

A nasty fight between a senior House Republican and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over a recent climate change study is getting nastier.

The country’s chief society of meteorologists weighed in this week with a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), warning the prominent congressional skeptic on climate change that his demands for internal communications and documents from NOAA “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research.

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, stepped up his pressure on agency Administrator Kathryn Sullivan to divulge its scientists’ internal deliberations, demanding in a letter that she turn over the documents requested in a House subpoena by Friday.

“Your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms,” the congressman wrote.

[Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists]

What has exploded into a very public feud started in October, when Smith issued subpoenas demanding e-mails, correspondence and other records of internal deliberations from NOAA scientists who participated in a study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade.

The study, released in the peer-reviewed journal Science in June, undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind global warming.

The subpoenas ordered NOAA to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study. The demand was immediately denounced by the science committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.) as an effort to discredit the study and its authors.

[NOAA says there’s no such thing as the global warming ‘pause.’ Now what?]

NOAA officials told the committee the study’s findings were already publicly available and met with the panel’s staff to brief them on the results. But they did not comply with the subpoenas, telling Smith that the internal discussions of their scientists are confidential.

REST: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/

[Mark]

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

"Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales.

"TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilised."

The spokesman said it was "well known" that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.

He added: "In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight."

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

“They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution.

rest: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

[Mark]

Al Gore 10 Years Ago: Earth Will Reach Point of No Return in 10 Years
According to our calculations… that's now!

Ten years ago in 2006, Al Gore was at the Sundance Film Festival premiering his global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth with a warning to everyone that unless something is done and fast, the Earth will be speeding toward its ruin.

In a more specific prediction at that time, Gore said if the world continues to ignore the issue and refuse to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, "the world will reach a point of no return."

But seeing as the 2016 Sundance Film Festival just occurred and no one was walking the red carpet in solar-safety suits, he was a little off.

Of course, being wrong has never stopped the former vice president from his environmental crusade. Why, Al Gore flies privately all over the world in fuel-guzzling jets to spread his message of reducing carbon emissions. When not painting the sky with vapor trails, Gore can be found in one of his many climate-controlled mansions writing speeches and books, or spotted riding in a cavalcade of SUVs to get coffee or to make an appearance.

Really, he should be glad he was wrong, because it just gives him that much more time to profit off of his apocalyptic fodder. Even now, he's gathering "experts" to hightail it over to the Philippines this year for yet another climate summit:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/al-gore-10-years-ago-earth-will-reach-point-no-return-10-years

[Mark]

Seismic Faults Produce Deadly Levels Of Carbon Monoxide In California

Deadly and unprecedented levels of carbon monoxide are being released into the atmosphere across the west coast of America due to unusual activity on seismic faults. Scientists have yet to confirm the cause, but experts are suggesting that the Earth may be emitting the dangerous gas via seismic fault lines – cracks in the earth’s surface where tectonic plates rub against each other. 

http://yournewswire.com/seismic-faults-produce-deadly-levels-of-carbon-monoxide-in-california/


and here Al is only ever saying its all man made... 

[Mark]

AG Loretta Lynch Testifies: Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions. He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer: “My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” Whitehouse asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/

[Mark]

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.

With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?

Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/

[Mark]

An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate

It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.

Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow


One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.

Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.

Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”

The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”

Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”

But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.

The IPCC found in 2103 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.

The North Pole Still Has Ice

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”

With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.

This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.

The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.

“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.

And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.

A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away

Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.

Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.

“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.”

Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.

“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/#ixzz47jQjiKgy

[Mark]

EPA Chief: ‘Climate Rule’ Is About ‘Reinventing A Global Economy’, No Effect On Climate

This is to help establish the one world economy

TN Note: EPA Administrator McCarthy speaks in line with United Nations’ rhetoric that climate change has nothing to do with changing the climate, but everything to do with transforming global economic system into Sustainable Development, or “Green Economy.” When will the public, leaders and administrators see the blatant disconnect and say “Stop!”



Over a period of twenty months, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency’s sweeping climate-regulation of America’s fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth’s climate. McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan “is not about end of pipe controls.” Instead, she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…, [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”

EPA ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY:

“The value of this rule is not measured [by its climate impact]. It is measured by showing strong domestic action…”
-US House Science Committee
-July 9, 2015

“[T]here is absolutely no reason to” measure the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan “because we know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions”.
-Senate Appropriations Committee
-April 20, 2016

“We don’t have to prove that any reduction [in greenhouse gas emissions] will actually make a precipitous difference” in global warming.
-IHS Energy CERA Week
-February 24, 2016

The “benefit” of the Clean Power Plan is “in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
-House Energy and Commerce Committee
-March 22, 2016

“[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. […] This is an investment strategy…”
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014

“[The Clean Power Plan] is about advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution […] That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

“[The Clean Power Plan] is a fundamental way of relooking at where the United States is heading and how to maintain our competitive edge… That’s what this is all about.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

Read full story here…
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/05/13/epa-chief-climate-rule-reinventing-global-economy-no-effect-climate/

[Mark]

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6pvVzHC

Withdrawal of Letter by climate change scientists urging prosecution of skeptics deemed a 'mistake'

You would think the group of 20 or so climate change scientists who sent a letter to President Obama urging him to prosecute climate skeptics under the RICO statute would have consulted a PR firm before they made asses of themselves to the whole country.

But now, the learned men of science have hired Climate Nexus, a PR firm specializing in spinning global warming news. The letter has been withdrawn - a move the PR firm called a "big mistake" - and a different strategy will be employed.

Washington Times:

In the days after 20 professors fired off a letter urging President Obama to investigate climate skeptics for suspected federal racketeering charges, the climate change movement went into full damage-control mode.

Philip Newell, creative media manager of the public relations firm Climate Nexus, described the Sept. 1 letter as “a big mistake,” advising activists and scientists to downplay the prosecution angle and spin the story away from individuals and toward fossil fuel companies, according to emails obtained Wednesday by The Washington Times.

He cited reports on the skeptics’ website, Climate Audit, saying that although it “isn’t a site to be worried about, it’s definitely looking like this issue isn’t going to go away, even if you remove the letter, which I hear has been done and I would say is a big mistake.”

The letter was first posted on the Institute for Global Environment and Security website and then reportedly removed, but was then posted on other websites.

“I’d recommend you keep it up and point to it as a call for investigating (not prosecuting) organizations and companies (not specific scientists) in an oped or simply a statement on the IGES website that clarifies that distinction,” Mr. Newell said in a Sept. 29 email.

Not everyone has taken that advice. Months later, Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker issued subpoenas to ExxonMobil calling for its communications with more than 100 universities, scientists and think tanks, as well as the free market nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The goal of the AG's pushing this witch hunt is not to prosecute fossil fuel companies, but to hold the threat of prosecution over their heads to extort tens of billions of dollars from them in a grand settlement a la the tobacco companies. The scientists actually believed the AG's were serious about stringing up individuals and think tanks who make their lives difficult by challenging their findings. But you can't get blood out of a turnip so it's hardly worth the effort of the AG's to go after the small fry.

The PR firm disabused the scientists of the notion that this investigation was about creating an inquisition for climate skeptics. Instead, gangster fashion, the full resources of government will be brought to bear on oil, coal, and natural gas companies to extract climate change tribute - a mutli-billion dollar slush fund that will be used to show favor to supporters and enrich political cronies.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/withdrawal_of_letter_by_climate_change_scientists_urging_prosecution_of_skeptics_deemed_a_mistake_pr_firm.html#ixzz4ASvDHDAo

[Mark]

'Rapid cooling' underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures.
Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.

NOTE: This is the fifteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):



This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.

…

With most models predicting La Nina conditions by the autumn, we can expect temperatures to tumble a lot further by the end of the year.



http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/

Full report here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-uah/

#

Related Links:

2013 Report: ‘Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling‘
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/

Flashback 1974: U.S. Government’s Top Climatologist Said ‘Global Cooling’ Threatened Us With ‘Severe Food Crisis’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/12/flashback-1974-u-s-governments-top-climatologist-said-global-cooling-threatened-us-with-severe-food-crisis/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/06/rapid-cooling-underway-big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-satellites/

[Mark]

Dr. Tim Ball: How The World Was Deceived About Global Warming & Climate Change

Authored by Tim Ball, originally posted at The Rebel,

Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their "Extreme Weather Reports."



The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Figure 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.

rest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-04/dr-tim-ball-how-world-was-deceived-about-global-warming-climate-change

[Mark]

Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead
Anthony Watts / 40 mins ago August 9, 2016   

Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.



New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.

It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.

But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.

After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.

The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.

    Professor Valentina Zharkova:

    We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

    What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

    Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.

    So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.

    Professor Valentina Zharkova: 

    Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.

Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/

[Mark]

Did This Climate Alarmist Just Admit His Own Position Is Propaganda?

 

In attempting to explain how science works to ignorant climate change skeptics, a climate alarmist unwittingly revealed his own ignorance of basic philosophy. He took a story about people being unwilling to see the truth through propaganda and argued that it proves his point that we should all believe the propaganda.

In "What Climate Skeptics Don't Get About Science," Rhett Allain, associate professor of physics at Southeastern Louisiana University, takes Plato's allegory of the cave and tries to apply it to a scientific understanding.

Science is sort of like Plato’s allegory of the cave. In it, Plato says we are like people in a cave with our backs to a wall. Objects paraded in front of a fire cast shadows on a wall. We see only shadows and must determine what the objects are. This is how scientists do things. Here’s a good example: No one has ever seen an electron. You can’t see them with the naked eye; they’re too small. However, there is great experimental evidence that electrons do exist, and scientists are pretty confident about some of their properties. But I wouldn’t call it the truth.

Allain's point about scientists only being able to deal with human experience is correct, but he should have left Plato's allegory out of it. He later goes on to explain that science is about building models, and repeats the tired old claim that there's a "consensus" on climate change. He is right about science building models, but another key aspect of science is destroying models and replacing them with better ones when old models fail to account for reality. That's what's really going on in Plato's cave.
 
The people seeing images on a cave wall is only the start of Plato's story — if you read on, it becomes clear that those people are being misled and it is the philosopher's job to get them to break free of their own assumptions and see the truth.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates tells of a philosopher who is raised in front of that cave wall, but then escapes the cave and discovers the world above ground. This man sees the sun, real animals and plants — the world as it really is. Full of love for the truth, he enters back into the cave in order to tell everyone else.

But they do not believe him. The people believe the shadows on the wall are true, and cannot accept the ravings of the madman who has seen the real world. Socrates concludes that the people would rather kill the philosopher than embrace a truth outside their narrow mode of thought.

By associating climate alarmists like himself with the people imprisoned in Plato's cave, Allain has unwittingly revealed a terrifying truth. Alarmists are so focused on their vision of a world in peril that they are unwilling to accept the defeat of each of their predictive models.

Indeed, they are not unlike the people holding images before the fire — propagandists in the cave misleading their prisoners about the nature of reality.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/18/did-this-climate-alarmist-just-admit-his-own-position-is-propaganda/

[Mark]

[Mark]

Ship of Fools II: Green Arctic Expedition Frustrated by Large Quantities of Ice

An Arctic expedition designed to raise awareness of the perils of man-made climate change is being frustrated by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge, whose aim is to circumnavigate the Arctic in a sailing boat while the summer ice-melt allows, is being led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams. He justifies the expedition thus:

    Permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic seems inevitable. This will / is already having global economic political, social and environmental implications. A significant change in my lifetime.

    I see this possibility to circumnavigate the Arctic as one I wanted to take despite the risks associated with it in order to increase the worlds attention on the effects of Arctic climate change. There may be a possibility still to curb this progressive warming and melting in the Arctic. But even if this is not possible the next most important thing is to at the very least highlight the need to ‘Navigate the Future of the Arctic responsibly’.

Well, yes, of course, David. That’s just the kind of eco-friendly blah which will have landed your expedition sponsorship from a City of London finance firm. But what if, as the real world evidence increasingly suggests, your prognostications of climate doom are flat out wrong?

Already the expedition is around 4 to 6 weeks behind schedule having been held up in the Laptev Sea by the kind of ice which experts like Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams – of whom more in a moment – assure us will soon disappear permanently from the Arctic in summer.

Here, for example, is an entry from their August 18 ship’s log:

    Well I came up on watch this morning at 0800.  ice, ice and more b****t ice.

and here

    A Stamukha is an iceberg that is touching the bottom.

    We had to turn round from the ice by the coast last night and find somewhere safe to moor/anchor. There were strong winds so we needed to find somewhere else to sit them out, and the answer was a stamukha.

    We knew it might drift, and it did, so when it had drifted into a more dangerous situation, Ben (who was on anchor watch) woke Nikolay and we’ve moved off it to go and have a look at the ice situation just up ahead again

and here’s one from crew member Ben Edwards, who is 14 years old

    We’re still running into ice, aaaagggghhhh!  We’ve had patches of clear water just large enough that you can’t see the other side, just large enough that you start to think maybe we’ve seen the last of the ice, and then it looms out out of the horizon like a piece of homework that you’ve been trying to avoid doing by moving to India only to find that school exists there as well.  Hmpf.  We’ve put in three new tracks today each one further south than the last in the vain hope that we’d finally escape the ice by running away from it.  Unfortunately it seems that ice is a vindictive substance and refuses to leave us alone.

Poor Ben. Like every other 14-year old in Christendom he has never lived in a period of global warming (it hasn’t happened for 18 years) but yet has been assured non-stop by teachers and other experts that it represents a serious threat to the planet’s future.

And given how the world’s big media organisations so love to ramp up scare stories about this non-existent problem is it any wonder?

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this week we heard from Cambridge professor Peter Wadhams that the Arctic is more doomed than ever before.

But apart from being something of a conspiracy theorist – he once claimed that secret agents, possibly in the pay of Big Oil, have been bumping off climate scientists, presumably because they know too much [not, it must be said, a major handicap of any alarmist climate scientist I’ve ever encountered] – he has an embarrassingly dismal track record on forecasting Arctic ice melt. Indeed, as I reported at Breitbart, even within the climate alarmist community he is now considered such a liability that even **** enviro loons prefer not to be associated with him.

Yet the BBC goes on featuring him as if he were an expert whose predictions should be taken seriously.

For the record, here – courtesy of Paul Homewood – is what Arctic Sea Ice coverage currently looks like:


Note that the coverage is already pretty extensive – raising understandable questions about whether Polar Ocean Challenge is going to be able to complete its mission before the winter freeze sets in. Tony Heller, who has been following the expedition closely at Real Climate Science, says “they are taking a big risk heading into the Northwest Passage now with winter setting in. Even if they don’t encounter ice, it will be cold and the weather rough.”

Note too that summer sea ice coverage has increased and thickened quite a bit since Wadhams first started peddling his “ice free North Pole” predictions in 2007.



But the really sad thing – sad, at least in a “Death of Little Nell” way – is this: all these expeditions, like this David Hempleman-Adams one, and the doomed one a few years ago by explorer Pen Hadow  is that the point they are trying to make is an utterly meaningless one.

All this nonsense you regularly hear from alarmists about the polar regions being navigable by ship for the first time because of global warming is historically and scientifically illiterate. Here, for example, is a history by the Ecotretas blog going back to the 1490s of all the various ships and explorers which have previously negotiated the North East Passage (as recently but-barely navigated by the Polar Ocean Challenge). It also looks like it was pretty toasty up there during the “Arctic Heat Wave” of 1923.

One of these days, someone’s going to get themselves hurt on one of these polar Ship of Fools expeditions. But until that day, I say: “Bring them on!” If idiots want to freeze their balls off, take City investment firms and insurance brokers for a ride, and make utter dicks of themselves for our delectation and amusement while making a mockery of current climate ‘science’, then I’d say they are performing a truly valuable public service.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/01/green-arctic-expedition-frustrated-large-quantities-ice/

[Mark]

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming

 Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

However, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

[Mark]

Earth heading for ICE AGE as sun goes blank: Analysts reveal shock SUNSPOTS discovery

THE EARTH could be in for another Ice Age as the sun has repeatedly ‘gone blank’ this year, it has been revealed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/717559/Earth-ICE-AGE-sun-goes-blank-sunspot

[Mark]

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change

Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center. 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

[Mark]

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.

    Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

    Taxing greenhouse gas emissions from food production could save more emissions than are currently generated by global aviation, and lead to half a million fewer deaths from chronic diseases, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

    The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at the University of Oxford and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, is the first global analysis to estimate the impacts that levying emissions prices on food could have on greenhouse gas emissions and human health.

    The findings show that about one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions could be avoided in the year 2020 if emissions pricing of foods were to be implemented, more than the total current emissions from global aviation. However, the authors stress that due consideration would need to be given to ensuring such policies did not impact negatively on low income populations.

    “Emissions pricing of foods would generate a much needed contribution of the food system to reducing the impacts of global climate change,” said Dr Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, who led the study. “We hope that’s something policymakers gathering this week at the Marrakech climate conference will take note of.”

    Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly. The researchers estimate that such price increases would result in around 10% lower consumption of food items that are high in emissions. “If you’d have to pay 40% more for your steak, you might choose to have it once a week instead of twice,” said Dr Springmann.

    …

    The results indicate that the emissions pricing of foods could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate-change mitigation policy in high-income, middle-income, and most low-income countries. Special policy attention would be needed in those low-income countries where a high fraction of the population is underweight, and possibly for low-income segments within countries.

    …

rest: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/uk-researchers-tax-food-to-reduce-climate-change/

[Mark]

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

 

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.   

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/

[Mark]

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
Roger Pielke Jr.

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.

For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times,Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.

In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”

I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.

Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.

Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”

Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.

That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.

In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.

Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program. Those conclusions indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts—in the U.S. or globally.

In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.

I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.

But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.

The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/leonardo-dicaprio-trump-climate-change-meeting/index.html
12/8/16
Leonardo DiCaprio, Trump talk climate change

(CNN)Leonardo DiCaprio met with President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday to discuss climate change -- adding to the mixed signals from the President-elect on the environment.

"We presented the President-elect and his advisors with a framework ... that details how to unleash a major economic revival across the United States that is centered on investments in sustainable infrastructure," Terry Tamminen, CEO of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, said in a statement.

"Our conversation focused on how to create millions of secure, American jobs in the construction and operation of commercial and residential clean,
renewable energy generation.

DiCaprio's meeting with Trump only added to the mixed messages coming out of Trump Tower, particularly on the issue of climate change.

On the same day of his meeting with DiCaprio, Trump tapped Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt -- a climate change denier -- to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is an opponent of many of the Obama EPA's environmental regulations, and sued the agency over its regulations of power plants in his capacity as attorney general.

Coupled with Trump's own history of climate change skepticism, environmentalists see dim prospects for action that scientists say is necessary to avert the most devastating consequences of climate change. Trump has called climate change a "hoax" but in a recent interview allowed for the possibility that human activity may be contributing to global warming.

Trump held a separate meeting this week with another high-profile environmental activist -- former Vice President Al Gore, who has also championed the fight against climate change in his career after politics.

DiCaprio has used his celebrity to champion environmental causes. He emphasized the threat of climate change in his 2016 Academy Awards acceptance speech -- "Climate change is real, it is happening right now," he said -- and produced a documentary on the subject, titled "Before the Flood," which was released this year. According to "The Independent," DiCaprio gave Ivanka Trump a copy of the documentary at the meeting.

The statement from his foundation added that "climate change is bigger than politics, and the disastrous effects on our planet and our civilization will continue regardless of what party holds majorities in Congress or occupies the White House."

And according to the foundation, there may be another meeting.

"The President-elect expressed his desire for a follow up meeting in January, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with the incoming administration as we work to stop the dangerous march of climate change, while putting millions of people to work at the same time," Tamminen said in the statement.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the DiCaprio meeting.

How drastic might Trump's climate change policy changes be? A report released in November by the International Energy Agency (IEA) outlines two key scenarios for emissions and global warming in the coming decades.

The first scenario assumes world leaders keep the promises made in Paris last year at the United Nation's COP21 summit. The agreement between more than 175 countries introduced environmentally friendly policies to slow the increase in emissions and global warming.

The second scenario assumes no real action is taken and agreements are brushed aside, resulting in a 36% surge in carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, nearly three times the increase expected under the first scenario. While that would be a nightmare for environmentalists, it's unlikely that all Paris signatories would abandon their pledges.

Still, according to a recent United Nations Environment report, the world is still heading for a temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4 degrees Celsius this century, even with the Paris pledges.

[Psalm 51:17]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-energy-pick-face-jobs-climate-questions-120142477--finance.html
Trump's energy pick Perry softens stance on climate change
1/19/17

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rick Perry, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the U.S. Energy Department, said during a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday that global warming caused by humans is real, but that efforts to combat it should not cost American jobs.

The comment marks a shift for the former Texas governor, who had previously called the science behind climate change "unsettled" and a "contrived, phony mess." It also clashes with Trump's statements during his campaign for the White House that global warming is a hoax meant to weaken U.S. business.

"I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy or American jobs," Perry said.

Perry's 3-1/2-hour hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was one of the shortest and least contentious in a long list of sessions to vet Trump Cabinet nominees since last week. The committee has not yet scheduled its vote on Perry's nomination.

As energy secretary, Perry, 66, would oversee a substantial chunk of Trump's energy portfolio. He would lead a vast scientific research operation credited with helping trigger a U.S. drilling boom and advancements in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, and would also be in charge of maintaining the United States' nuclear weapons arsenal.

Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Friday, has promised to bolster the U.S. oil, gas and coal industries, in part by undoing federal regulations curbing carbon dioxide emissions. He has also suggested pulling America out of a global climate change pact signed in Paris in 2015, calling it expensive for U.S. industry.

He sees Perry, who was governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 and whose nomination has the support of the energy sector, as someone who can help usher in jobs growth.

Perry added during his hearing that he regrets having previously called for the department's elimination - a proposal he made during his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

That proposal, which has become known as his "oops" moment, came during a presidential candidate debate when he could not initially remember all of the three Cabinet-level departments he wanted to eliminate: Commerce, Education and Energy.

"After being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination," he said in his opening remarks.

"PROTECT" THE SCIENTISTS

Democrats on the committee expressed worry that Perry would weaken the Energy Department's functions and potentially target its army of scientists focused on climate research.

Perry sought to assuage them.

"I am going to protect the men and women of the scientific community from anyone who would attack them,” he said in response to a question from Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state about whether he would cut the department's climate science budget.

When pressed on whether there would be budget or staff cuts to key research programs at the department, Perry said: "I will be an advocate (for the programs) ... but I’m not sure I’m going to be 1,000 percent successful."

He distanced himself from a questionnaire the Trump transition team sent to the department in December demanding names and publications of employees who had worked on climate issues. After an uproar by critics who said it amounted to a witch hunt, the team disavowed the survey.

"I didn’t approve it. I don’t approve of it. I don’t need that information," Perry said.

Perry said much of his focus running the department would be on renewing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. More than half of the department's $32.5 billion budget goes to maintaining nuclear weapons and cleaning up nuclear waste.

"As a former Air Force pilot during the days of the Cold War, I understand the deterrent value of our nuclear weapons systems, and the vital role they play in keeping the peace,” he said.

Perry said he was generally supportive of a state's right to block the siting of nuclear waste dumps, like Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but fell short of ruling out the federal government's power to impose them over state objections in some cases.

Nuclear waste disposal is one of the top hurdles to growth in the U.S. nuclear power industry.

Department leadership under Perry would represent a pivot from being run by learned scientists to a person who is known for close ties to energy interests.

The current energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, is a nuclear physicist who led technical negotiations in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, while the previous head, Steven Chu, is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Perry recently resigned from the board of directors of Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline opposed by Native Americans and environmentalists.

[Mark]

NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa.



The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201612.gif

rest: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/

[Mark]

Whistle-Blower: 'Global Warming' Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference

According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.

The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.”

Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.

The “Pausebuster” paper produced by NOAA in 2015 was based on two new sets of temperature data—one measuring land temperatures and the other sea temperatures—both of which turned out to be flawed.

According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”

A reported increase in sea surface temperatures was due to upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by ships, according to Bates.

Bates said that NOAA had good data from buoys but then “they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

The land temperature dataset, on the other hand, was the victim of software bugs that rendered its conclusions “unstable,” Bates said.

Climate change skeptics have long insisted that scientists are susceptible to political and social pressures to produce the “right kind” of data to back up specific policy decisions.

Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.

Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.

The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.

Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.

“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.

Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.

“Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.

NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.

Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/

[Mark]

DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

That is not the end of it. Taxpayers also face an additional hefty contribution to an annual £80 billion in ‘climate aid’ from advanced countries to the developing world. That is on top of our already gargantuan aid budget. Green levies and taxes already cost the average household more than £150 a year.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.

Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4Yc3nDeT5

[Mark]

Many meteorologists question climate change science

Michaels, a former meteorologist at WBZ-TV, lost her job as a science reporter at WGBH’s show “Greater Boston” last week after colleagues raised concerns about her views on vaccines and climate change. She had previously questioned the safety of vaccines and the evidence that human activity was causing global warming, both widely held views in the scientific community.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/13/why-weather-forecasters-question-climate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html

[Psalm 51:17]

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=75989
WOW: Truth About Electric Vehicles Exposed, And It's Bad

4/30/17

Electric vehicles have been exposed as being far more inefficient and energy-intensive than they are advertised, and are not as "carbon neutral" as they claim. From Science Errors: An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle. Electricity is a specialty product. It's not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that's because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it's not cheap. Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials. Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber. The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling. The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy. Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines. High voltage transformers can get 90% efficiency with expensive designs, but household level voltages get 50% efficiency. Electric motors can get up to 60% efficiency, but only at optimum rpms and load. For autos, they average 25% efficiency. Gasoline engines get 25% efficiency with old-style carburetors and 30% with fuel injection, though additional loses can occur. Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the electrical energy recovered (85.6% lost) before getting to the vehicle and doing something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much. Electricity appears to be easy to handle sending it through wires. But it is the small scale that makes it look cheap. Scaling it up takes a pound of metal for so many electron-miles. Twice as much distance means twice as much metal. Twice as many amps means twice as much metal. Converting the transportation system into an electrical based system would require scaling up the amount of metal and electrical infrastructure by factors of hundreds or thousands. Where are all those lines going to go? They destroy environments. Where is that much natural gas going to come from for the electrical generators? There is very little natural gas in existence when using it for a large scale purpose. Natural gas has to be used with solar and wind energy, because only it can be turned on and off easily for backup. One of the overwhelming facts about electric transportation is the chicken and egg phenomenon. Supposedly, a lot of electric vehicles will create an incentive to create a lot of expensive infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why none of the goals can be met for such an infrastructure. The basic problem is that electricity will never be appropriate for such demanding use as general transportation, which means there will never be enough chickens or eggs to balance the demand. It's like trying to improve a backpack to such an extent that it will replace a pickup truck. The limitations of muscle metabolism are like the limitations of electrical energy. Electrons are not a space-saving form of energy. Electrons have to be surrounded by large amounts of metal. It means electric motors get heavy and large. When cruising around town, the problems are not so noticeable. But the challenges of ruggedness are met far easier with internal combustion engines. Engineers say it is nice to get rid of the drive train with electric vehicles. But in doing so, they add clutter elsewhere, which adds weight, takes up space and messes up the suspension system. Out on the highway, the suspension system is the most critical factor.