The Slow, Sure Death of “Climate Change” Lies

Even though President Obama continues to lie about “climate change” and employs the many elements of the federal government to repeat those lies, this huge hoax is dying.

Obama is on record saying that climate change “once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present” and is “affecting Americans right now.” Climate change as studied by climatologists is measured in terms of centuries whereas the weather is what is happening today. It has been happening before and since the rise of civilization. Obama’s claim that “climate-related changes are outside of recent experience” and “have become more frequent and/or intense” is a lie from start to finish.

The White House recently released its latest “National Climate Assessment.” It is 841 pages of outlandish claims that reflect the lies generated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When you consider that the federal government spends an estimated $2.6 billion annually in grants for climate research, about the only beneficiaries are those “scientists” employed to further the hoax.

The UN’s IPCC was created in 1983 and has issued a series of reports whose sole intention has been to frighten people around the world with claims of global warming that are scientifically baseless.

The Heartland Institute, a non-profit market-based think tank, responded by creating the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and by sponsoring a series of international conferences. The 9th conference will be July 7-9 in Las Vegas. That effort began in 2003 in cooperation with the Science & Environmental Project led by Dr. S. Fred Singer and was joined by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

I am an advisor to the Institute, having written about environmental and energy issues for several decades at this point.

AA - Heartland Cover

Click on the image to view and download a free copy of the report.

Calling on thousands of scientists around the world, in 2013 the NIPCC published the first of a three-volume response to the IPCC’s fifth assessment. This year, it has published a volume of Climate Change Reconsidered devoted to biological impacts, a 1,062 page opus. The NIPCC is an international panel of scientists and scholars with no government affiliation or sponsorship, and it receives no corporate funding.

Writing in the Financial Post in October 2013, Lawrence Solomon, the executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group, noted that “solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.” The Earth’s climate is primarily a reflection of solar radiation or the lack of it. From 1300 to 1850, the Earth was subject to a mini-ice age. While the global warming hoax began in the late 1980s, Solomon noted that, in the 1960s and 1970s, the scientific consensus was that the Earth “was entering a period of global cooling. The media in those years was filled with stories about a pending new ice age.

It was only the intervention of the UN’s IPCC that changed the “consensus” to one of global warming. A cooling cycle that began around fourteen years ago could lead to another mini-ice age or the planet could be on the cusp of a full-fledged one. On average, the interglacial periods of the Earth have lasted about 11,500 years and we are at the end of such a period.

Climate Change Reconsidered II devoted to biological impact features scientific studies that conclude:

  • “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.” Considering that all vegetation on Earth depends on it, it is not surprising that another conclusion was that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth.
  • As a result, “there is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels and that terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases, evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”
  • In addition, “rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels to no pose a significant threat to aquatic life and that a modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperate-related events.”

The irony of the latest NIPCC report, of course, is that it responds to the claims of global warming and carbon dioxide’s role at a time when the Earth is cooling. It makes one wish that all the talk about “greenhouse gases” is true enough to help us escape from the present cooling.

One thing we do know for sure is that the Greens talk of climate change has lost its grip on the public imagination and attention. As the cooling cycle continues, people around the world will be far more focused on increased evidence of massive ice sheets at both poles, on frozen lakes and rivers, on shortened growing seasons, and on the desperate need for more fossil fuels to warm our homes and workplaces.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Hollywood celebrities caught accepting money from “Middle Eastern oil interests” to make anti-fracking film

project veritas logoJames O’Keefe Premieres “Expose: Hollywood’s War on US Energy” at Cannes Film Festival. Hollywood celebrities are caught on hidden camera accepting money from “Middle Eastern oil interests”

HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey writes, “For those who remember the controversy surrounding the financing of the anti-fracking Matt Damon film Promised Landthis new undercover video from James O’Keefe and Project Veritas will simply confirm suspicions. O’Keefe set himself up as an ersatz Middle Eastern oil baron in order to test the Hollywood environmental waters to see how welcome his supposed money would be in attacking American energy independence. The big names in this effort, Ed Begley Jr and Mariel Hemingway, will get the most notice but are in essence collateral damage. The real targets for this probe are Josh and Rebecca Tickell, award-winning producers who are all too keen to take Middle Eastern money to attack American natural-gas exploration…”

In a blockbuster new video, Project Veritas has exposed the truth about the dark funding behind Hollywood’s anti-fracking messaging machine. New York Times Bestselling Author and Project Veritas founder and president James O’Keefe debuted the latest investigation at a “premiere” in Cannes, France on Wednesday.

In the investigation, an undercover journalist from Project Veritas posed as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty and offered $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie.

okeefe at cannes film festival

James O’Keefe at Cannes Film Festival.

In video from a meeting with Ed Begley Jr., Mariel Hemingway and Josh Tickell, a Project Veritas investigator disguised as “Muhammed” offered $9 million for an anti-fracking film. “Muhammad” clearly states: “If Washington DC continues fracking, America will be energy efficient, and then they won’t need my oil anymore.”

In the same conversation, Begley and Hemingway accept the funding and agree to hide the source of funds for the anti-fracking movie. Hemingway agreeing that those who will know the source of the funding are “only at this table.”

Ed Begley Jr. is an outspoken environmental activist and current Governor on the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science (the organization that brings us the OSCARS every year.)

Mariel Hemingway is a Golden Globe- and Oscar-nominated actress.

Josh Tickell is a Sundance Film Festival Winner and the director of environmental message movies “Fuel”, “The Big Fix” and “PUMP”.

Team Begley even submitted a video of Oscar-nominated actor Mark Ruffalo offering his unwavering support for the fictitious anti-fracking film project.

The meeting came about after a series of discussions with Josh and Rebecca Tickell. A Project Veritas journalist posed as an ad executive seeking to broker a deal for his client (“Muhammed”) to fund an American-made anti-fracking film.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/KOX5ehfFF7I[/youtube]

In a phone call to Tickell, the ad executive states: “My client’s interest is to end American energy independence; your interest is to end fracking. And you guys understand that?”

Tickell’s response: “Correct. Yes, super clear.”

Tickell makes it clear on the tape that revealing the source of funding for an activist film can undermine its credibility. Tickell notes that the movie “Promised Land” undermined its own message because it was labeled as being funded by Image Nation Abu Dhabi. His advice: “So rather than putting that [the source of funding] up front, don’t mention that.”

In a follow-up call with Josh and Rebecca Tickell, Rebecca Tickell assures our investigator: “We would never tell about where the funding is coming from. That would be really awkward for us.”

Josh Tickell: “We’re confident that we can keep this zip locked, you know tight, air-tight forever. If we don’t protect who is kind of funding this thing, if we have to disclose that or that becomes a necessary part of it, the whole enterprise will not work.”

Project Veritas founder and president James O’Keefe stated Wednesday:

“This latest investigation shows the dark side of Hollywood’s environmental movement. Hollywood is willing to take and conceal money from Middle Eastern oil interests in order to advance their cause of destroying American energy independence.”

The raw video can be found at http://Youtube.com/VeritasVisuals

Project Veritas is non-partisan and does not advocate for political candidates or parties. The purpose of Project Veritas’ investigations is to expose waste, fraud, dishonesty and self-dealing.

Stay up to date on who responds by following us on Facebook athttp://Facebook.com/ProjectVeritas and on Twitter @Project_Veritas.

Support Project Veritas’ investigations at http://ProjectVeritas.com/donate

EPIC FAIL — Obama’s climate report card

A team of independent scientists fact checked President Obama’s new national climate assessment report and issued it a failing grade.

They wrote that the President’s report is “a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts.”

You can read the scientists’ full rebuttal here, and of course Marc Morano is following developments as they break over at Climate Depot.

The President’s report is riddled with scientific errors and exaggerations.

Contrary to Obama’s report:

  • Temperature has failed to rise as computer models predict
  • There has been no warming for 17 years
  • Sea levels have not meaningfully risen
  • There is nothing extreme about today’s weather
  • Climate is cyclical and largely driven by nature
climate chart cfact

For a larger view click on the chart.

The scientists bottom line conclusion is that the National Climate Assessment “is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

Every day the facts become clearer and the case for catastrophic man-made global warming becomes weaker.

Count on CFACT to report the facts the media won’t.

Read the rebuttal

RELATED STORIES:

Scientists respond to Obama’s National Climate Assessment
‘Climate Hustle’ or ‘American Doomsday’?! Obama climate report panned by scientists

Climate science in chaos due to shortage of scary synonyms

Experts in the world’s only settled science are up in arms today as a blunder committed by a staunch ally threatens their efforts to raise taxes and save the planet.

On a recent visit to Washington DC, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius told President Obama and Secretary of Climate John Kerry, “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” The remarks came less than a week after the White House released its 829 page National Climate Assessment which introduced the term “climate disruption.”

“That French cretin wasn’t supposed to use ‘climate chaos’ yet!” screamed a government-funded climate scientist at a leading research facility, as he was polishing his hockey stick. “We just started using ‘climate disruption’ last week and hadn’t even come close to getting all the money and regulations we wanted from it yet. Dammit!”

His colleague, a computer scientist, who was busy cooking fudge to mix with temperature data, concurred: “Fabius ruined our best new synonym by springing it far too early. The only good one we have left to use is ‘catastrophe.’ Good synonyms don’t grow on trees, you know. Thanks to morons like him, nothing else will either!”

Many in the climate science racket downplayed the damage. One expert, addressing a UN conference on sustainability via telephone from his 10,000 sq. foot mansion, told the only-mildly-inebriated delegates that there were still some good synonyms left to use, such as “calamity.”

“Besides,” continued Mr. Gore, “as someone once said, ‘What’s in a name? Bulls**t by any other name would still sell as sweetly.'”

But others were not so sure. “You can’t use ‘calamity’ after you use ‘chaos’ and ‘catastrophe’,” said one Hollywood environmental activist during a save-the-earth orgy. “It’s a step down! It’s like driving a Tesla Model S and then having to use a Chevy Volt. You might as well plug it in and let the whole garage burn down.”

“Climate science needs to start thinking out of the box on this,” stated Secretary of Climate Kerry. “Now Senator Reid, he suggested ‘Climate Koch Brothers’… I think he’s on the right track but I’m not sure it’s quite what we need at this crucial hour in earth’s history.”

Many in the movement are pushing the idea of using a phrase instead of a single word.

“The problem has gotten much too big for just one word,” said a state-approved media climate expert. “We’ve got to go bigger, something like ‘Climate Totally Bad F*cking Sh*tstorm’… that would get the deniers’ attention.”

But there are problems with that approach as well. “It wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker” said one activist. “At least, not if you drive a Chevy Volt.”

Ultimately, the final decision will rest with the climate science community’s spiritual mentor, Climate-Scientist-in-Chief Barack Obama.

Mr. President, the world awaits your Tweet…

It’s a Very Complex World

In the 1980s I devoted a lot of effort to debunking a torrent of Green lies about pesticides and herbicides. This was before the Greens latched onto “global warming” which has since become “climate change” and the subject of a recent White House report filled with dire predictions of planetary doom and disaster.

Nobody died from using pesticides or herbicides in the 1980s or since unless they drank it straight from the bottle. When I talked with farmers they would frequently say “Do you think I would put this stuff on the crops my family eats if I thought it would harm them?” The Greens have always attacked anything that would increase crop growth by limiting the real harm of weeds or the predation of insect species. These days genetically modified seeds are a target for environmentalists though studies have amply demonstrated their crops are safe to eat.

Less food means less people and that has always been a major goal of the people leading the nation’s and the world’s major environmental organizations. The same formula applies to denying energy to people worldwide.

As for pesticides, we all use them to keep our homes and workplaces free of insects that are the key vectors for all manner of diseases. In a world before their invention, millions died from mosquito-borne diseases such as Yellow Fever, Dengue Fever, Encephalitis, West Nile virus and Malaria. Millions still die from malaria and these diseases because one of the most effective pesticides ever invented was DDT and it was banned because of the lies Rachel Carson told in her iconic, environmental book, “Silent Spring.”

Cover - Smaller FasterThe world is a very complex place and it is essential to have a fundamental understanding of how it works. One of the best new books on this subject is Robert Bryce’s “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper” ($27.99, Public Affairs). What Bryce doesn’t know about energy is probably not worth knowing and, happily, he has authored several books on the subject. His latest provides wonderful and useful insights to the world we share today with seven billion other human beings.

Bryce quotes Edward Abbey, “one of the patron saints of American environmentalism” who, in 1971, said, “We humans swarm over the planet like a plague of locusts, multiplying and devouring. There is no justice, sense or decency in this mindless global breeding spree, this obscene anthropoid fecundity, this industrialized mass production of babies and bodies, ever more bodies and babies.”

This is the kind of thinking that is the hidden justification for genocides. Not surprisingly the leaders of the Nazi regime were all dedicated environmentalists. At the heart of much that passes for environmentalism is an attack on the energy sources that enhance or lives and agricultural practices that feed us.

It’s not by accident that environmental groups all trumpet the same doomsday lies at the same time. Their leaders get together to coordinate their efforts and the current one is aimed at what they call “de-growth”, the reduction of economic growth by any means.

With President Obama blathering about “climate change” threats, it should not surprise anyone to conclude that the horrible economic conditions he has imposed on our nation was not an accident, nor that he focuses on thwarting the provision of energy, the most vital component of economic growth.

“The prescriptions put forward by the degrowth crowd,” says Bryce, “are familiar. Nuclear energy is bad. Genetically modified foods are bad. Coal isn’t just bad, it’s awful. Oil is bad. Natural gas—and the process often used to produce it, hydraulic fracturing is bad.” And it is no surprise that the Environmental Protection Agency—the most anti-growth governmental agency—has just announced steps to require the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, a technology that has been in use for more than a half century and one that has unlocked access to vast reserves of natural gas and oil.

It is essential to understand who the enemy is and it is groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Worldwatch Institute, to name just a few.

The next time some environmental spokesman is busy spreading fear, Bryce says it is necessary to keep in mind that “Their outlook rejects innovation and modern forms of energy. It rejects business and capitalism. We must move past the climate of fear to one of optimism. We must move past fear of technology to an understanding that technology isn’t the problem; it’s the solution.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Is oil a renewable resource?

I suspect that most people think the Earth is running out of oil or that the U.S. and the rest of the world are “addicted” to its use.

Both beliefs are wrong, but in different ways. First because the Earth produces oil in abundance deep within its mantel in ways that have nothing to do with dead dinosaurs and gives no indication of ever stopping this natural process and, second, because the use of oil for fuel and for thousands of other applications, not the least of which is plastics, is one of the great blessings of modern technology and life.

All this is made dazzlingly clear in Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s book, The Great Oil Conspiracy. By way of explaining why there is so much oil within the planet Dr. Corsi tells the story of the Nazi regimes development of synthetic oil after German scientists “cracked the code God built into the heart of chemistry to form hydrocarbons in the first place.” Known as the “Fischer-Tropsch” process, it permitted the Nazis to pursue war even though Germany had no oil fields of its own.

The widespread use of the term “fossil fuels” is a deception created by anti-energy propagandists and earlier theorists to make people believe that oil is the result of countless dead dinosaurs and decaying vegetation. Oil, however, is “abiotic”, a term that means it is a natural product of the earth itself “manufactured at deep levels where there never were any plants or animals.”

Corsi writes of Thomas Gold, a professor of astronomy who taught at Cornell University. In 1998 he published a controversial book entitled The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, in which he applied his knowledge of the solar system, noting that carbon is the fourth more abundant element in the universe, right after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Gold pointed out that “carbon is found mostly in compounds with hydrogen—hydrocarbons—which, at different temperatures and pressures, may be gaseous, liquid, or solid.”

Gold, who passed away in 2004, was way ahead of most other scientists with his assertion that the earth produces oil at very deep levels. While telling the story of how the U.S. went to great lengths to acquire the data regarding synthetic oil production as our military overran Germany and then took care not to let the public know about. It was, after all, our own oil industry that had provided the fuel that aided the war effort in both theaters.

Correspondingly, the oil industry had no reason to develop “relatively expensive synthetic oil when billions of dollars in profits could be made annually bringing to market naturally produced and reasonably priced hydrocarbon fuels, including crude oil and natural gas.”

This mirrors the efforts of “renewable” energy producers, wind, solar, and bio-fuels like ethanol, to profit at the cost of billions of dollars in subsidies and loan guarantees paid for by taxpayers along with higher electricity and gasoline bills paid for by consumers; all of which are mandated by the federal government. It is pure crony capitalism to enrich a few at the expense of all the rest of us. None of these alternative forms of power could exist or even compete without such government mandated support.

As Dr. Corsi points out, “Eliminating the fear that the world is running out of oil eliminates an urgency to experiment with or to implement alternative fuels including bio-fuels, wind energy, and solar energy as long as these energies remain less energy-efficient, less reliable, and more costly than using oil and natural gas.”

There are, in fact, “more proven petroleum reserves than ever before, despite the increasing rate at which we are consuming petroleum products worldwide” says Dr. Corsi, noting that the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, in on record that “there are more proven crude oil reserves worldwide than ever in recorded history, despite the fact that worldwide consumption of crude oil has doubled since the 1970s.”

So tell me why, since the Obama administration took over, have gas prices per gallon risen from $1.84 to $3.80 now, a rise of 105%? The American Energy Alliance compared costs between 2009 and 2012, publishing them to reveal that we are all paying more for energy. The average monthly residential electricity bill has increased 6% and annual household energy expenses have increased 31%.

At the same time, the Obama Department of Energy increased new rules whose implementation cost more than $100 million each 141%! The Environmental Protection Agency increase of such regulations increased 40%, the Department of the Interior, 13%.

Total regulatory costs (all sectors) went from $1,172 trillion in 2009 to $1,752 trillion today! If you were trying to bankrupt the energy sector and its consumers, this is a great way to do it.

You can access the AEA chart at: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/four-year-energy-chart

The Obama administration came into office declaring a war on coal, further restricting oil and natural gas exploration on federal lands and offshore, and wasting billions on solar, wind, and bio-fuel companies. That in itself would be reason enough to turn them out of office.

The Earth is not running out of oil and likely never will.

RELATED STORIES:

What If Oil and Natural Gas Are Renewable Resources?
Oil Might Be a Renewable Resource, and Other Things You Did Not Know

World Environment Day and the Three Fundamental Truths about the Climate

There are three fundamental truths about the climate: 1.) The climate changes, 2.) The changes are cyclical, and 3.) There is nothing mankind can do about it except prepare for the changes.

Sarasota County, Florida has been selected by the United Nations Environment Programme’s Regional Office for North America (UNEP RONA) as the official North American host community for World Environment Day (WED) 2014.

According to the Sarasota County website:

More than just a single day of environmentally focused events, the WED celebration launches on Earth Day in April and bridges the globe—and the months—with programs and events that culminate on June 5. This year’s launch was held at Oscar Scherer State Park in Osprey, during its 25th annual Earth Day celebration on April 27. The events will culminate with a Community Forum and International Children’s Painting Competition Exhibit on June 5. Dozens of nature walks, classes, workshops and volunteer events are also planned between these two dates. Find more information about all these events on the WED Events page and listed in the WED Calendar.

This year’s WED theme focuses on the small island developing states, places particularly threatened by environmental changes. Sarasota County was chosen to host this year’s WED events because it is a coastal community facing similar challenges, and also because of its positive and proactive environmental track record, according to UNEP RONA.

Since its inception in 1972, WED has grown into a global platform for public outreach that is widely celebrated in more than 100 countries. It also serves as grassroots inspiration for individuals and groups to do something positive for the environment, galvanizing creative individual actions into a collective power that has the potential to generate an exponential positive impact around the world.

Crosby

Dr. Michael P. Crosby

A forum will be held as part of WED. The forum will be moderated by Dr. Michael P. Crosby, President and CEO of Mote Marine Laboratory. Forum topics will include:

  • Identifying emerging environmental issues from the perspective of the Small Island Developing States — United Nations Environment Programme representative.
  • The Economic Value of Sarasota Bay — Sara Kane, Public Outreach Manager, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
  • Sea Level Rise — Barbara Lausche, Director, Marine Policy Institute at Mote
  • Eco-Tourism — Jennifer Shafer, Executive Director, Science and Environment Council of Southwest Florida
  • Green Building and the Green Economy — Tony Stefan, U.S. Green Building Council, Myakka River Branch

The forum will be from 10:30 a.m. to Noon, on Thursday, June 5, 2014 at the Mote Marine Laboratory’s New Pass Room, on the 3rd Floor of the Keating Marine Education Center, 1599 Ken Thompson Parkway, City Island, Sarasota.

Protests are planned.

RELATED STORIES:

Enviro Group Accuses Wyoming of Choosing ‘Coal Over Kids’ by Rejecting Climate Change Curriculum
Climate Change Scientific Reality: Surviving the Next Cold Climate
Climate McCarthyism: No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt
The Supreme Court Helps the EPA Shut Off Electricity in America
Climate Change: Unsettled Science or Just Lies?
Hostile 8 minute Climate Debate with TV Anchor on CCTV
Global Warming, Climate Change its all about the Global Religion of Greed
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point’ – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!

The Supreme Court Helps the EPA Shut Off Electricity in America

April 2014 seems to be the month in which the Supreme Court devotes itself to decisions that have no basis in real science and can do maximum damage to the economy. Invariably, the cases are brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and are decided in its favor.

In April 2007, the Court decided that carbon dioxide, the second most essential gas for all life on the planet was “a pollutant”, the definition the EPA had applied to it in order to regulate it. Now comes word that the Court had concluded that the EPA may regulate power-plant emissions that blow across state lines as per a 2011 regulation, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Not content having put nearly 150 or more coal-fired power plants out of commission, the Court’s rule now gives them the authority to do the same thing to about a thousand power plants in the eastern and western regions of the U.S. that will have to adopt new pollution controls or reduce operations.

In effect, the Court has just agreed to a regulation that represents a major increase in the cost of electricity in 28 states deemed to be polluting the air in those around them. The EPA’s claims that this will save lives they attribute to the alleged pollution is as bogus as all the rest of their claims, the purpose of which is to undermine the nation’s economy in every way it can.

Power Lines3James M. Taylor, the Heartland Institute’s Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy said of Tuesday’s decision that “It is a shame that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to empower EPA to issue nonsensical interpretations of statutes with the primary goal of amassing more money and power.”

Every day the press is filled with reports of environmental groups suing to ensure that no new providers of electricity can be built. The Environmental Protection Agency has instituted all manner of regulations intended to shut down coal-fired plants and they are based on the total lie that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” are causing the Earth to warm. The science cited is entirely without merit and the Earth is cooling, not warming, and has been for the past seventeen years.

As winters grow colder, it is putting a tremendous demand on the nation’s electrical grid. In a recent commentary, Steve Gorham, the author of “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania”, quoted Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”

“EPA policies,” said Gorham, “such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of U.S. electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.”

Before Obama was elected, coal-fired plants provided fifty percent (50%) of the nation’s electricity.

What is the Obama administration’s response to this? It is pouring billions into the wind and solar energy sector that provides barely one percent of all the electricity used in the nation and can never begin to replace traditional plants.

In an April 25 letter from the American Energy Alliance, joined by thirty other organizations, to the House Ways and Means Committee, opposition to the Wind Production Tax Credit was expressed: “The PTC has been a failure for taxpayers and ratepayers. In exchange for tens of billions of dollars in handouts to wind producers, the states with the highest wind production have seen their electricity rates increase nearly five times faster than the national average. In fact, states with at least 7 percent wind power have seen their electricity rates increase at an average of 17.4 percent over the last 5 years compared to an increase of only 3.5 percent for the U.S. as a whole” Why, indeed, are taxpayers being required to sustain providers of wind power that would not be able to stay in business otherwise?
In addition to the fact that you cannot manufacture anything without the use of electricity, a deliberate effort is being made to ensure that vast sections of the nation will not be able to receive electricity to warm homes and businesses in the winter and cool them in the summer. Simply put, people will die for lack of the warmth and coolness needed, not from the phony pollution the EPA cites.

This is the heart of an environmental agenda that views the human population as “a cancer” that needs to be vastly reduced. This agenda is directed from the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that falsely claims that humans have a vast impact on the climate. They do not. Human activity barely, if at all, affects the climate. What does? The Sun! Add in factors that include the Earth’s oceans and volcanic activity, and it should be obvious that everyone is being targeted for extinction.

In an article, “The EPA’s Science Problem”, Arnold Ahlert, noted in early April that “In a stunning admission, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy revealed to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the agency neither possesses, nor can produce, all the scientific data used to justify the rules and regulations they have imposed on Americans via the Clean Air Act. In short, science has been trumped by the radical environmental agenda.”

The Obama administration has done everything in its power to restrict and slow down access and use of America’s huge energy reserves, enough to ensure all the electrical power we will need for hundreds of years to come. The same policy applies to transportation’s petroleum needs. Oil and gas production on federal lands is down 40% compared to ten years ago.

According to the Institute for Energy Research notes that “North America has enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the U.S. for 430 years, enough natural gas to provide the U.S. with electricity for 575 years, and enough coal to provide electricity for about 500 years.” And that’s based on known reserves. They are, however, of little use if the Obama administration continues its efforts to restrict access to them.

In an August 2013 Washington Times commentary, Ben Wolfgang warned that the EPA, the Energy Department, and other agencies’ “working group” quietly raised “their estimated social coast of carbon from $21 per ton of emissions to $35 per ton”, noting that “The dramatic increase greatly alters cost-benefit analyses offered by the EPA when floating rules, allowing the agency to claim that billions of dollars will be saved over a period of decades as a result of proposed limits on power plant emissions, tougher fuel economy standards and other steps.”

The “social cost” is a complete invention, a fiction without any basis in fact. It is a device to further restrict access and use of all fuel sources.

Americans had better wake up to the fact that their government—the Obama administration—is doing everything in its power to cut off the provision of electrical power and access to transportation fuel that it can. And the Democrats in Congress, particularly Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, is doing everything to advance this agenda by blocking any legislation generated in the House to counter this agenda.

In November, the midterm elections offer an opportunity to elect enough Republicans to secure control of the Senate and increase its strength in the House.

Let me end with the good news. Despite what the enemies of energy are doing, the energy sector—coal, oil, and natural gas—in the decade ahead is going to grow, going to generate many new jobs, and is going to help dig us out of the huge government debt that too much borrowing and spending has generated.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Climate Change: Unsettled Science or Just Lies?

Recently President Obama’s White House has released the latest National Climate Assessment (NCA). Warning: this is 841 pages from the people who brought us the Obamacare website. The “Highlights” section is 21 MB alone; lots of graphics. Let’s get right to what matters to Florida, right?

How about that concern that causes thousands of Floridians to move North every month, the rise of sea level (as Senator Nelson warned us about)? President Obama predicts a rise of seven feet by year 2100, about an inch per year. Here’s a graphical representation, compared to past sea level rise at San Francisco. The scale on the left is in millimeters. The historical trend, over the last 8,000 years, has been 7 inches per century.

sealevel

The president – who has no training in science – calls all us skeptics “flat-earthers”and assures us “the science is all settled,” with his usual arrogance.

It doesn’t take a degree in the history of science to realize that science in the 20th Century has been very unsettled. It began with the foremost scientist of the time, Lord Kelvin, assuring the world that the next century of science would be merely “a matter of adding a few decimal places to the measurements.” A fellow named Einstein, followed by Cavendish and Bohr and Planck, killed that idea. Atoms are no longer the smallest elements of matter, and now we’re not even sure what is. Protons?  Quarks?  Multidimensional strings? Not settled, but President Obama doesn’t care.

Just a week ago the Wall Street Journal published an excerpt from a new book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, to be published by Simon and Schuster on May 13th. The author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that “personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias derailed nutrition policy over the past half-century.” That bad nutrition policy was urged upon us by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). A similar “skeptical” view of nutrition was published in Britain in 2007, The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. Dr. Kendrick pointed out there is no chemical or statistical link between saturated fat and cholesterol. Both Teicholz and Kendrick point out that anti-cholesterol drugs – Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Mevacor, et al – are major profit leaders for Big Pharma. There’s more – much more – about how our health has gotten worse, not better, as a result of our diet in the last 50 years, but I’ll let you read Ms. Teicholz’s book. The US has gotten fatter and sicker, while adhering to Federal dietary guidelines. The science of nutrition, from Pinocchio’s government, has been very unsettled .

Am I saying science is bad? No, but… Science is a human enterprise, and humans are fallible; when big profits enter the equation, science becomes less objective. Big profits, along with an intention to do good, can lead people to ignore objective scientific criteria. Big funding – the kind the Federal government bestows – can also swamp objective scientific criteria, as it did in the case of scientific nutrition. Is it doing so in the case of “climate science”? Yes, it’s even worse! The Feds “invest” $7 billion annually in what used to be a backwater of scientific meteorology. We spent years and billions of taxpayer dollars in numerical prediction of weather, and in deploying hundreds of Doppler radar systems across the country. Those improvements helped our economy and saved lives. But, in the process, we discovered we can’t predict the weather more than a week or so – no matter how much effort or money we put into it.

President Obama claims we must   shut down coal-fired electricity because of climate forecasts decades into the future? Gee, I wonder if there’s any money – taxes – involved? Is this is just the unsettled science that fallible humans can blunder into, or is something worse is going on?

Well, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the Senate floor, assured us that the Koch brothers are “oil multizillionaires”, that “they are the richest people in the world”, that they are “the main cause of global warming”, and that “they are blocking aid to Ukraine”. None of this is true, and Reid  seems to be approaching a mental breakdown. “Global warming” has become just one more political club to viciously attack anyone who threatens his rule of the Senate, and Obama’s intent to control all of the economy. It doesn’t even rise to the level of bad science.

On the side of science, Dr. John Christy, at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, points out that climate models not only have failed to predict the 17 year “pause” in global warming, they are incapable of predictions on a regional scale. Nevertheless, the NCA is full of regional predictions of drought, flooding, severe weather and heat. Even the IPCC admits, as of 2013, there is no evidence to support this claim.

And, in the Washington Post, normally a supporter:

For a long time, we have said in America, “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X, Y or Z?” Well, in the Obama era, that adage has morphed into, “If he couldn’t get a Web site right, how are we supposed to believe he knows how to control the climate?” Who really believes that a massive government tax and reordering of the economy in the name of stopping global warming or climate change or whatever will go as planned and the world’s thermostat will adjust to something the Democrats find more acceptable? Answer: Almost nobody. Voters don’t believe what the White House says on this issue in part because it has not been credible on so many other important issues. We’ve heard everything from “you can keep your health-care plan” to there is a “red line” in Syria. Why should anyone believe the White House now?

In June, Obama’s EPA will unveil new regulations to shut down the coal-fired electricity in this country. As a result:

Utilities have announced nearly 300 coal-fired generating units in 33 states will shut down as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon regulations for new power plants, and emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The plan is expected in June.

Environmental experts say the upcoming standards for reducing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants are the holy grail in President Obama’s plans for power-plant standards. [Pittsburgh Tribune]

As of May 8th, the US has had the coldest start to the year ever in our climate history, at 37 F, according to the US Historical Climate Network.

Jan8Maytemp

We needed those 300 generators to keep the lights on and the furnace running. I wonder what we’ll do next Winter? Don’t you? It’s kind of unsettling.

Climate Change Scientific Reality: Surviving the Next Cold Climate

The following is a series of seven short video clips of an event held in Sarasota, FL about climate change. The event was hosted by the Sarasota Patriots, an organization founded by Beth Colvin. The Sarasota Patriots brought two experts on climate policy: John Casey, President of the Orlando based Space and Science Research Corporation, and Craig Rucker, Co-founder of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). The presentation was about the science, policies and politics of climate change.

Tad MacKie recorded the entire presentation. You are encouraged to watch and carefully listen to what John Casey has discovered and proven, and what Craig Rucker and CFACT are doing about impacting public policy on climate change. The entire program is 1:35 long and is in seven 15-minute or less segments. This link will take you to the You Tube playlist for the entire series of videos. Each segment follows:

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 1: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnuEdGTkDoY[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 2: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwolbxthg9I[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 3: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLP_t-7DGkI[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 4: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9l6kaJJ3Nc[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 5: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if5UCvFj-kA[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 6: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14h7vdZkrUw[/youtube]

 

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 7: John Casey and Craig Rucker

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZCEaT4_Jwo[/youtube]

 

RELATED STORIES:

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view | The Times
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor | Mail Online
Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US | Real Science
Report: Climate Change, Not Islam, is Catalyst for Terrorism, Arab Spring, Syrian War

Climate McCarthyism: No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt

bengtsson_welcome

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on Lennart Bengtsson: This ‘has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails’ – Curry: ‘We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails.’

‘Reminds me about the time of McCarthy’: Climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson — who converted from warmist to skeptic – resigns from skeptical group after ‘enormous group pressure’ from warmists – Now ‘worried about my health and safety’ – ‘Colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship’ – Lennart Bengtsson: ‘I have  been put under such an enormous group pressure…Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship.’ – ‘I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.’ – ‘Reminds me about the time of McCarthy.’

[Climate Depot note: The ‘McCarthyism’ was named after Sen. Joe McCarthy. A thorough reading of history may indicate it is an unfair depiction. See here.]

Climate McCarthyism: “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?” Bengtsson: Science is under pressure because everyone wants our advice. However, we cannot give the impression that a catastrophe is imminent. The greenhouse effect is a problem that is here to stay for hundreds of years. Climate experts should have the courage to state that we are not yet sure. What is wrong with making that statement clear and loudly?’ – ‘The IPCC prediction that with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature on Earth would rise by two degrees should be taken with a grain of salt.’

79-year old skeptical scientist worried about his ‘safety’ – Climate scientist claims he has been forced from new job in ‘McCarthy’-style witch-hunt by academics across the world – Bengtsson believes one of the reasons for this is the US Government’s expanding role on climate change. ‘The public are concerned that recent weather phenomenon have been as a result of climate change. But it is a natural occurrence,’ he said.

UK Times: ‘Witch-hunt’ forces out skeptical climate scientist – ‘The pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper’

‘The Cleansing of Lennart Bengtsson’: Climate Scientist Who Defected To Skeptics Forced to Resign: ‘Reminds me about the time of McCarthy’ – Worried about his ‘safety’

Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre reacts: ‘Bengtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate “community”. Instead, the “community” has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the “community” in the broader society.’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The elite in this community – including scientists, journalists, politicians — have endorsed the climate mccarthyism campaign, and are often its most vigorous participants’ – ‘For experts in the climate issue, there is enormous social and peer pressure on what is acceptable to say and who it is acceptable to associate with. My recent experiences are quite similar to Bengtsson’s’

Climate bullying echoes the expulsion of Mitch Taylor from Polar Bear Specialist Group

Dear Lennart: A Letter In Support Of Professor Bengtsson – David G. Gee – Professor Em. Orogen Dynamics – Department of Earth Sciences – Uppsala University, Sweden: ‘The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicized science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwaggon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions; it needs to be exposed, globally.’

Warmist apostacy: the climate jihadists strike

The 97% In Climate Science: McCarthyism Is Alive & Well In 2014

Climate Science: No Dissent Allowed

Background:

Award-Winning Former UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson Dissents: ‘We cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences’ – Declares climate models ‘more a matter of faith than a fact’

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson

Dr. Lennart Bengtsson: ‘We cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences.’ – ‘Although the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th century, observations show only a moderate warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius…high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations…Thus, the warming is significantly smaller than predicted by most climate models…since there is no way to validate them (models), the forecasts are more a matter of faith than a fact.’

Full Interview here: http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-the-science-and-politics-of-climate-change/

Related Links: 

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all Award-Winning  – Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic…The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson (former IPCC) Also Confirms No Sea Level Acceleration…Desperate UN IPCC’s Pachauri Insisting No Acceleration ‘Is An Acceleration’! – – Lennart Bengtsson: ‘We now have satellite measurements for 20 years which indicate a steady rise of about 3 mm per year, and during that time no acceleration, See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/… 20 years is certainly enough. On Monday I was involved in a public panel discussion with Pachauri who insisted that this is an acceleration. I found that I think I know more about this than Mr. Pachauri. The reference above appears to me quite compelling.’

Skeptical Swedish climatology: Dr. Lennart Bengtsson: Global warming only visible under a microscope –  Dr. Bengtsson: ‘The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go’

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson: CO2”s ‘heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase’ – Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘The sea level has risen fairly evenly for a hundred years by 2-3 millimeters per year. The pitch is not accelerated’

‘Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations’

Surviving Obama

In many ways, the November midterm elections are about surviving Barack Hussein Obama, the worst President this nation has ever had the misfortune to electing to that high office. His approval rating hovers around 47% and that means that nearly half of the likely voters still think he’s doing a great job.

If history is any guide, Democrats tend to not turn out in large numbers for midterm elections and we can only hope this holds true. Among Republicans, the TEA Party movement has pushed their candidates, incumbents and aspirants, to the right and that is a good thing. We have had our fill of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).

In a recent La Jolla, California fund-raiser President Obama told the assembled Democrats, all members of the one percent wealthy enough to ante up to $65,000 per-plate to attend, that he thought Americans had developed the “wrongheaded” view that Washington wasn’t looking out for them and blamed conservatives who, he said, told people they’re “on their own.”

Was he including the millions on food stamps? And the millions on Medicaid? Others receiving college loans? Those receiving help paying their mortgage? Those using a free cell phone? Surely he wasn’t including those on Social Security. The benefits of Medicare have been reduced because its funding was cut by billions to fund Obamacare.

Obama blamed Republicans for the plight of the Middle Class, but we know that, other than telling lies, Obama excels at blaming everyone other than himself for the horrid economy that is struggling to recover after six years of his hand on the tiller.

And, please, let’s not mention the $17 trillion in debt he’s managed to run up in the process of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on everything from his ill-fated “stimulus” to his “investments” in Green energy firms while delaying the Keystone XL pipeline that will generate jobs and revenue without costing taxpayers a dime.

That debt is going to have to be paid by ours and the next generation, but right now his job is to convince more Americans they are suffering from “income inequality.” And, yes, the federal government stands ready to redistribute the money from taxpayers to those who Nancy Pelosi has said should be grateful they don’t have a job so they can devote themselves to their hobbies.

This is the same President who just unleashed yet another report on the climate filled with various doomsday scenarios. Previous reports called “assessments”, largely drawn from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were devoted to “global warming” until it became apparent to everyone that the planet was not warming thanks to a 17 year old cooling cycle that is still in play.

So “global warming” became “climate change” and now it is “climate disruption” because we all know how disruptive hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, forest fires, and droughts can be or how a rainstorm can spoil a picnic. The weather somewhere is always “disruptive.”

And this just tells you how stupid he thinks most Americans—at least those who still support him—are.

There is a slice of the population who most certainly are stupid. They are called the media and they are the same people who devoted the last six years to ignoring the scandals that keep popping up in an administration more devoted to crushing its political opposition and free speech than to solving the problems of the economy or responding to those it has encountered on foreign shores.

Obama’s solution has been to abandon the rest of the world as much as possible to a point where he is widely regarded by its leaders as spineless and/or totally unreliable. His recent appearance at the White House Correspondent’s annual bash was testimony to their blind love with the exception of those from the Fox News channel whom he referred to, tongue in cheek, as “a shadowy right wing organization.” Well, we hope it was tongue in cheek.

As for Obamacare, the Heritage Foundation recently noted:

  • Obama is backtracking for now on the enforcement of the individual mandate to buy insurance.
  • Obamacare’s higher taxes and its subsidies that drop off if you increase your income are a disincentive to work hard to improve your situation.
  • The employer mandate imposes new costs on businesses that undercut jobs and wages. It has been illegally and unilaterally delayed until after the midterm elections.
  • The Foundation found that, between 2013 and 2014, the number of insurers offering coverage on the individual markets in all fifty states has declined by 29 percent.
  • Obamacare guarantees major premium increases for single and family coverage.
  • Obamacare’s Medicare changes will result in reduced benefits and threaten senior’s access to care.

And that’s just a few of Obamacare’s negative impacts on everyone’s earnings—if they have a job; 92 million no longer do—and on the increased premiums they are required to pay. Three quarters of those that signed up for new coverage are those who had plans that were cancelled!

Surviving Barack Hussein Obama has become the number one priority for all Americans and for the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED STORIES:

UPDATE: ‘Tea Party’ wins big in Nebraska…
REP: Obama supports ‘worst prison break in American history’…

Florida is one of 31 states that have emissions-free energy from this —

There’s one source of energy that will operate 24/7 – through heat waves or cold snaps – all while producing zero emissions. Seem incredible? That’s just the start of what nuclear energy provides the U.S.

Nuclear energy is powering the country with emissions-free electricity from 100 reactors located in 31 states across the U.S.

Soon, five new reactors will be added to that list with the capacity to produce enough electricity for more than 1 million homes and businesses for the 60 next years.

Nuclear energy directly employs 120,000 workers nationwide, including engineers and skilled tradesmen who provide an economic boost to their communities.

Nuclear is a key component of America’s energy future as it provides affordable, reliable and emissions-free energy for us all. Let’s ensure our energy policy supports a future that includes nuclear.

nuclear power infographic

Nuclear is indispensable to our country’s energy future. Today, explore our infographic, then share the facts on FacebookTwitter, or by email.

Hostile 8 minute Climate Debate with TV Anchor on CCTV

TV Anchor Anand Naidoo (formerly of Al Jazeera & CNN):  But we are feeling [global warming], we have seen hurricanes, for instance hurricane Sandy. We have seen more Tornadoes in the Midwest in America. We have seen ocean levels rise in Bangladesh.

MoranoFirst of all, you used the word ‘facts’ earlier, I hope you are not using that now. Every bad weather event is not proof of global warming? There is no way to falsify the AGW theoryWe are actually going through the longest period a category 3 or larger hurricane hitting the U.S. since 2005. That is the longest period in at least a century. Big tornadoes F3 and larger since the 1950s and 1970s have been on a decline. There might be more tornadoes counted, because we have better monitoring but actual damaging tornadoes, huge decline.  The most damaging decade for hurricanes was the 1940s. Droughts are on a decline in the U.S. (over past century)

Morano mocks every weather event being blamed on global warming: ‘Look, in 1846, in Australia, Aborigines blamed the bad climate on the introduction of the White man in Australia. During World War 2, some blamed the war for causing unusual weather patterns. In 1933, Syria banned the Yo-Yo because they thought it caused drought. In the 1970s, the exact same things (bad weather) we are talking about today, were  blamed on man-made global cooling.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF DEBATE:

Marc Morano: You can distinguish between natural variability and the human impact.  Nothing unusual is happening in our climate.

Sea level has been rising since the last 10,000. There has been no acceleration. In fact a new paper in the journal Nature since 2002, there has been a deceleration in sea level riseNothing alarming is happening with sea level rise. (More here and here)

President Obama claims we are feeling global warming here and now. But on every metric, you can talk tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts. Not only are we not ‘feeling it now’, we are on no trend or declining trends on 50 to 100 year times scales.

Anchor Anand Naidoo:  But we are feeling it, we have seen hurricanes, for instance hurricane Sandy. We have seen more Tornadoes in the Midwest in America. We have seen ocean levels rise in Bangladesh.

Morano: First of all, you used the word ‘facts’ earlier, I hope you are not using that now. Every bad weather event is now proof of global warming? There is no way to falsify the AGW theory.

We are actually going through the longest period a category 3 or larger hurricane hitting the U.S. since 2005. That is the longest period in at least a century. Big tornadoes F3 and larger since the 1950s and 1970s have been on a decline. There might be more tornadoes counted, because we have better monitoring but actual damaging tornadoes, huge decline.  The most damaging decade for hurricanes was the 1940s. Droughts are on a decline in the U.S. (over the past century.)

Anchor Anand Naidoo: Are you saying nothing should be done?

Morano: Yes.  There so-called solutions would have no detectable climate impact. Our President Obama, is on record as calling our failed cap and trade bill would make our planet 4 or 5 degrees cooler for our grandchildren.  His then EPA director went to the US senate and testified that not only would the cap and trade bill not impact global temperature, it would not even impact global co2 levels. What they are proposing is pure symbolism. It is medieval witchcraft because they are saying we can alter through acts of congress, the EPA and United Nations treaties.

Every coal plant built today is radically cleaner than ones built 30 or 40 years ago. Natural gas fracking is replacing coal in many instances and that is causing dramatic reductions. Our emission levels are dropping due to technology. Not big government solutions brought up on by fear by people like John Holdren.

Look, in 1846, in Australia, Aborigines blamed the bad climate on the introduction of the White man in Australia. During World War 2, some blamed the war for causing unusual weather patterns. In 1933, Syria banned the Yo-Yo because they thought it caused drought. In the 1970s, the exact same things (bad weather) we are talking about today, were  blamed on man-made global cooling.

Anchor Anand Naidoo: But if you say nothing should be done, doesn’t this play into the hands of big energy, oil companies?

Morano: When faced with a non-problem – as Lord Monckton once said – the best thing to do is have the courage to do nothing. On every metric they are failing. When current reality fails to alarm, they make a bunch of scary predictions. That what this report is, it is a political report. Please be careful with the word ‘fact’ that was a disturbing word you used earlier.

[crosstalk]

Anchor Anand Naidoo: You may call it a political report. It is fact. 300 scientists were involved in compilation of the White House report. There were hundreds more scientists involved in the UN report. What are your qualifications in the climate?

[Crosstalk]

Morano: My qualifications are I have a background in political science which is the perfect qualification to examine global warming claims. But I don’t rely on myself, I have actually worked with teams of scientists. I authored a report of over 1000 international scientists that have dissented from so called man-made global warming claims.

Anchor Anand Naidoo: But this is climate science.

Morano: But the [Obama climate report] report you are referencing included Nature Conservancy, the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was written to cause a political agenda. And the American people are not stupid.

Anchor Anand Naidoo asks about Climate Depot funding:

Morano: One donation from the from Natural gas industry – carbon based energy – to the Sierra Club of $26 million exceeded my [parent company CFACT’s total annual] budget by about five times – just one donation to Sierra Club.

I used to work for Senator Inhofe, when he was asked ‘how much does big energy’ give you? His answer was ‘not enough when you look at how well financed the greens are’

The Koch brothers, are only 59th giving in American politics. That is where they come in. You have billionaire democrats like Tom Steyer. Are you looking at into that? Are you worried about their bias right now?

Your last guest (Michael Dorsey) talked about minorities and African Americans the disproportionate impact of ‘global warming.’ The biggest impact that minorities, seniors, and people on fixed incomes face — are so-called ‘solutions’ which drive up the cost of our energy.

In the UK people have died this past winter because of commitment to green energy based on global warming fears.

President Obama has done us a favor in a way, because no one is going to take this report seriously. Al Gore has made global warming a partisan issue and Obama has furthered that cause.

Anchor Anand Naidoo: Well, I am not sure that no one is going to take this seriously.

Morano: Well, the usual suspects will.

Anchor Anand Naidoo: Obviously there are various viewpoints on this. Marc Morano, thank you very much for joining us.

Morano: Thank you very much.

End partial transcript

Global Warming/Climate Change: Its all about the Global Religion of Greed

Jon Huntsman wrote an oped article in the New York Times titled “The G.O.P Can’t Ignore Climate Change.” He is a very bright, successful individual but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Climate Change is now the new expression. It used to be Global Warming, but Climate Change affords flexibility in blaming both heating and cooling on the energy industry. The “debate” if one can call it that, is driven by a kind of Eco-religion in which consensus replaces facts. Many “scientists” make a living on government grants so they dare not opposed the political views emanating from the granting agencies.

So here are some facts:

First the debate is not over whether the planet is warming or has ever warmed. There is considerable evidence that beginning roughly in the year 1000 CE the planet began to cool. The average temperature reached a minimum in 1640, a year that coincided with a minimum in sun spot activity. Hold that thought. Solar activity coincides with global warming. Then from 1640 to the present the average temperature of the earth rose. This is irrefutable, based on scientific data. Then about 30 years ago when it became possible to measure the average temperature from satellites, the average temperature appeared to enter a flat period, i.e. temperature has not risen much, if at all over the last 30 years. The present average temperature is about what it was in the year 1000. Now remember that coal was not used in large quantities until the 19th century and oil was not used until the 20th century, so how can fossil fuel be responsible for a temperature rise that began in 1640?

Let look back further in time. There was an ice core dug out of Antarctica in 1958 (I’m not absolutely sure of the year, but trust me it’s about right). This core provided data on temperature and CO2 going back 250,000 years. It showed that both temperature and CO2 cycled with roughly a 10,000 year periodicity. It did not indicate which was cause and which was effect, but in my view increasing temperature will cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, causing a concomitant rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

But wait. What about the Greenhouse effect and the heating by the CO2 in the air? The theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes heat to be trapped near the earth instead of being radiated to space. Unfortunately all the mathematical models based on this phenomenon were proven to be wrong. They did not predict the average world temperatures correctly over the last 30 years. Not even close.

So why is everyone talking about CO2 and global warming? It’s about the money. It’s always about the money. Those greedy, nasty energy companies make their money providing coal, oil and gas all of which end up as CO2 in the atmosphere. If they can be shown to be polluting the planet and causing distress, they can be taxed. Really taxed. Then the money raised, after the tax man takes a reasonable cut, can be used to provide economic aid to the third world, where the energy moguls are stealing their oil. It’s all about the money.

Well then, if the models don’t work, and the sun along with some continental drift and other things we won’t get into, are really causing changes in climate why would we burden our economy and the world economy with energy taxes, not to mention crazy schemes to use cockroach dung instead of oil? It’s because the Global Climate debate has degenerated into Global religion and Global greed.

Let’s go back to Huntsman. Basically he says it is prudent for the Republican party to have a position on Climate that addresses threats to our economy. Fine, but if it is being implied that fossil fuel is the culprit that needs to be taxed and generally avoided we will be damaging our economy in the interest of protecting our economy. If the average global temperature continues to rise people will make rational decisions based on this observation. If Florida gets too hot people will move to Canada. We can’t engineer the climate. We don’t know how and even if we did it would be far too expensive. Better to accept that climate is a natural phenomenon and we need to adjust to it, not try to change it.

Two more facts before I stop. First CO2 is not a pollutant as defined by the EPA. They only included it as a pollutant so they could regulate the energy industry, in particular the coal industry, on the theory debunked above. Without CO2, plants would not grow, food for humans and animals would not be available. Second, when the government gets into things it doesn’t understand and uses its power to regulate our lives based on some false scientific premise, we are all in serious trouble.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by H. Hemken. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.