Bloomberg’s Comprehensive Guide On Presidential Candidates’ Positions On Energy And Environmental Issues

/in , , , /by

Energy and Environment Guide cover (1)ARLINGTON, Va. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Bloomberg BNA today announced the publication of “Race for the White House: An Energy and Environment Guide,” a one-of-a-kind set of in-depth profiles of the key positions of over 20 declared presidential candidates from both parties on the most timely energy and environmental issues.  The special 30-page report is available to subscribers of Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Environment Report, a trusted daily environmental news resource which covers evolving issues in the United States and across the globe.

A complimentary copy of the report is available here. 

Bloomberg BNA reporters Anthony Adragna and Rachel Leven spoke with more than two dozen individuals close to the election in preparing the guide, including presidential candidates, campaigns, strategists, lobbyists, environmental activists, academics, industry representatives, former members of Congress and former congressional aides.  The special report covers candidates’ positions on climate change, the Keystone XL pipeline, renewable energy, ethanol mandates, and EPA regulations, including the recently-announced Clean Power Plan, among others.

“As evidenced by President Obama’s announcement of the Clean Power Plan, the current administration has placed an unprecedented focus on energy and environmental issues,” said Darren McKewen, President of Bloomberg BNA’s Tax and Specialty Division.  “These issues could play an important role in the upcoming election.  This special report serves as a great example of the detailed and comprehensive reporting and analysis that our subscribers have relied on for decades.”

Visit here for a complimentary copy of the report.

ABOUT BLOOMBERG BNA

Bloomberg BNA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, is a leading source of legal, regulatory, and business information for professionals. Its network of more than 2,500 reporters, correspondents, and leading practitioners delivers expert analysis, news, practice tools, and guidance — the information that matters most to professionals. Bloomberg BNA’s authoritative coverage spans a full range of legal practice areas, including tax & accounting, labor & employment, intellectual property, banking & securities, employee benefits, health care, privacy & data security, human resources, and environment, health & safety.

As EPA Tries to Control Climate, Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to Record Length – 18 years 7 months!

/in , , , , /by

A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1 below). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

The Pause has now drawn blood. In the run-up to the world-government “climate” conference in Paris this December, the failure of the world to warm at all for well over half the satellite record has provoked the climate extremists to resort to desperate measures to try to do away with the Pause.

To Read Complete article by Lord Christopher Monckton on the new record length ‘Pause’ in global warming see here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/

Other Climate Depot news items of this week:

Fmr. NASA Scientist James Hansen: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless’ – ‘You’ve got to be kidding’ – Hansen on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘The actions are practically worthless. They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.’ “You’ve got to be kidding,” Hansen wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”

Watch: Morano on Fox on EPA ‘Climate’ Plan: ‘This is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain’ – Fox Business Host Stuart Varney – ‘Varney & Company’ – August 5, 2015

Morano on Obama’s EPA ‘Climate’ Plan: ‘They are selling us a bill of goods. Even if you believed it, this is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain.’ – ‘NASA’s former lead global warming scientist James Hansen came and said this plan is ‘practically worthless’ and he said ‘you’ve got to be kidding me’. Obama’s own EPA chief admitted it would have no impact on global temperature let alone impacts on global CO2 levels. It’s pure symbolism.’

Watch: Morano on Fox debates warmist over EPA regs: ‘The government is now further centrally planning our energy economy’ –

MORANO: “The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Agency – 2013) estimates that wind is about 4% of our energy and solar is about .25 of one percent! So you are asking for less than 5% of energy to somehow cover all of these carbon based regulations. We have Obama administration officials like White House Science Czar John Holdren who openly talk about cheap energy being a threat or a hazard to a free society.”

MORANO: “We do know one thing that there will be no climate impact form these bills.”

GOULD: “That is completely false. That is completely false.”

MORANO: “The EPA administrator admitted that.” See: EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

Watch Now: Morano on BBC TV on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regs would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism’ – BBC World News – August 3, 2015 – Climate Depot Publisher Marc Morano – Selected Highlights of Morano’s comments: “Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regulations would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism. Its going to have a huge economic impact, jobs impact and no climate impact. Even warmists’ are saying this is not going to have any impact, that Obama way off base (and not being ambitious enough.)

Fmr. NASA Scientist James Hansen: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless’ – ‘You’ve got to be kidding’

EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

‘The number is so small as to be undetectable’ – Pure Symbolism – EPA Climate Regs Avert 0.018°C Temperature Rise – That’s ‘less than two one-hundredths of a degree C’ – We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.’

Chip Knappenberger on CNN: Obama plan’s ‘impact on climate turns out to be largely undetectable and the public health benefits tenuous, at best’ – ‘The human health benefits of the President’s plan do not largely stem from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. After all, carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is not dangerous to breathe. Instead, they are to come from the “co-benefits” of reducing some forms of air pollution that are emitted when fossil fuels are burned. But these by-product emissions are already subject to existing regulations and are being double-counted by the President. Further, direct health impacts from climate change are difficult to pin down — and ethereal — as adaptive measures can more than erase them.’

Obama spurns natural gas in climate rule

Analysis: EPA ‘climate’ plan will take ‘33% of productive electrical capacity off the grid by 2020′

Key Points: ‘Report shows that the plan would close 48% of all coal-fired plants in the country.’

This plan is “regulation without representation.”

‘The president’s rules would usurp the traditional role of states in managing their own electrical generation and saddle the economy with enormous costs while empowering the EPA to control vast swaths of the American economy.’

‘Coal-fired power will be the first to be shot, but the EPA is targeting all sources of carbon energy.’

Climate Scientists Rip Apart EPA’s Global Warming Rule – “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”

Environmentalists, EPA Force The 200th US Coal Plant To Retire

Obama unleashes energy crippling climate plan to cut greenhouse gases by 32% in 2030

‘Obama To Announce Job Killing, Inflation Producing, Economy Slowing, Clean Energy, Plan’

Coal Left Fighting Over America’s Last Plants as Rules Mount

Factbox: Obama’s Clean Power Plan faces tough legal scrutiny

It’s Here! Obama’s EPA Sets Forth ‘global warming’ regulations on America! ‘Mandate even steeper emissions cuts from US power plants’

Obama Sends ‘Memo To America’ On Climate Change

Pay climate protection money or else! ‘Inaction on climate change would cost billions’, major EPA study finds

EPA Claims That ‘Global Action’ On Global Warming Will Stop ‘Extreme Weather’

Asthma prevalence has increased in the U.S. while major air pollutants like ozone, particulate matter and carbon monoxide have fallen dramatically, according to government data.

A study by John’s Hopkins Children’s Center published in January found there is no link between air pollution and childhood asthma.

Global warming threat? Now it’s asthma: Morano: ‘This is pure propaganda’ – ‘Obama has shifted the debate to children and asthma because he knows the public is not buying global warming’

Watch Now: Prof. Ross McKitrick on Obama EPA regs: The health claims ‘are groundless’ – ‘Carbon dioxide is not a factor in smog or lung issues’ – Rips Obama for deceptive language: ‘Instead of calling it carbon dioxide, we are just going to call it ‘carbon pollution’

McKitrick on Sun News on June 2, 2014 – McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’- ‘Particulates and soot are at such low levels in the U.S. — levels well below what they were in the 1970s. The health claims at this point are groundless coming from this administration. I noticed these numbers coming up for Ontario for how many deaths were caused by air pollution. What struck me — was knowing that air pollution levels were very low in Ontario — but they were extremely high in 1960s. So I took the same model and fed in the 1960s air pollution levels into it: How many deaths would you get? I did the calculations and you quickly get more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes. In other words, the streets would have been littered with bodies from air pollution if it was actually that lethal. The problem with all of these models is they are not based on an actual examination of death certificates or looking at what people actually died of — these are just statistical models where people have a spreadsheet and they take in an air pollution level and it pops out a number of deaths. But there are no actual bodies there, it is all just extrapolation.’

Obama Moves To Regulate CO2 From Airplanes – First tailpipes, then power plants and now airplanes. The Obama administration announced another major effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes after the Environmental Protection Agency linked airliners to global warming. The EPA issued a proposal Wednesday declaring that CO2 from airliners threatens public health because it contributes to global warming. The agency says it’s doing this in conjunction with an international effort to bring the airline industry under global carbon dioxide standards for commercial jets.

Obama Harvard Law School Prof Lawrence Tribe on EPA Climate Regs: ‘BURNING THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE PART OF OUR NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY’ – Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard University: “EPA possesses only the authority granted to it by Congress,” Tribe told lawmakers in a hearing Tuesday. “Its gambit here raises serious questions under the separation of powers… because EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to Congress and judicial power that belongs to the federal courts.”

The term ‘carbon pollution’ is unscientific and misleading: ‘Phrase conflates carbon dioxide with noxious chemicals like carbon monoxide and black carbon’ – ‘The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is scientifically inaccurate because there are more than ten million different carbon compounds, and the word ‘carbon’ could refer to any of them. Some of the more notorious of these compounds are highly poisonous, such as carbon monoxide (a deadly gas) and black carbon (the primary ingredient of cancerous and mutagenic soot). Using a phrase that does not distinguish between such drastically different substances is a sure way to misinform people.’

EPA regulations on CO2 will accomplish nothing for climate or public health: Obama using ‘diversionary tactic to conflate CO2 with the actual ‘carbon pollution’ of atmospheric particulate matter, to deflect criticism from Obama’s draconian CO2 proposals’

Warmists: ‘Obama Wants You to Think His Climate Plan Is Bold. It’s Not.’ – By Eric Holthaus – Vox’s Brad Plumer has calculated that the president’s rule would shave just 6 percent from U.S. carbon emissions by 2030. Climate science and international equitydemand the U.S. cut emissions 80 percent by then. We’re nowhere near that pace. Still, this plan is not nothing. In its coverage, the Times includes this hopeful gem: But experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world’s other major economies, as well as additional action by the next American president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. That’s a lot of hedging on which to base a climate legacy.  In fact, when compared with the climate plans of his would-be successors on the left—Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley—Obama ranks last in terms of ambition. Clinton, who has frequently aligned herself with the president on climate, announced a preview of her own climate plan last week. It’s fractionally more ambitious than Obama’s, but it essentially just kicks the can forward another few years.

Watch: Morano on Fox on new Fed fracking regs: ‘They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success’ – Watch Video here: Fox Business ‘Varney & Co.’ w/ Stuart Varney – March 20, 2015 – ‘Will new fracking regulations kill the industry?’ (See: Obama Admin Imposes New Regulations On Fracking) – Morano selected excerpts: It’s the first step to the death of a thousand cuts, and this is probably the first 200 or 300 blades being introduced by the federal government — but it’s not going to kill fracking now. This will impose a one size fits all federal government solution.

They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success. Obama is already taking out coal, they’ve stopped keystone pipeline, they are preventing oil drilling in places like Alaska. What’s left? Fracking. Solar is .23% of our electricity (EIA 2013), wind power is barely over 4% and their implication is they will replace carbon based fuels with solar and wind.

Morano: ‘It’s the agenda here: John Holdren said in 1970s that energy that is too cheap is one of the greatest hazards to society and the more we get away from energy, the more jobs we will have. (See: Flashback 1975: Obama Science Czar John Holdren warned U.S. ‘threatened’ by ‘the hazards of too much energy’ – Holdren: ‘Less energy can mean more employment.’)

The Energy Sec. Moniz has said he wants to make ‘dirty fuels’ three times more expensive. This is the first step towards that. (See: Obama Energy Dept. nominee favors TRIPLING the cost of fossil fuels – Energy Nominee Moniz: We Need Carbon Price To Double Or Triple Cost Of Dirty Energy)

Look to Europe to see America’s Energy Future:

Flashback 2011: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Flashback 2011: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Watch: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer on Gore’s ‘extreme weather’ claims: ‘Bullsh*t!’ – John Stossel’s “Science Wars”

Why Is the Vatican Pushing Communist Goals? by Michael Hichborn

/in , , , , , /by

This coming November, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Science is holding a workshop intended to figure out how to indoctrinate your children in the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]. This comes on the heels of the Vatican nuncio to the United Nations announcing “verbatim” support for the SDGs, and after Catholic Relief Services president Dr. Carolyn Woo echoed Pope Francis’ call for support for the SDGs as well.

So, what are the Sustainable Development Goals?

They’re a United Nations plan for the creation of a global socialist utopia thinly disguised as a poverty reduction program. In short, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are the first step in achieving several of the goals laid out in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In truth, these goals are Communist goals, through and through. Here’s a snapshot of how specific portions of the SDGs line up with identified Communist goals:

Sustainable Development Goals:

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
    • Communists have always used the plight of the poor as justification for the implementation of their nefarious schemes
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
    • Plank 7 of the Communist Manifesto calls for a top-down approach to industry and agriculture
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
    • A 1938 issue of a Communist publication concluded that “only through the final victory of world socialism can the vast stores of available scientific knowledge really be put to work for the full benefit of humanity. ‘Socialized medicine’ is a meaningless phrase except in a socialized society.”
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
    • Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto is “free education for all children in public schools.”
  • Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    • Communism has pushed for working women since the beginning of the Revolution in Russia.
  • Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
    • Plank 8 of the Communist Manifesto: Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
    • Plank 9 of the Communist Manifesto: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
    • This is an echo of Karl Marx’s mandate, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
    • This is pure global governance orchestrated by an entity with authority above national sovereignty.

This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, but should provide enough information to alarm even the most lukewarm of patriots and faithful Christians. But the Catholic Church, which has issued full and unqualified condemnations of Communism and Socialism should have nothing to do with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals … and yet, “Catholic” social justice organizations and its leaders have hijacked key positions in the Vatican and are using their influence and authority to fast-track programs to get the faithful to fully support and work for the implementation of the SDGs. This is extremely dangerous and must be forcefully resisted by all faithful Catholics. What follows is a general overview of some of the more egregious of the SDGs in their audacious push for global Communist governance.

Read the rest at http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/.

Hichborn_headshot300ABOUT MICHAEL HICHBORN

Michael Hichborn is the president of the Lepanto Insitute. Formerly, Michael spent nearly eight years as American Life League’s Director of the Defend the Faith project. He has researched and produced countless articles and reports on the funding of abortion, birth control, homosexuality and Marxism by Catholic Relief Servies and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Michael holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Christendom College in Political Science and Economics and a Master’s degree in Education from American Intercontinental University. Michael lives in Virginia with his wife, Alyssa, and their five children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope’s climate push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments

Vatican Representative Endorses UN Sustainable Development Goals, “Verbatim”

405,000 people, 104 bishops sign petition to Pope Francis asking for ‘clarification’ on marriage

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

/in , , , /by

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up.

In 2008, Hansen wrote about “stabilizing” the climate:

Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero, because of the long lifetime of CO2

Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support that idea that the climate was becoming unstable.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

In that same 1999 report, he showed that US temperatures peaked in 1934, and declined through the rest of the century.

NASA fig1x.gif (500×182)

In 1989, NOAA and the UK’s leading expert agreed with Hansen that [the] U.S. had not warmed.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.

Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

Global Warmth In ’88 Is Found To Set a Record – New York Times

But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.

NASA Fig.D.gif (513×438)

The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.

Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.

Original version  Altered version

The changes in Reykjavik, Iceland were particularly heinous – because they were specifically objected to by the Icelandic Met Office. Meteorologist Mark Johnson contacted  the senior expert at the Icelandic Met Office and asked him about NASA data tampering in iceland. Here is their exchange :

 1) Are you happy with the adjustments as they stand right now?

No, I am not happy with the adjustments as they stand, but I might no be quite up to date. I don’t know if they have been making additional changes during the last 2-3 weeks.  

2) Have you or any of your staff contacted or been contacted by anyone from NASA Goddard Space Institute officials?

No, but we made some contact with them about 5-6 weeks ago.  Best wishes, 

Trausti Jónsson senior meteorologist Icelandic Meteorological Office

The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was a well known and difficult historical period in Iceland. NASA  erased Iceland’s history, without even the courtesy to contact Iceland’s experts.

Additionally, we know that there was tremendous warming in the Arctic prior to the 1940s, which Hansen has erased from the historical record in Iceland, Greenland and elsewhere.

In 1947, noted geophysicist Dr. Hans Ahlmann reported to the University of California Geophysical Institute that the Arctic had warmed ten degrees since 1900.

31 May 1947 – Warmer Arctic Climate May Raise Ocean Levels

Arctic warming was well known as early as 1922.

Many leading experts prior to the Hansen era, agreed that the earlier Arctic warming was real, and quite dramatic.

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports by raising the ocean levels.

Leading Arctic expert from 1953

The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

Leading Arctic expert from 1952

LONDON (A.P.).-The earth is getting warmer. The oceans are getting deeper. The glaciers are getting smaller. Even the fish are changing their way of life.

All this and more is going on because of a vast, unaccountable, century-by-century change, in climate. In his study at Bedford College in London, Britain’s distinguished geographer, Professor Gordon Manley, is worrying about it.

Leading geographer from 1950

Dr. Ahlman urged the establishment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900. The navigable season along Western Spitzbergen now last- ed eight months instead of three.

Leading Arctic expert from 1947

it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet.

Russian report from 1940

Similarly NASA temperature records for Antarctica have also been altered. In 2005, NASA showed most of Antarctic on a long term cooling trend, but in 2007 they changed it to a long term warming trend – despite the fact that 2007 was the year of record sea ice in Antarctica.

The map below from 2005 shows long term cooling.

SVS Animation 3188 – Antarctic Heating and Cooling Trends

In 2007, they replaced the image above with a different one which incorrectly showed long term warming.

Disintegration: Antarctic Warming Claims Another Ice Shelf : Feature Articles

NASA has been altering data and changing the historical record from one pole to the other. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of these changes have trended towards more warming than the original thermometer readings indicated.

Misprediction

In 1988, Hansen made three very famous forecasts (shown below) of temperature rise, based on high, medium and very low (Scenario C) CO2 production.

His forecasts were very poor, and indicate that he has greatly overestimated the effect of CO2 on the climate. The graph below overlays the most recent NASA global temperatures (red line) on Hansen’s predictions from 1988. The red circle shows 2012 temperature anomalies so far.

NASA reported temperatures show more of an increase than satellites do, but even the NASA temperatures fall below Scenario C – which essentially assumes that people stopped producing CO2 in the year 2000. Hansen’s own data invalidates his theory, yet he continues to ramp up his claims about the magnitude of global warming. This is the mark of a very poor scientist.

Sea Level

Now, on to his claims about sea level. Hansen has consistently made sea level forecasts far above the upper bounds of those from the IPCC (18-59cm.) In 2007, he forecast sea level rise up to 25 metres to the US Senate, which is nearly fifty times higher than the IPCC’s highest forecast.

Antarctic blues and the Australian drought 

In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

Stormy weather – Global Warming – Salon.com

Dr. Hansen has also been making wildly exaggerated forecasts about a wide variety of topics for almost three decades, like this one from 1986

The News and Courier – Google News Archive Search

In March 2006, he forecast a “Super El Nino” which went against the opinion of the expert community, and never materialized.

We suggest that an El Niño is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a “super El Niño”, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Niños, which were successively labeled the “El Niño of the century” as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years.

– Prometheus: Out on a Limb with a Super El Niño Prediction Archives

In March, 2011 – he again predicted a strong El Nino which never materialized.

Based on sub­sur­face ocean tem­pera­tures, the way these have pro­gres­sed the past sever­al months, and com­parisons with de­velop­ment of prior El Niños, we be­lieve that the sys­tem is mov­ing toward a strong El Niño start­ing this summ­er. It’s not a sure bet, but it is pro­b­able.

http://www.truth-out.org/perceptions-climate-change/1301356800

In 2012, the NASA model is once again predicting a strong El Nino, which no one else is forecasting.

Why does James Hansen keep incorrectly predicting strong El Ninos? The reason is simple – they bring the temperature up, and he expects to see that. A very unsophisticated, lazy and ineffective basis for science.

Antarctic Ice

In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. The image below forecasts 40% albedo loss in the Ross Sea (after a doubling of CO2) which corresponds to loss of white, reflective sea ice.

www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf

Contrary to Hansen’s forecast trend, Antarctic sea ice has steadily increased – particularly in the Ross Sea.

seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png (1122×912)

S_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Excess ice in the Ross Sea shown in the red circle above. This is the region which Hansen forecast peak ice loss.

Conspiracy Theorist?

Dr. Hansen has alluded on several occasions  to the idea that there is a well funded group of people working to intentionally ruin the climate.

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian

“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

Scientist hits climate change skepticism – UPI.com

Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.

Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.

Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against Humanity

Additionally Dr. Hansen has been arrested several times for committing crimes in “defense of the planet”

 Other NASA climate failures

Dr. Hansen is not the only climate scientist at NASA making spectacular mispredictions. Five years ago another NASA scientist predicted a possible ice-free Arctic in 2012

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Arctic ice extent is now within a couple percent of normal, and Alaska has the most extensive sea ice ever recorded.

N_timeseries.png (1050×840)

University of Illinois – Cryosphere Today

Summary

For the past 30 years, NASA climate scientists under the leadership of Dr. Hansen have demonstrated nearly complete incompetence in forecasting, and they have tampered with data to try to hide their mispredictions.

james hansen El nino 2011 prediction

Government Ruins the Dishwasher (Again) by Jeffrey A. Tucker

/in , , , /by

The regulatory assault on the dishwasher dates back at least a decade. For the most part, industry has gone along, perhaps grudgingly but also with a confidence that dishwashers would survive. Surely government rules wouldn’t finally make them useless.

But the latest regulatory push by the Department of Energy might have finally gone too far. The DoE says that loads of dishes can’t use more than 3.1 gallons. This amounts to a further intensification of “green” policies that are really just strategies to wreck the consumer experience.

The agency estimated that this would “save” 240 billion gallons of water over three decades. It would reduce energy consumption by 12 percent. It would save consumers $2 billion in utility bills.

But as with all such estimates, these projections have three critical problems.

First, saving money and resources is not always an absolute blessing if you have to give up the service for which the resources are used. Giving up indoor plumbing would certainly save water, just as banning the light bulb would save electricity. The purpose of resources is to use them to make our lives better.

Second, the price system is a far better guide to rational resource use than bureaucratic diktat. If the supply of water or electricity contracts, prices go up and consumers can make their own choices about how to respond. This is true with one proviso: There has to be a functioning market. This is not always true with public utilities.

Third, the bureaucrats rarely consider the possibility that people will respond to rationing by using resources in a different way. A low-flow toilet causes people to flush two and three times, a low-flow showerhead prompts people to take longer showers, and so on, with the end result of even more resource use.

What does breaking the dishwasher accomplish? It drives us back to filling sinks or just running water over dishes for 10 minutes until they are all clean, resulting in vastly more water use.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which has quietly gone along with this nonsense all these years, has finally said no.

“At some point, they’re trying to squeeze blood from a stone that just doesn’t have any blood left in it,” said Rob McAver, the lead lobbyist.

The Association demonstrated to the regulators that the new standards do not clean the dishes. They further pointed out that this can only lead to more hand washing. The DoE now says it is revisiting the new standards to find a better solution.

All of this is rather preposterous, since dishwashers are already performing at a far lower level than they did decades ago. Even when I was growing up, they were getting better, not worse. You could put dirty dishes in, even with stuck-on egg and noodles, and they would come out perfectly clean.

I started noticing the change about five years ago. It was like one day to the next that the dishes started coming out with a gross-me-out film on the glasses. I thought it was my machine. So I bought a new one. The new one was even worse, and it broken within a year. Little by little, I started hand washing dishes first, just to make sure they are clean.

It turns out that this was happening all over the country. NPR actually discerned this trend and did a story about it. The actual source of the problem was not the machine or the user, but something that everyone had taken for granted for generations: the soap itself.

The issue here is phosphorous. The role of phosphorus in soap is critically important. It is not a cleaning agent itself but a natural chemical that unsticks the soap from fabrics and surfaces generally. You can easily see how this works by adding phosphorus to a sink full of suds. It attacks the soap and causes it to bundle up in tighter and heavier units, taking oil and dirt with it and pulling it down the drain. It is the thing that extracts the soap, making sure that it leaves surfaces.

Painters know that they absolutely must use phosphorous to prepare surfaces for painting. If they do not, they will be painting on a dirty, oily surface. This is why the only phosphorus you can now find at the hardware store is in the paint department (sold as Trisodium Phosphate). Otherwise, it is gone from all detergents that you use on clothes and dishes, which is a major reason why both fabrics and dishes are no longer as clean as they once were.

Why the war on phosphorous? It is also a fertilizer. When too much of it is dumped into rivers and lakes, algae growth takes over and kills off fish. The bulk of this comes from large-scale industrial farms in specific locations around the country. Regulators, however, took on the easy target of domestic soaps, and manufacturers faced pressure to remove it from their soaps.

Now it is impossible to get laundry or dish soap with phosphorous as part of the mix. If you want clean, you have to physically add your own by purchasing trisodium phosphate in the paint department and adding it to the mixture by hand.

Welcome to regulated America, where once fabulous consumer inventions like refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, and dishwashers have been reduced to a barely functioning state. The reasons are always the same: 1) phosphorous-free detergent, 2) a fetish with saving water, 3) weaker motors that use less electricity, 4) more tepid water due to low default settings on hot water heaters, and 5) reduced water pressure in general.

Put it all together and you have an array of products that no longer function in ways that make our lives better. There is an element of dystopia about this, especially given that these household appliances were first invented and widely deployed in postwar America. This was the country where women, in particular, first started to enjoy the “freedom from drudgery.” It was machines as much as ideology that began to enable women to cultivate professional lives outside the home.

No, we are not going to be forced back to washboards by the river anytime soon. But suddenly, the prospect of having to hand wash our dishes does indeed seem real. If the regulators really do get their way, functioning dishwashers could become like high-flow toilets: contraband to be snuck across borders and sold at a high black market prices.

It seems that the regulators can’t think of much to do these days besides ruining things we love.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Clean Energy Fail: Hawaii CO2 Emissions Rise Since ’08 by Andrew Walden

/in , , , , /by

Did you actually believe the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) was designed to reduce the state’s CO2 emissions?

Sucker.

With the Clean Energy Initiative directing energy policies, Hawaii electric rates have gone up sharply.  Now a report from the environmental group Ceres.org shows that Hawaii is one of the very few states where CO2 emissions are going up as well.

Climate Central July 14, 2015 reports:

Though most states are slowing their emissions, the report shows eight states moving in the opposite direction, each seeing an increase in its emissions ratebetween 2008 and 2015. They include Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Alaska. Another is Hawaii, which generates most of its power using imported crude oil and has passed a law requiring 100 percent of the state’s electricity to be generated using renewables by 2045 — the first state to make such a commitment.

HCEI was launched in 2008.

Why would CO2 output be increasing while Hawaii approves nearly 70,000 solar installations–by far the highest per capita in the USA–and pours taxpayer dollars into windfarms?  It is because of what Hawaii is not doing.  Climate Central continues:

…42 states are already reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants on their own as they move toward using less coal and more natural gas to produce electricity. Between 2008 and 2013, those states reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants by an average of 19 percent, according to a report published Tuesday by sustainability advocacy group Ceres, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bank of America and four large utilities….

Hawaii Solar and Wind schemers have consistently opposed the use of LNG in Hawaii because it would reduce the cost of electricity and thereby undermine their so-called clean energy technologies.  They are interested only in their crony capitalist profits: Global warming is just a sales pitch.

Doing its best to cover up the real story, Pacific Business News July 22, 2015 reports, “Hawaii gets high marks for low emissions, new report says.”  Ceres does report Hawaii’s total CO2 emissions at 7.4M tons, 9th lowest in the USA.  But this is not a per capita or per MWH measurement.   Hawaii is a small state, nobody needs home heating and many do without air conditioning.  So having low emissions is not surprising–and it is certainly not reflective of any success on the part of HCEI.

What matters is whether the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is delivering the CO2 reductions which for many justify the increased expense.

The answer is no.

According to Ceres, Hawaii CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are 1,720 lbs per MWH, 23rd highest in USA.  Because of Hawaii’s poor fuel mix and profit-motivated reliance on irregular wind and solar instead of stable natural gas, Hawaii’s CO2 emission rate from all sources is 1,445 lbs per MWH, 14th highest in USA–and rising.

Background:

NASA’s James Hansen Gets Dissed by Global Warming Establishment!

/in , , , /by

Former Top NASA Scientist James Hansen Predicts Catastrophic Rise In Sea Levels – ‘Projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.’ The paper has already ruffled some, including Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, who said on Twitter that he would not cover it — primarily because it had not yet been peer-reviewed, a process that allows other scientists to critique the work. The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney asked other climate experts to weigh in on the paper. While many said it raised key discussion points, Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research called it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.”

“James Hansen’s new paper ratcheting up future sea level rise numbers is consistent with the new strategy of the global warming activists. Given that current sea level rise rates are not alarming, the only way climate activists can claim anything is ‘worse than we thought’ is to make more dire predictions of the future.

Simply making scarier predictions of the future in order to alarm policymakers is not ‘good science.’ Claiming that climate change impacts are ‘worse than we thought’ because predictions are now more frightening is a well worn playbook of the climate movement.

Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.

It is not surprising that James Hansen — a man who has been arrested nearly half a dozen times protesting ‘global warming’ and who has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization — would continue to make scary predictions. The world needs to take a collective yawn at Hansen’s latest claims and ask how in the world was this man ever allowed to be in charge of the NASA temperature datasets!” – End Morano statement.

Global Warming Establishment severs ties with Hansen on sea level rise scare study: 

Warmist publication Mashable on James Hansen’s new sea level scare paper: “..red flag..study’s conclusions so contradict [UN IPCC] consensus views expressed last year.”

Mashable’s Andrew Freedman: ‘The godfather of global warming’s scary sea level rise prediction is getting the cold shoulder.”

NYT’s Andrew Revkin on Hansen’s sea level scare paper: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”

NYT: UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth on Hansen sea level rise paper: “Rife with speculation..many conjectures & huge extrapolation based on quite flimsy evidence.”

Michael Mann admits Hansen’s SLR estimates “prone to a very large “extrapolation error”

Embedded image permalink

Science by press release: Journalists received “summary” of Hansen’s paper via PR firm

Scientists: Hansen’s wild sea level rise claims are hardly new. We’ve debunked them before here: Current Wisdom: Hansen’s Extreme Sea Level Rise Projections Drowning…

New scientific findings undermine James Hansen’s extreme sea level rise projections from human-caused climate change.

Hansen’s “scientific” paper prescribes global political policy of “near-global” “carbon fee or tax”:

Embedded image permalink

Ironic: New James Hansen study contradicts climate ‘consensus’ so warmists shun it. Embedded image permalink

Warming leads to Cooling: Sea level rise could lead to a cooler, stormier world — Says unpublished work from NASA’s Jim Hansen – ‘A catastrophic rise in sea level before the end of the century could have a hitherto-unforeseen side effect. Melting icebergs might cool the seas around Greenland and Antarctica so much that the average surface temperature of the entire planet falls by a few degrees’.

RELATED LINKS:

NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ – Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine’

Hansen Arrested (Again) — ‘For over a month now, much of the GISS website has been down due to technical problems. But apparently James Hansen has time to get himself arrested

NASA’s resident ex-con: Top NASA global warming scientist James Hansen arrested (again) in White House protest over pipeline — $180,000 taxpayer-paid salary – ‘Arrested alongside actress Daryl Hannah; Adam Werbach, founder of Sierra Club; Bill McKibben’ — ‘Hansen has been arrested at least 3 times before in protests over climate issues, in 2009, 2010, & 2011′

Flashback 2010: David Roberts of Grist: ‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost’

Hansen Back in Jail! NASA’s James Hansen Arrested (Again) Outside White House at Pipeline Protest — Implores Obama to act for ‘sake of your children and grandchildren’

Off the Deep End? NASA’s Rev. James Hansen arrested (again) in coal protest at the White House 

NASA’s Hansen’s Arrested Development: Hansen claims ‘instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models’

NASA scientist Hansen wants Obama arrested: ‘No news on whether Secret Service will be raiding NASA…Why bother going to moon when the moonbats already work for you?’

NASA scientist Hansen wants Obama arrested: ‘No news on whether Secret Service will be raiding NASA…Why bother going to moon when the moonbats already work for you?’

NASA Warming Activist/Scientist James Hansen and Actress Daryl Hannah Arrested in Green Protest

Warmist New claim: ‘Recent sea level rise is highest in 6,000 years’ — DEBUNKED

Latest warmist claim on sea level here.

Debunking here  – Also see: Claim: ‘No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past‘

Rebuttal: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration. 

Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.

– [Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]

More Background on James Hansen:

NASA’s James Hansen to Retire – Marc Morano Statement: ‘Celebrate! It’s A Happy Day for Science! Hansen’s sad legacy will serve as a cautionary tale for future scientists. Hansen chose ideology, activism, stagecraft and handcuffs over science. He will be sorely missed by global warming skeptics, as he made our life so much easier by just being himself. NASA & Science deserved much better than James Hansen.’

Background on Hansen: 1) NASA’s James Hansen, a muse to Eco-Terrorists?! Watch Now:Morano on Fox News: ‘NASA’s resident ex-con James Hansen is inspiring these people to potential acts of eco terrorism’ — Morano: ‘He was arrested for the 3rd or 4th time this past week protesting the pipeline. Hansen has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization, for blowing up dams and razing cities to the ground and turning off our greenhouse gas machine’  —

2) Flashback: NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ — Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine   —    

3) Flashback: Greenie David Roberts of Grist turns on NASA’s Hansen: ‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost’ —

4) Flashback 2009: One of James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic — Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’   —

5) Alert: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Has One Week Left To Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ — Only 7 Days left!  —   

6)  Watch Now: Morano rips NASA’s James Hansen: ‘Hansen said we only have 4 years left to save the planet in Jan.2009, We passed another Mayan calendar deadline’  —

7) Flashback 2008: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom -Get the Facts on James Hansen— ‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?

Former NASA scientist James Hansen in 1986 Warned of Up to Five degrees F warming by 2010

New York Times – June 11, 1986: “Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.”

Embedded image permalink

 Reality Check on Hansen in 2013:  ‘No global warming for 17 years 3 months’

In 1986, The World’s Greatest Climatologist James Hansen Predicted Nine Degrees US Warming By The 2020′s

ScreenHunter_406 Dec. 07 05.21Former NASA global warming scientist James Hansen finally admits part of green movement operates like a ‘a religion of sorts’

Hansen to CNN: Selling nuclear energy to environmentalists is a tough pitch. Hansen acknowledged that many of them won’t easily buy into it. Parts of the community operate like ‘a religion of sorts, which makes it very difficult,’ Hansen said. ‘They’re not all objectively looking at the pros and cons.’

‘Only NUCLEAR power can SAVE HUMANITY’, say Global Warming high priests – Schism within the environmental ‘religion’

Former NASA Scientist James Hansen urges young people to threaten fossil fuel CEOs with criminal prosecution for supporting skeptics – Hansen: ‘Young people can sue governments, industry or individuals for violating their rights’ — ‘Human-made climate change…has become a clear case of intergenerational injustice; these fundamental rights could be the basis for forcing government actions’

James Hansen ADMITS: Notion that 2°C global temp target is scientifically established is ‘UNADULTERATED HOGWASH’

James Hansen denounces ‘big green’: ‘Large environmental orgs have become one of the biggest obstacles to solving the climate problem’ – Hansen: ‘After I joined other scientists in requesting the leaders of Big Green to reconsider their adamant opposition to nuclear power, and was rebuffed, I learned from discussions with them the major reason: They feared losing donor support. Money, it seems, is the language they understand. Thus my suggestion: The next time you receive a donation request, doubtless accompanied with a photo of a cuddly bear or the like, toss it in the waste bin and return a note saying that you will consider a donation in the future, if they objectively evaluate the best interests of young people and nature.’

EDITORS NOTE: Marc Morano is no only the publisher of Climate Depot but also the producer of the upcoming film ‘Climate Hustle’ (www.ClimateHustle.com).

Do you hear that giant sucking sound? Oh, no! Its another Green Project!

/in , /by

Popular Mechanics has an article about a company named Carbon Engineering that is sucking CO2 out of the air. By doing so Carbon Engineering is contributing to the death of plant life globally. Strong statement? Well read on.

Tim Radford, from the Climate News Network, in 2013 reported:

Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization effect.

Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove.

Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect. Between 1982 and 2010, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have increased by between 5 and 10 percent.

[ … ]

The team averaged the greenness of each location over three year periods, and then grouped the greenness data from different locations according to known records of rainfall. They also looked at variations in foliage over a 20 year period. In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.

So if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere you will reduce foliage and plant growth. Well that doesn’t seem to bother John Wenz from Popular Mechanics.

Popular Mechanics’ John Wenz writes:

​Carbon Engineering has an ambitious plan to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into fuel. The company is aiming the facility at areas where reforestation isn’t an option, such as deserts.

Air flows in through the series of fans you see in the picture, which feed into a carbon dioxide rich solution, helping pluck carbon compounds from the air. That solution is then purified, at which point Carbon Engineering extracts  the carbon dioxide for reuse or disposal in underground facilities. The solution is re-purified in the process, enabling it to be reused.

The technology is based on the same way that trees capture CO2 and release oxygen. It’s another take on the idea of an artificial tree, one of the potential geoengineering solutions that has been around for years, proposing to fight climate change by hacking the planet.

Words that Wenz uses are problematic at best. Wenz’s “ambitious plan” is really a waste of money that will harm foliage. The company Carbon Engineering is funded in part by the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC). Geoengineering is a Bill Gates initiative to cool the planet, the problem is the planet is already cooling.

So to save the planet it is necessary to defoliate it. Too bad for the environmentalists, who won’t have any more trees to hug as the CO2 gets sucked out of the atmosphere by Carbon Engineering.

Killing plants to produce fuel is as immoral as using food (corn Ethanol) to produce fuel. Both harm mankind.

Climate Refugee News: New Zealand’s Highest Court Rejects First ‘Climate Refugee’ Asylum Appeal

/in , , , , /by

For our many new readers, you may not know that international Leftists and NO borders advocates are pushing the meme that there are millions of so-called ‘climate refugees’ that must be taken into first world countries as refugees because the climate is changing where they now live.

You are probably laughing at how ridiculous this sounds, but believe me the issue is getting legs especially now that the Vatican is weighing in.

Sensibly, New Zealand’s Supreme Court has ruled that, in an important test case, the man claiming that he would suffer harm if returned to the island nation of Kiribati must be deported.  He is not a refugee.

Remember the other day, I mentioned that in order for someone to be a legitimate refugee they must prove they would be PERSECUTED if returned to their country of origin and that Obama and his minions in the US State Department are working day and night to eviscerate refugee protection programs by deeming the ‘children’ from Central America as refugees when they are no such thing.

Economic migrants, people trying to escape crime or changes in the weather are NOT refugees.

Thankfully, in this case, the New Zealand court is demanding adherence to the long-standing definition of the word “refugee.”

From Sky News:

A Pacific Islander who applied to the New Zealand government to give him status as the world’s first climate refugee has had his appeal turned down.

Ioane Teitiota, 38, argued he should not be sent back to the island nation of Kiribati because it was under threat due to rising seas.

That, he argued, made it unsafe for him and his family.

However, while NZ’s Supreme Court agreed that the tiny nation of about 100,000 people was suffering environmental degradation, it said Mr Teitiota’s application did not meet the legal definition of a refugee because he was not facing persecution.

“While Kiribati undoubtedly faces challenges, Mr Teitiota does not, if returned, face ‘serious harm’,” the Supreme Court said in a ruling released on Monday.

Unfortunately, the court left the door open for a better test case.

In other ‘climate refugee’ news….

  • Ireland’s President says we need to save climate refugees, here.  This made me laugh because I envisioned some Irishman claiming he was a climate refugee in someplace like Tahiti because it was just too darned cold and rainy in Ireland!
  • In a new report, the Leftists in Norway say there were 20 million climate refugees around the world in 2014, here.
  • And, finally, a good piece at the Washington Post of all places debunking this as another Leftist scare tactic, here.  Love it!

For more of this ridiculousness, see our ‘Climate refugees’ category going back several years, here.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped Because of Too Much Ice

/in , , /by

The Conservative Post reports:

A research expedition to study the effects of global warming aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen is on hold as the icebreaker is needed to do it’s primary job — break up ice.

According to a Coast Guard officer, the icy conditions are the “worst he’s seen in 20 years“:

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

Read more.

“Green Banks” Will Drown in the Red by Jonathan Bydlak

/in , , , /by

Why does federal spending matter? There are many reasons, but perhaps the most fundamental is that free markets allocate resources better than governments because markets rely on price instead of politics. Many industries show this observation to be true, but the emerging field of “green banks” offers perhaps one of the clearest recent examples.

A green bank is a “public or quasi-public financing institution that provides low-cost, long-term financing support to clean, low-carbon projects by leveraging public funds…to attract private investment.” Right now, only a handful of green banks are scattered across Connecticut, California, New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

Free marketers rightly doubt whether public funds should be used to finance private startups. But regardless of where one stands in that debate, the states’ struggles serve as a valuable testing ground for future investments.

The State of Connecticut operates under a fairly significant budget deficit. California has been calculating its budgets without taking unfunded pension liabilities into account, and it’s gambling with its ability to service its debt. New York continues to live beyond its means. Rhode Island’s newest budget does little to rehabilitate its deficit spending addiction, and, despite having a balanced budget clause in its state constitution, Hawaii has a pattern of operating at a deficit.

In fact, a state solvency report released by the Mercatus Center has each of these five states ranked in the bottom third of the country, with their solvency described as either “low” or “poor.”

This all raises the question of whether these governments are able to find sound investment opportunities in the first place. Rhode Island couldn’t even identify a bad investment when baseball legend Curt Schilling wanted $75 million to make video games about something other than baseball!

Recently, though, there have been calls to extend the struggling green banking system to the federal level. Mark Muro and Reed Hundt at the Brookings Institute argued in favor of federal action in support of green banks. Somewhat paradoxically, they assert that demand for green banking institutions and the types of companies they finance is so strong that the existing state-based green banks cannot muster enough capital to meet demand.

Wherever there is potential for profit and a sound business plan, lending institutions are likely to be found, willing to relinquish a little capital for a consistent and reasonable rate of return. So where are the private lenders and other investment firms who have taken notice and are competing for the opportunity to provide loans to such highly sought-after companies and products?

Even assuming that there is demand for green banking services, recent experience shows that a federally-subsidized system would likely lead to inefficiency, favor trading, and failure. For instance, the Department of Energy Loan Program is designed to facilitate and aid clean energy startup companies. Its portfolio exceeds $30 billion, but following a series of bad investments like Solyndra, Inc., new loan guarantees have been few and far between. The program has already lost over $700 million.

Even the rosiest measurements do not show particularly exciting returns from this system. The Department of Energy itself estimates that over the lifetime of the loans it’s guaranteed, there exists the potential to see $5 billion in profit. However, those estimates also depend on the peculiar accounting methods the DoE itself employs.

This problem is apparent in other government sectors. For instance, determining how much profit the federal government makes off of student loans depends on who is asked. Some say none, while others say it’s in the billions. Gauging the economic impact or solvency of government programs is notoriously difficult, and different methods can yield what look like very different results. Add to that the consistently uncertain nature of the energy market, and profits are hardly guaranteed.

Examples abound of wasteful federal spending, and the growing green technology and renewable energy industry is no exception. The DoE Loan Program has already faced issues that go well beyond Solyndra: Abound Solar, a Colorado-based solar panel manufacturer, was given a $400 million DoE loan guarantee, only to later file for bankruptcy, potentially costing taxpayers $60 million. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a 175,000 unit heliostat array in California, received a $1.6 billion federal loan and, because it failed to produce the amount of power estimated, was forced to later request more than$500 million in federal grants from the Treasury Department. A recent Taxpayers Protection Alliance study showed that risky investments in heavily subsidized solar energy could even lead to a bubble similar to the disastrous 2008 housing bubble.

Those who want to expand the government’s role in green banking likely want to see more clean and renewable energy reach the consumer market, and a lot of people probably applaud that goal — but the real question is whether the proposed means can reliably achieve that end. A wise manager with a solid business plan can find investors who will willingly take a chance. Considering the struggles of several states, trusting the federal government to build an even bigger system would exponentially increase that risk.

In contrast, the market offers opportunity to entrepreneurs in the green technology and renewable energy industries. For instance, GreatPoint Energy, a company specializing in clean coal, successfully went the route that other companies do: Design a product or service, find investors, and compete in the marketplace.

SolarCity, a California-based and publicly traded corporation of over 2,500 employees, entered the industry before many government loan programs were established. Thanks to a sound business model and subsequent horizontal and vertical expansion, it has become a leader in the industry. SolarCity’s success, however, cannot be touted by the Department of Energy’s Loan Program, which declined to invest in the company, leading SolarCity to try — and succeed — in finding private investment.

If GreatPoint or SolarCity had failed, only those who willingly participated in the startup would suffer the consequences. The issue with green banking — and indeed government “investments” more generally — is that taxpayers are not party to the negotiations but are the ones ultimately on the hook for failures.

In absolute terms, these billions of dollars are a lot of money. But in the grand scheme of government spending, the amount of money invested in green banks and renewable energy production is relatively small. If Social Security is the Atlantic Ocean, and wasteful defense appropriations are the Mediterranean, then green energy investments fall somewhere in the range of the Y-40 pool: easily measurable but certainly not insignificant.

Your odds of drowning may be smaller in the pool than the ocean, but that doesn’t make the drowning itself any more pleasant. The federal government is already under water; adding new liabilities on the hope that politicians can guess the future of energy is merely a step towards the deep end, not the ladder out.


Jonathan Bydlak

Jonathan Bydlak is the founder and president of the Institute to Reduce Spending and the Coalition to Reduce Spending.

What Global Warming? Summer Hail Prompts use of Snowplows in South Dakota

/in , , , /by

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 a photo provided by Karen Maudlin shows cars on the side of the road after a hailstorm near Rockerville, South Dakota. A brief but intense hailstorm Tuesday dropped as much as 4 inches of slippery pellets in a South Dakota city prompted officials to call out snowplows in the middle of summer.

“The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned. A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out. This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over”, writes the Daily Mail.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Karen Maudlin via AP.

What is the Legal Case Against EPA’s Water Rule?

/in , , , , /by

Now more than ever, every time it rains, one Indiana farmer fears his land will be declared a federally-regulated body of water:

After a recent rainfall, Charlie Houin looked out over one of his cornfields in Marshall County as a clear stream of water flowed beneath him. With the summer’s high rain levels flooding fields, drainage systems and the streams that carry excess water away are crucial for farmers to maintain healthy crops.

But Houin, and farmers across the country, are now in a fight for control over these small waterways — battling a new rule in the Clean Water Act opponents say will be overly burdensome and costly to the agriculture industry.

[ … ]

Houin said he not only sees this as one of the EPA’s biggest land grabs in history, but he’s worried the permit process is going to be crippling when he needs to repair ditches, waterways and drainage systems for his farm. When you have only one chance a year at the planting season, he said, having farmland and waterways tied up in an approval process will be costly.

Worry about federal overreach isn’t limited to farmers and ranchers. Many other businesses also oppose the agencies’ regulatory overreach.

This has driven business groups to take EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to federal court.

The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Portland Cement Association, the Tulsa Regional Chamber, and the State Chamber of Oklahoma filed suit to stop the new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) which dramatically expands the definition of federally-regulated “navigable waters” covered by the Clean Water Act.

They make the case that the water rule gives the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional regulatory authority over nearly every body of water in the United States and undercuts state and local government sovereignty.

Here’s a breakdown of their argument.

Violates the Clean Water Act

The plaintiff’s argue that the new waters definition goes beyond its authority under the Constitution and the Clean Water Act, because it “confers jurisdiction to the Agencies over waters that are not ‘navigable waters.'”

Under the Clean Water Act the federal government has jurisdiction over only “navigable waters.”

Initially that was defined as bodies of water where interstate transportation or commerce could take place. However, over the decades, the regulatory creep set in and that definition broadened from lakes and rivers bordering states (literally interstate waters) to include tributaries and wetlands that abut regulated water bodies. WOTUS is the latest expansion.

Through the water rule, “thousands of miles of intrastate waters that have no substantial effect on interstate commerce” are now under federal regulation, the plaintiffs note. This includes wetlands, streams, ditches, ponds, and bodies that only occasionally hold water.

This broad federal jurisdiction is what has farmers, ranchers, home developers, other businesses upset.

To understand the plaintiffs’ legal argument, you need to know about a 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos vs. United States. In it, the court established two tests for determining if a body of water falls under federal jurisdiction.

The first is “continuous surface connection.” In his plurality decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Clean Water Act requires that a body of water have a “continuous surface connection” to another federally-regulated body for federal regulators to have jurisdiction.

The second is “significant nexus,” found in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion. In order to be considered a navigable water, a body of water must “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of “waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.”

The water rule fails both tests, the plaintiffs explain:

[C]ountless waters, wetlands, and normally dry lands will be classified as ‘waters of the United States’ despite their complete detachment–both on a surface level and on a chemical, physical, and biological level–to any navigable water.

The Matrix Defense

One example of how EPA fails to meet these tests is by employing something I call the “Matrix Defense.” EPA claims it can determine a federally-regulated tributary to a body of water simply with the use of computer “desktop tools that provide for the hydrologic estimation of a discharge sufficient to create an ordinary high water mark.” Virtual reality trumps physical reality, as the filing explains:

“In other words, if a computer model suggests that a feature has enough flow to create a bed and bank and ordinary high water mark, the Agencies can determine that that feature is a ‘tributary,’ even if the physical indicators have not been observed in the field.”

Neo could stop bullets, but he didn’t have that this kind of power.

Unfortunately for EPA, this tactic doesn’t satisfy either Justice Scalia’s continuous surface test or Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test.

WOTUS is Unconstitutional

The water rule doesn’t just violate the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs argue it also violates the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

State governments have the authority to regulate land and water in their states. The Clean Water Act affirms that states have “the primary responsibilities and rights … to plan the development and use … of land and water resources.”

However, with the water rule, the federal government claims regulatory authority over nearly every body of water in America. Waters, including ditches, canals, ponds, and wetlands, as far as 4,000 feet from a navigable water can be regulated by the federal government.

This violates the 10th Amendment. As the plaintiffs state:

The Supreme Court requires a ‘clear and manifest’ statement from Congress to authorize [such] an unprecedented intrusion into traditional state authority.

State and local government sovereignty gets squeezed as the federal government expands its reach.

EPA Avoided Looking at the Economic Effects on Small Businesses

Not only does the water rule conflict with the Constitution and the Clean Water Act, regulators didn’t follow the proper rulemaking process.

The plaintiffs point out that EPA ignored the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) which requires federal agencies to analyze the effects of proposed regulations on small businesses, organizations, and governments.

EPA claims it didn’t have to do this because the water rule “will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and it “will not affect small entities to a greater extent than the existing regulations.”

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy disagreed:

[T]he Clean Water Act and the revised definition proposed in this rule directly determine permitting requirements and other obligations. It is unquestionable that small businesses will continue to seek permits under the Clean Water Act. Therefore they will be subject to the application of the proposed definition and the impacts arising from its application.

The “fundamentally flawed” rulemaking process drove SBA to ask EPA to “withdraw the rule and that the EPA conduct a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before proceeding any further with this rulemaking.”

EPA ignored the SBA along with similar comments from the U.S. Chamber and other business groups and went ahead with finalizing the new definition.

It’s Hard to Know How to Obey the Law

Finally, the water rule is too vague. If people can’t understand the regulation, how are they supposed to behave lawfully? The water rule “fails to provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited by the civil and criminal provision of the Clean Water Act and grants overly broad enforcement discretion to” federal regulators, writes the plaintiffs.

To see how this applies in the real world, let’s go back to Charlie Houin’s story:

The water rule states that a “tributary must show physical features of flowing water — a bed, bank and ordinary high water mark — to warrant protection,” as well as connecting to a larger body of water.

Discussing the rules with The Tribune, Houin stood near one of his small waterways that, he said, he has always thought of as a ditch and has never had regulatory issues with. But based on the EPA’s definition, Houin’s small “ditch” could be considered as a tributary because it has continually flowing water that empties into the nearby Yellow River.

This is a major problem, [Justin Schneider, senior policy adviser for the Indiana Farm Bureau] said, because no matter what a farmer may think a waterway is, it comes down to the EPA’s interpretation. A farmer could be in violation and not realize it, he said, calling it “an issue with potential for big repercussions.” Beyond having to obtain expensive federal permits, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office said farmers could face civil penalties up to $37,500 a day for violating the new rule.

Citizens “cannot reasonably determine based on the face of the relevant statutes and regulations what is required of them,” plaintiffs state.

Let’s step beyond how the water rule violates the Constitution and ignores federal law. It also will shower uncertainty over every property owner.

An economy can’t function effectively if people fear that taking some ordinary action like filling in a ditch will require costly permits or unleash the fury of federal regulators.

The easier path to take is to not invest in and improve one’s business. Don’t build an addition to a factory that could employ more people. Don’t build a housing development and increase the housing supply for families. Don’t touch that gully the rain cut in the corn field. Instead, let it go fallow.

That may satisfy a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., but it means frustration for Americans having to live under those rules.

Meet Sean Hackbarth @seanhackbarth Follow @uschamber

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a Holstein cow grazing by a pond in Lancaster, NH. Photo credit: Bloomberg.

Antarctic Ice Melting Due to ‘Geothermal heating’ from Earth’s core not Global Warming

/in , , /by

Geothermal heating from within the Earth’s core – as opposed to the possibly warming air or sea – has been measured beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet for the first time ever. And, we are told, it is “surprisingly high.”

Exactly what the new geothermal heating figures mean for the forecasts remains to be seen, but it is clear that the amount of geothermal heating is a good bit more than scientists had thought. Some of them are still hoping that it’s a fluke result.

It’s all a very confusing picture, then, and to make it worse nobody until now has had any idea how much heat might be reaching the possibly-troubled West Antarctic sheet not from the somewhat warmer seas and atmosphere, but from the rock beneath it. — Lewis Page, The Register, 13 July 2015

antarctic-volcano[1]

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Scientific Adviser to Pope Francis is Atheist, GAIA Believer, Wants One World Government [+video]

Scientists Discover ‘Surprisingly High’ Geothermal Heating Beneath West Antarctic Ice Sheet – The Register, 13 July 2015

Antarctic Ice Threatened By Undersea Volcano – The Sunday Times, 11 May 2014

Film ‘Crying Wolf’: An Exposé on How Illegal Wolf Reintroduction has Harmed Nature and Mankind

/in , , , , /by

crying wolf film cover“Crying Wolf: Exposing the Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park” is an eye-opening exposé of the illegal introduction of non-native Gray Wolves to Yellowstone and beyond during the Clinton administration.

Film maker Jeff King grew up in the thick of the wolf controversy. This is the real true story from the people who lived it. The wolf on King’s film cover photo [right] was one caught less than a mile from the King family home when Jeff was a teenager.

Crying Wolf is available for purchase on Amazon.com. The first release of Crying Wolf was on Vimeo where it received close to 100,000 hits.

The “Crying Wolf” exposé has been credited with helping to bring the ‘wolf versus mankind’ issue back to the political table in Montana.

EDITORS NOTE: Jeff King’s new film, Blue Beats Green is a critique of the Green Movement with a vision to replace it with a better alternative. You may support Jeff on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bluebeatsgreen, Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bluebeatsgreen and by purchasing Blue Beats Green on Amazon.com.