Tuesday, July 06, 2010

The Green/Left can dish it out but can't take it

Comparing climate skeptics to Nazis was for a long time the stock in trade of the Warmists and almost any conservative blogger can testify to the abusive emails and comments we get but when the Warmists get some of that back they get hysterical.

But they still haven't learned. They are still throwing around wild accusations about their critics. Hate just comes naturally to them and they can't suppress it

Climate scientists in the US say police inaction has left them defenceless in the face of a torrent of death threats and hate mail, leaving them fearing for their lives and one to contemplate arming himself with a handgun.

The scientists say the threats have increased since the furore over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia began last November, and a sample of the hate mail sent in recent months and seen by the Guardian reveals the scale and vitriolic tone of the abuse.

The scientists revealed they have been told to "go gargle razor blades" and have been described as "Nazi climate murderers". Some emails have been sent to them without any attempt by the sender to disguise their identity. Even though the scientists have received advice from the FBI, the local police say they are not able to act due to the near-total tolerance of "freedom of speech" in the US.

The problem appears less severe in the UK but, Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week and had contemplated suicide. "People said I should go and kill myself," he said. "They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world." The third and final independent review into the issues raised by the hacked UEA emails is due to be published on Wednesday when Sir Muir Russell presents his panel's conclusions.

Professor Stephen Schneider, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received "hundreds" of violently abusive emails since last November. The peak came in December during the Copenhagen climate change summit, he said, but the number has picked up again in recent days since he co-authored a scientific paper last month which showed that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that mankind's carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to increase....

[Schneider's email is shswebsite@lists.stanford.edu. Ask him which of his climate models has shown any predictive skill and see if that qualifies as "violently abusive"]

"The effect on me has been tremendous," said Schneider. "Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers [How does he know?]. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket? I have now had extra alarms fitted at my home and my address is unlisted. I get scared that we're now in a new Weimar republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists." ...

Last month, Mann told ABC News in the US that the following message was typical of the emails he has been receiving: "Six feet under with the roots is where you should be. I was hoping I would see the news that you'd committed suicide. Do it, freak." Another climate scientist, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now travels with bodyguards.

UK-based climatologists working outside of UEA report they have received far fewer abusive emails compared to their US counterparts. Dr Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, said he only tends to get such emails when he writes an article in the press and that they "tend to start off 'Dear Communists, know that you will fail.'"

"I suspect part of the reason people feel they have to attack climate scientists is that politicians and environmentalists have a tendency to hide behind the science," he said. "In the run-up to Copenhagen, we often heard the phrase 'the science dictates' - that we need a 40% cut in rich-country emissions by 2020, for example - when in fact only a very specific, and politically loaded, interpretation of the science implied any such thing. If people who claim to be on the side of the science use scientists as human shields, it is hardly surprising that the scientists end up getting shot at."

Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, said he had had "mercifully few" abusive emails or letters compared to scientists in the US. "I do get letters and emails accusing me of being wrong and stupid, but I have received few really abusive ones. I got one accusing me of being a communist, but so far at the Met Office at least we haven't been on the receiving end of the types of hate mail the US scientists have apparently been getting. Also in Australia, I hear."


More excerpts from a recent big scientific report from Germany

There have been several recent articles that question the basic physics behind greenhouse theory. The report below is another one. Previously mentioned here on 17th June

The focus of this Report

This study only deals with one basic fact: Does an increase of CO2 concentration raise the earth’s temperatures – or not? This is simply a question of physics and not of political or environmental beliefs. If there was not such an influence, then

* all climate-model calculations would be wrong,

* the consequences predicted would consequently be false,

* and all costly “rescue plans” would be completely unnecessary.

The “Green Tower of Climate Dogma”

Many people are terrified of the alarmist climate scenarios portrayed by media, environmentalist groups, and politicians. Disappearing islands and terrible storms are some of the inevitable consequences of the warming, which is predicted by computer models. This study concentrates upon the scientific basis of this dogma: the supposed CO2 warming mechanism. If this premise can be scientifically disproven, all of the claimed consequences were unfounded and the whole “global warming edifice” collapses like a house of cards.

It is this critical point upon which this report will focus. This approach differs from most other critiques of the greenhouse dogma and purposely sets aside peripheral issues that distract from the core issue noted above:

* We do not look at historical temperature time series. Whether it was warmer or colder than today 2, 20, 200 or 2000 years ago, is not relevant to the physical effects of CO2.

* The same is true for CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Are CO2 levels actually higher today than in the past? Contrary to the popular belief, hundreds of old and new studies show that CO2 levels have been higher than the present in the recent and distant past20). If, however, CO2 did not affect global temperature, the atmospheric levels would not be of importance21).

* Does the sun control the temperatures on earth? There is evidence that it does, but we will not examine this question any further. This paper is only about the fact that CO2 does not control global temperature.

* Is “climate” predictable – with computers? Many experts disagree. However, in this study, it is not of interest, whether climate computer models can be improved if proper assumptions are made. It is sufficient for us to show that they must be wrong, if they are programmed based on incorrect assumptions.

* Finally, we avoid the heated debates on claimed consequences of “climate change”. Will the polar bear become extinct in fifty years? Our answer today: “We don’t know!”

Summary of our most important results:

* The Earth has a natural “cooling system”. It continuously radiates energy into space. ?? Any increase in temperatures automatically boosts this radiation. The cooling power jumps up.

* “Global warming” (i.e. a general increase of temperatures) requires this incremental cooling to be compensated by an increase in heating power. ?? Accordingly, in order to achieve “global warming”, CO2 had to increase the flow of energy from outside the system to the Earth’s surface. But this is beyond even the claimed capabilities of this gas. Therefore CO2 cannot cause any warming.

* IR gases (“greenhouse gases”) cool the Earth. The “natural greenhouse effect” (i.e. the warming) is a myth. ?? Climate variability did and does exist. However, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is not the cause. Aside from the sun itself, changing cloud coverage is the main factor.


Some pesky history about greenhouse gas theory

The 19th century theory of Arrhenius is the basis of greenhouse theory to this day

Svante Arrhenius of Sweden came out with his 'big lie' or shoddy research in 1896 and was proven wrong within a year by rival Knut Angstrom. Telegraph was too expensive for research communication, so peer review of that age was incredibly slow by even our 'snail mail' standards. By 1900 the 'consensus' was that ARRHENIUS LIED.

Google "Knut Angstrom on Atmospheric Absorption" in the US Weather Service Monthly Weather Review, June 1901 for accepted peer review. It wasn't until 1906 that, then head of the Nobel Committee, Arrhenius admitted his error. The 'carbon-climate forcing theory' fit in perfectly with the elites embrace of the Malthus hypothesis on population, and Arrhenius was a devote racial eugenics. Exterminate enough people and the world is a better place.

This is a century old lie recycled by today's elites to regain total control of the masses. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GREENHOUSE GAS.

"Strange Tale of the Green House Gas Gang" explains more on the other innocent atmospheric gasses and that the only 'green' these evil elites are interested in is picking the green from you wallet.


A hydrological disaster coming?

'Hundreds of millions of people may not have enough water. Floods, heat waves and droughts may affect millions more. The ensuing migration could make the world a very unstable place.'

This is blatant and shameless scaremongering. The cautious verbs 'may' (twice) and 'could' (once) provide the authors with some protection from total ridicule. It has long been the case that these calamities 'may be true', or 'could happen'. And of course, we know for sure that there will be people 'short of water', that there will be 'floods, heatwaves, and droughts', and that there have been already substantial migrations and there may well be more.

Despite the frail, or completely lacking, justification for their views, campaigners under the banner of 'agw' or 'climate change, have had a substantial influence and are intent on entrenching this in society by indoctrinating children. We must therefore take these campaigners seriously - indeed they have already done serious harm around the world: to children and to vulnerable adults, to the poor and hungry, to the environment, to science, to politics, and to technology.

Here they want to scare children with three things: floods, heat waves, and droughts. As is usual with environmental scare stories, a search of the literature will soon reveal major flaws in the reasoning. For the examples below, I have taken reports from the 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change' which exists to: 'disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.'

FLOODS: Example of scientific study


What was learned

'In describing the results of their analyses, Mudelsee et al. report finding, for both the Elbe and Oder rivers, "no significant trends in summer flood risk in the twentieth century," but "significant downward trends in winter flood risk during the twentieth century," which phenomenon -- "a reduced winter flood risk during the instrumental period" -- they specifically describe as "a response to regional warming." '

What it means

The results of this study provide no support for the IPCC "concern" that CO2-induced warming will add to the risk of river flooding in Europe. If anything, they suggest just the opposite.'

HEAT WAVES: Example of scientific study


What was learned

'Because of the fact that depletion of soil moisture (which has long been predicted to accompany CO2-induced global warming) results in reduced latent cooling, Fischer et al. found that during all simulated heat wave events, "soil moisture-temperature interactions increase the heat wave duration and account for typically 50-80% of the number of hot summer days," noting that "the largest impact is found for daily maximum temperatures," which were amplified by as much as 2-3°C in response to observed soil moisture deficits in their study....'

What it means

'....In light of these complementary global soil moisture and river runoff observations, it would appear that the anti-transpiration effect of the historical rise in the air's CO2 content has more than compensated for the soil-drying effect of concomitant global warming; and this observation brings us to the ultimate point of our Journal Review. Based upon (1) the findings of Fischer et al. (2007) that soil moisture depletion greatly augments both the intensity and duration of summer heat waves, plus (2) the findings of Robock et al. (2000, 2005) and Li et al. (2007) that global soil moisture has actually increased over the past half century, likely as a result of the anti-transpiration effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment - as Gedney et al. (2006) have also found to be the case with closely associated river runoff - it directly follows that the increase in soil moisture caused by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will tend to decrease both the intensity and duration of summer heat waves as time progresses.'

DROUGHT: Example of scientific study


What was learned

'In the words of the two researchers, "droughts have, for the most part, become [1] shorter, [2] less frequent, [3] less severe, and [4] cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century." '
What it means

'It would seem to be nigh unto impossible to contemplate a more stunning rebuke of climate-alarmist claims concerning global warming and drought than that provided by this study of the United States. And as evidenced by the many materials archived under Drought in our Subject Index, much the same findings are being reported all around the world.'

I will give examples for Asia and Africa in the next {but one] post of this series, but for now I want to end with some general points.

In relatively warm periods, such as the Roman one, and the Medieval Warm period, and our current one, humanity and the rest of nature thrived. A cool period would be worse than a warm one for both. There is little doubt that the end of our mostly very pleasant interglacial is due within a few thousand years, and that if there is to be a credible climate-related mass migration, it will be such as the evacuation of Northern Europe - a process which would begin as soon as the winter snows fail to melt in the summer - for the ice sheets will not slide slowly down from the north, they will grow on the spot through successive winters.

There is no indication that this will happen soon. But, as and when it does, the wealthier we are, the more technologically advanced we are, the better educated we are, the more chance that it will be handled in a competent and humane fashion. Scaring children about heat and CO2, rubbishing real scientists trying to accumulate real knowledge instead of toeing a political line, denigrating technology, crippling our lowest cost sources of energy, and promoting guilt, fear, and ignorance in the young - none of that will help - they merely disrupt progress and cause harm.

More HERE (See the original for references)

Obama regime announces $2 billion in new solar corporate welfare

Nearly $2bn in loan guarantees will be given to two companies to kick-start the US solar energy industry, President Barack Obama has announced. One of the firms, Abengoa Solar, says that it is planning to build the largest solar power plant in the world in Arizona.

Mr Obama said the projects would provide more than 5,000 new jobs. The Arizona plant should power 70,000 homes and cut carbon dioxide emissions. The money will come from government stimulus funds designed to boost the economy during the recession.

Outlining the "Solana" project at Gila Bend near Phoenix, Abengoa said it would have an area of 1,900 acres, using thermal storage-equipped parabolic trough technology, with 280 MW of power output capacity.

According to the company's website, 1,500 new jobs will be created during the plant's construction with 100 positions for staff to maintain it.

The second company, Abound Solar Manufacturing, will manufacture state-of-the-art thin film solar panels, the first time anywhere that such technology has been used commercially, the BBC's Jane O'Brien reports from Washington.

Plants will be built in Colorado and Indiana, creating 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs, the Associated Press reports.

President Obama had promised during his election campaign for the White House to create manufacturing and construction jobs in the green power industry. "We're going to to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America," he said on Saturday.

The renewable energy industry in the US faces tough competition from developers in China.

Mr Obama also acknowledged the loans would not be an instant solution. Around 125,000 jobs were lost in the last month, the government reported.


A Free-Market Energy Vision

Energy is the master resource. Without it other resources could not be produced or consumed. Even energy requires energy: There would not be usable oil, gas, or coal without the energy to manufacture and power the requisite tools and machinery. Nor would there be wind turbines or solar panels, which are monuments to embedded fossil-fuel energy.

And just how important are fossil fuels relative to so-called renewable energies? Oil, gas, or coal generates the electricity needed to fill in for intermittent wind and solar power and ensure moment-to-moment reliability. So renewable energy, ironically, is codependent on nonrenewable energy short of (currently) prohibitively expensive battery technology firming the flow of electricity....

Intellectual and political debates over energy have revolved around four “sustainability” issues: depletion, pollution, security, and climate change. Whole books address these issues, most from the market-failure viewpoint, concluding that mankind is on a perilous path and government-engineered energy transformation is necessary.

But students of energy history and energy policy must ask: Has a political makeover of any industry ever worked well for consumers and taxpayers? Or has it had the opposite effect? Creative destruction—a market makeover from shifting consumer demand—is one thing; having government pick winners with carrots and sticks is quite another.

Free-Market Sustainability

The arguments for allowing free markets, rather than government planning, to address the four sustainability issues can be summarized as follows:

1. Estimated quantities of recoverable oil, gas, and coal have been increasing over time, according to the statistical record. Human ingenuity in market settings has and will continue to overcome nature’s limits, leaving in its wake errant forecasts of resource exhaustion. The resource challenge is political: restricting access and perverting incentives prevents the ultimate resource—human innovation and entrepreneurship—from expanding energy supplies and multiplying energy’s productive utilization.

2. Statistics of air and water quality in the United States show dramatic environmental improvement and, in fact, indicate a positive correlation between energy usage and environmental improvement. While improvements have been achieved by politicized, command-and-control environmental regulation, the results could have been achieved at lower cost through market methods.

3. Energy security in the electricity market is assured by abundant domestic coal and the fact that almost all U.S. gas imports come from Canada. Most of the oil needed for transportation comes from domestic supplies supplemented by imports from a variety of countries led by Canada and Mexico. Oil imports from unstable or unfriendly nations, such as Venezuela and those in the Middle East, can be more effectively addressed by privatizing U.S. oil and gas resources than by government penalties against oil imports that cannot distinguish between “good” and “bad” barrels. Even if the United States were to use the powers of government to pare domestic oil consumption, the resulting drop in world oil prices would encourage non-U.S. demand and subsidize foreign industry. The world oil market will continue to exist and thrive even with reduced U.S. participation, and this will become more true over time.

4. The global warming scare is plagued by open scientific questions, economic tradeoffs, and the reality that carbon-based energy is necessary for economic growth. Carbon rationing (via the Kyoto Protocol) is a failed policy for the developed world and a nonstarter for the developing world. Not only have targeted reductions proved to be elusive, the economic costs of carbon rationing are not unlike those from (postulated) deleterious climate change.

The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico raises an additional sustainability issue: unexpected setbacks that cause massive property damage and even fatalities. Short-run problems, however, can result in longer-term gains so long as the firm faces full liability and pays restitution to the victims. Accountability in private property settings encourages companies to square profits, people, and the environment—and avoid the financial losses that come from performance failure. Currently companies have their liability for damages capped by law at $75 million, though politics could potentially nullify the cap in any given case, as it apparently will in the BP Deepwater Horizon incident.

Rather than expand government, public policy should end preferential subsidies for politically favored energies and privatize such assets as public-land resources and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Multibillion-dollar energy programs at the U.S. Department of Energy should be eliminated. Such policy reform can simultaneously increase energy supply, improve energy security, reduce energy costs, and increase the size of the private sector relative to the public sector.

To Al Gore the “planetary emergency” is five billion to six billion people using oil, gas, or coal for most of their energy needs. But the real energy problem is that nearly one and a half billion people do not use modern forms of energy. Rampant statism in place of private property, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law is behind this problem.

Energy-impoverished people use dried dung and primitive biomass to stay warm and cook their meals, destroying their health and shortening their lives. Without electricity or machines, they do not have clean water, reliable lighting, or other means for comfortable, sanitary living. This here-and-now problem demands energy freedom and an end to debilitating energy statism.

The free-market vision stresses that these impoverished people should not be subject to energy rationing by government. Solar panels and industrial wind turbines can only generate a fraction of the energy produced by diesel generators or a conventional power plant—and are much less reliable. Energy brawn is needed, not inferior but politically correct energies that appeal to energy planners.



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: